FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
JULY 1992
DESIGNATION OF AN OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
IN MASS A.CIEUSEflS BAY
PREPARED BY:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regjon I
Water Quality Branch
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
/71 ?e
Administrator
-------
FENAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATFMENT
PROPOSED ACTION: Designation of an Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site in Massachusetts Bay
LOCATION: Massachusetts Bay
DATE: July 1992
SUMMARY OF ACTION: FEIS considers the Environmental
Acceptability of Alternative Locations for the
designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Site
in Massachusetts Bay in accordance with the
Mitigation Measures set forth within
LEAD AGENCY: U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA
COOPERATING AGENCIES: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
AND TO OBTAIN A COPY OF
TIlLS DOCUMENT CONTACT: Kymberlee Keckler
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building (WQE-425)
Boston, MA 02203-2211
TELEPHONE: (617) 565-4432 or Fl ’S 835-4432
COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT
MAY BE VIEWED AT: See Next Page for List of Repositories
FENAL DATE BY WHICH
COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED: August 28, 1992
-------
REPOSITORIES
Abbott Public Library
235 Pleasant Street
Marblehead, MA 01945
(617) 631-1480
Mon-Thrus: 10-9
Fri-Sat: 10-6
Boston Public Library
666 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02117
(617) 536-5400
Mon-Thu: 9-9
Fri-Sat: 9-5 Sun: 2-6
Sawyer Free Public Library
2 Dale Avenue
Gloucester, MA 01930
(508) 283-0376
Mon-Fri: 9-8
Sat: 9-5
Nahant Public Library
15 Pleasant Street
Nahant, MA 01908
(617) 581-0306
Mon-Thu: 2-8
Fn-Sun: 2-5
Plymouth Public Library
11 North Street
Plymouth, MA 02360
(508) 746-1927
Mon-Thu 9-8:30
Fri: 9-5:30
Provincetown Public Library
330 Commercial Street
Provincetown, MA 02657
(508) 487-0850
Mon-Thu: 10-5 & 7-9
Revere Public Library
179 Beach Street
Revere, MA 02151
(617) 284-0102
Mon-Thu: 9-9
Fri-Sat: 9-5
Saugus Public Library
295 Central Street
Saugus, MA 01906
(617) 233-0530
Mon, Wed, & Thu: 8:30-8:30
Tue: 8:30-5:30 Fri: 1-5:30
Swampscott Public Library
61 Burriil Street
Swampscott, MA 01907
(617) 593-8380
Mon, Tue, & Thu: 9-9
Wed & Fn: 9-5
Sat: 9-5 (Closed in Winter)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division
Regulatory Branch
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
(617) 647-8115
Mon-Fri: 7-3.30
U.S. EPA Technical Library
1 Congress Street
11th Floor
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3300
Mon-Fri: 8:30-4:30
U.S. EPA
Public Information Reference
Unit, Room 204
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
U.S. EPA, REGION I
Preparers:
Kymberlee Keckler, BS
Reviewers:
Ronald G. Manfredonia, MS
Gwen S. Ruta, BS
Mark A. Stein, JD
David A. Tomey, MS
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Reviewers:
Thomas J. Fredette, PhD
William A. Hubbard, MS
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Reviewers:
Chnstopher L. Mantians. BS
Michael Ludwig, BS
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Reviewers:
Vernon Lang, BS
Kenneth Carr, MS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents . i
List of Figures iv
List of Tables iv
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION I
1.1 Summary of Draft Documents 2
CHAPTER 2. COMMENTS . 4
CHAPTER 3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 6
3.1 Need for Designation 6
3.1.1 Purpose of EPA Action 6
3.1.2 Upland Alternatives 6
3.1.3 Future Use Estimates 7
3.1.4 Past Disposal Volumes 8
3.1.5 Relationship to Other Disposal Sites 9
3.2 Alternatives Analysis- 9
3.2.1 Alternatives Analysis in the DEIS 9
3.2.2 Alternatives Analysis in the SDEIS 10
3.2.3 No Action 12
3.2.4 Closing of the MBDS 12
3.2.5 Cost/Benefit Analysis 13
3.3 Assessment of Toxics 14
3.3.1 Water Quality 14
3.3.1.1 Assessment of Water Quality Impacts 14
3.3.1.2 Request for Additional Studies 18
3.3.1.3 Mercury Levels in Massachusetts Bay Waters 19
3.3.1.4 Merrimack River Inputs 19
3.3.2 Sediment Quality 20
3.3.2.1 Impacts from Dredged Material Disposal 20
3.3.2.2 EPA Methodology 22
3.3.2.3 Sediment Toxics in Relation to Physical Charactenstics 23
3.3.2.4 Data Presentation and Interpretation 25
3.3.2.5 Presence of PAHs 26
3.4 Impacts to Biota 26
3.4.1 Assessment of Dredged Material Disposal Impacts on Biota 26
3.4.2 Effects of Overfishing 27
3.4.3 Assessment of Commercial Fisheries Impacts . 27
3.4.4 Cumulative Effects 28
1
-------
3.9.1.2
3.9.1.3
3.9.1.4
3.9.1.5
3.12.6
3.12.7
3.12.8
.29
• . 30
.30
30
• .35
• 36
• .37
• .38
.46
.48
.48
.48
.48
• .48
51
.52
• . 54
.56
.57
57
57
59
• . 60
• . 61
..64
65
• .66
66
• .67
• 68
.68
.71
3.4.5 Fishing Bans
3.4.6 Locations of Breeding and Spawning Areas
3.5 Bioaccumulation in Biota....
3.5.1 Assessment of Tissue Levels
3.5.2 Adequacy of Data
3.5.3 Assessment of Bioaccumulation in
3.5.4 PCB Metabolism
3.6 Potential for Public Health Impacts
3.7 Sediment Movement
3.7.1 Request for Data Presentation
3.8 Final Boundary Configuration
3.9 Management and Monitoring of the Site
3.9.1 Monitoring
3.9.1.1 Reference Sediment
Protected Species
Adequacy of Testing Protocol
Need to Include a Specific Plan
Request to Monitor for Additional Species
Request for Additional Studies
3.9.2 Management
3.9.2.1 Contaminated Sediment Management
3.9.2.2 Capping as a Mitigation Measure at the MBDS
3.9.2.3 Public Dredged Material Management Workshops
3.9.2.4 Need for a Contaminated Dredged Material Plan.
3.9.2.5 Industrial Waste Site Issues
3.9.2.6 Roles of EPA and the COE
3.9.2.7 Other Management Comments
3.10 Endangered Species
3.10.1 Methodology of Endangered Species Assessment .
3.10.2 Additional Information
3.11 Coexistence with National Marine Sanctuary
3.11.1 Assessment of National Marine Sanctuary Designation
on MBDS Designation
3.11.2 Buffer Zone Creation
3.11.3 Reference Sites Relocated to within the National
Marine Sanctuary Boundary
3.12 Miscellaneous Comments
3.12.1 Use of MWRA Data
3.12.2 Presentation of Physical Oceanography Data
3.12.3 Insufficient Access to Public Hearing
3.12.4 Identification of Other Historically Used Sites
3.12.5 Reference citations
72
72
72
72
73
73
73
Minimizing Impacts through Comparison to the Gulf of Maine 74
Segmentation 74
Involvement of Other EPA Staff 75
11
-------
• .76
• • 77
• .79
• • .80
• . . . 80
80
•...84
• . . 84
•...84
• . . . 85
• . • 85
85
• . . .86
88
• . . 88
• . • . 89
90
90
80
CHAPTER 4. RECOMMENDED PLAN.
4.1 Final MBDS Boundary Configuration .
4.2 Project Evaluation and Coordination
4.3 Specific Chemicals and Organisms to be Monitored at the MEDS
4.3.1 Target Analytes
4.3.1.1 Target Analytes in Sediments and Water
4.3.1.1.1 PARs
4.3.1.1.2 PCBs
4.3.1.1.3 Butyltin Compounds
4.3.1.1.4 Physical Characteristics
4.3.1.2 Target Analytes in Organisms
4.3.1.2.1 Auxiliary Analyses
4.3.2 Species Selection
4.3.2.1 Bottom-dwelling Finfish
4.3.2.2 Shellfish
4.3.2.3 Benthic Infauna
4.4 Tiered Monitoring and Management Decision Options
4.4.1 Tier 1: Sediment Transport Evaluation
4.4.2 Tier 2: Physical Impacts on Biological Resources of Concern.
4.4.3 Tier 3: Body Burden Analysis of Biological Resources
CHAPTER 5. ERRATA 92
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A - Public and Agency Comments letters on EPA’s EISs
APPENDIX B - EPA’s Comment letters on the Boston Harbor Federal Dredging Project
APPENDIX C - Endangered Species Consultation Summaries from NMFS arid USFWS
APPENDIX D - 1991 Monitoring Data Results
APPENDIX E - EPA’s Request for a Federal Consistency Determination
in
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Matrix of Commentors and Issues Raised. 5
Figure 3.9-1: Location of the Trawl Transect 55
Figure 3.11-1: NOAA’s Preferred National Marine Sanctuary Boundary
for Stellwagen Bank 70
Figure 4-1: Location of the Proposed MBDS Final Boundary 78
LIST OF TA1 LES
Table 3.3-1: Comparison of Ambient Water Column Chemistry Data
Table 3.6-1: Summary of Contaminant Levels in MBDS Seafood
Table 3.6-2: Comparison of Contaminant Levels to FDA Levels
Table 3.6-3: Cancer Risks from Eating MBDS Seafood
Table 3.6-4: Non-Cancer Hazard Ratios from Eating MBDS Seafood
Table 3.9-1: Comparison of Reference Site Sediment Chemistry
Table 4-1: Target Constituents to Measure in Sediments, Water, and Tissue .
Table 4-2: Target Organisms to use in Monitoring the MBDS
• 16
• 40
41
.44
45
50
• . 81
• . • 87
iv
-------
CHAFFER 1. INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) responds to comments on EPA’s
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) entitled Evaluation of Continued Use of the
Massachusetts Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site dated September 1989 and Supplemental
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“SDEIS”) entitled Alternative Site Screening dated
July 1990, and evaluates new information developed subsequent to the issuance of these
EISs. The focus of this FEIS is a response to comments on the draft documents and a
reexamination of the analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the DEIS and
SDEIS. The reevaluation considers public and agency comments received on these EISs and
new information obtained since the publication of these EISs.
Chapter 2 presents a guide to the comments received on the DEIS and the SDEIS,
showing how public and agency comments submitted to EPA by mail or during the public
hearing held on November 1, 1989 are grouped into comment issue categories. Chapter 3,
which represents the heart of this FEIS, is devoted to presenting the comments received on
the DEIS and the SDEIS and EPA’s responses. The expanded technical evaluations, which
address public health, the Industrial Waste Site (“1WS”), impacts on higher level trophic
organisms, designation of a new reference site, and a decision-making framework for
monitoring, are also discussed throughout the text of Chapter 3. Chapter 4 describes changes
to EPA’s original proposed MBDS boundary alternative and describes the recommended
alternative. Chapter 4 also describes recommended mitigation measures and management of
the proposed ocean disposal site. Chapter 5 contains errata, or changes and corrections to
specific sections of the DEIS or SDEIS. Comment letters and public hearing transcripts are
reproduced in Appendix A. The original contents of the DEIS or SDEIS are not reproduced
here and stand as documents of record. This FEIS contains modifications of and additions to
the contents of the DEIS or SDEIS where necessary.
The release of this FEIS will be followed by a public comment period similar to that
which followed publication of the DEIS and SDEIS. EPA’s final decision regarding the
boundary for the designation of an ocean dredged material disposal site in Massachusetts Bay
will be issued in a Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register after the close of
the FEIS comment period. The Final Rulemaking, which follows the Proposed Rulemaking
and is also published in the Federal Register, will result in actual site designation.
EPA is currently working with the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office
(“MCZMO”) to acquire a federal consistency determination on the proposed MBDS
designation. EPA’s letter to the MCZMO is included in Appendix E. The outcome of this
federal consistency review for the MBDS site designation will be discussed in the Proposed
and Final Rulemaking packages.
Several comments on the EPA’s EJSs identified issues, such as previous disposal of
low-level radioactive and industrial wastes in Massachusetts Bay and the siting of a
containment site for contaminated dredged material, which are currently being addressed by
1
-------
EPA and other responsible agencies. Although these issues are discussed briefly in Section
3.9, they are not comprehensively addressed in this FEIS because they are not immediately
germane to the need for or continued use of an ocean dredged material disposal site in
Massachusetts Bay. These issues will be the subject of future studies and documents to be
produced by EPA, the COE, and others.
1.1 Summary of Draft Documents
EPA issued a DEIS in September 1989 which evaluated the continued use of the
existing MBDS. In Chapter 1 of the DEIS, EPA evaluated the need to formally designate a
dredged material disposal site in Massachusetts Bay based on projected disposal needs.
Chapter 2 of the DEIS discussed alternatives to the proposed action, including both upland
and other disposal site alternatives. EPA succinctly described the affected environment and
presented data on the ambient physical, biological, and chemical conditions at the MBDS in
Chapter 3 of the DEIS. EPA used this information to predict the environmental
consequences of the proposed MBDS designation in Chapter 4 of the DEIS. EPA’s detailed
analysis of potential environmental effects caused by dredged material disposal included an
assessment of the following: biological community effects, physical impacts of burial and
isolation, water quality effects, and the potential for sediment movement. An analysis of the
management and monitoring undertaken at the MBDS was presented in Chapter 5 of the
DEIS. EPA concluded in its DEIS that properly managed dredged material disposal will not
cause unacceptable adverse impacts in the environs of the proposed MBDS.
In July 1990, in response to comments received on the DEIS, EPA published a
SDEIS which examined alternative ocean disposal sites, including the present MBDS. The
SDEIS identified a Zone of Siting Feasibility (UZSF ) — the area of the ocean located an
economically and operationally feasible distance from potential dredging projects. Within the
ZSF, EPA identified and evaluated three alternative areas, namely the Northern
Massachusetts Bay Area, the Southern Massachusetts Bay Area, and Murray Basin. All
three areas were found to comply with the site selection criteria at 40 CFR § 228.5 and
228.6 and were deemed to be suitable to accommodate an ocean disposal site. The Northern
Massachusetts Bay area, which includes the present MBDS, was preferred because it had
been historically used.
In developing its EISs, EPA received considerable input from the public, regulatory
agencies, and the academic community. EPA coordinated with several cooperating agencies
during the EIS process in order to harness the special areas of expertise concerning particular
environmental issues. This also served to enhance EPA’s interdisciplinary capabilities. EPA
consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for their expertise in marine
mammals and reptiles, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their expertise in migratory
birds, and the COE for their expertise in dredged material management and monitoring.
In writing this FEIS, EPA also consulted with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to discuss the coexistence of the proposed MBDS with the proposed
2
-------
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and with the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Office to discuss future MBDS management and monitoring. EPA also
received public and agency comments either by mail or during the public healing held on
November 1, 1989.
Additionally, in April 1991 EPA and the COE initiated a series of public workshops
to discuss dredging and disposal issues in the Massachusetts region. The goal of the
workshops is to foster improved communication and understanding of the many complex
issues involved in dredging and disposal. These workshops are discussed further in Chapter
3.
3
-------
CHAPTER 2. COMMENTS
Comments on the DEIS and the SDEIS were received by EPA during the 45 day
comment period following the issuance of each document. Written and oral comments were
received from government agencies and private individuals and organizations. In order to
facilitate public comment, EPA held an informational public meeting in Cambridge on
November 1, 1989 at which oral comments on the DEIS were received. EPA also
distributed copies of the DEIS and SDEIS to 12 libraries along the coast of Massachusetts
(see List of Repositories located before the Table of Contents) and over 200 other parties
including state and federal agencies, scientists, and interested individuals. Every comment
has been reviewed by EPA and the following is a discussion of EPA’s approach to
addressing the comments.
In order to be responsive to commentors and address comments in an efficient
manner, EPA has conducted a review of all comments received and developed a complete list
of issues raised by commentors. From this list, a matrix of issue categories and individual
commentors was developed (Figure 2-1). This matrix is intended to be used as a guide for
individual commentors to find responses to their comments. Categorizing issues and
responses in this manner allows all aspects of an issue to be discussed comprehensively and
also allows for a clear presentation of the particular issues of concern. A summary of the
comments on each of these issues is presented in Chapter 3 of this FEIS, followed by EPA’s
detailed response.
Some comments received by EPA were very general, and expressed the writer’s
opinion without addressing a particular issue. These comments were considered by EPA but
did not require a direct response. Copies of all original comment letters and a copy of the
public hearing transcript can be found in Appendix A of this FEIS.
4
-------
v’
. > . ,
C •
4 ’ ,
a)
I)
>
E
a)
—
z<
— r l
(f) r )
I—
0
.-
a)
4’,
4’ )
<
t
Cfl
g
a
..- —
u
h
. —
C(
—
•
ci,
r-
q
a)
4 - .
• E
OOa)
• O I
0
(nL)Cfl
a) . O
h
a
•0 a)
i.1 Ur
CD
— —
(fl
Q
U
4’
.-
>
—
(.n
cl
‘I
I
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waltham, MA
•
•
.
.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Concord, NH
•
.
S
.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, MA
•
•
•
•
•
.
.
.
.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD
•
•
.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC
•
S
.
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office, Boston, MA
•
•
.
.
.
.
S
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Boston, MA
•
•
.
.
Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Jamaica Plain, MA
•
•
.
.
New England Aquarium, Boston, MA
•
.
.
.
Massachusetts Audubon, Gloucester, MA
.
.
Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, MA
•
•
.
.
.
.
Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, DC
•
•
•
•
.
Center for Coastal Studies, Provincetown, MA
International Wildlife Coalition, North Falmouth, MA
•
•
•
.
S
Cetacean Research Unit, Gloucester, MA
S
.
.
Save the Harbor/Save the Bay, Boston, MA
4•
—
Gkiuccsicr Fishcriii.in ‘‘ \Wivcs A ‘ sucIdliol1, (loucestcr, MA
•
-------
CHAFFER 3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The following is a presentation of the comments received on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (“DEIS”) dated September 1989 and the Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (“SDEIS”) dated July 1990, and EPA’s response. As discussed in Chapter
2, the comments are grouped into categories of issues. As will become evident, many of the
issues overlap, and where this occurs the reader is referred to other appropriate discussions
in the text or EISs.
3.1 Need for Designation
3.1.1 Purpose of EPA Action
One commentor was not certain whether the purpose of the DEIS was continued use
or “permanent” designation of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (“MBDS”).
EPA Response
As discussed in Chapter 2 of the DEIS, the purpose of the analyses presented is to
determine the continuing need for and suitability of the MBDS as an available option for
dredged material disposal. Final site designation would allow the MBDS to be considered as
a disposal option for dredged material when land-based alternatives are not available or
sufficient. Therefore, “permanent” designation would allow for continued use when
appropriate.
3.1.2 Upland Alternatives
One commentor charged that EPA’s review of upland alternatives was not adequate.
Several commentors charged that EPA attempted to replace the alternatives site screening for
a disposal site with the alternatives analysis undertaken as part of individual permit reviews.
EPA Response
As explained in the DEIS and SDEIS, other alternatives for specific projects, such as
upland disposal, confined subaquatic disposal, or use as cover for coastal landfills are
considered during the permitting process for each dredging project. To qualify for a marine
disposal permit an applicant must conduct an alternatives analysis, as required by the Ocean
Dumping Regulations at 40 CFR §227. 16(a)(2), which requires that only when there “... are
no practicable alternative locations and methods of disposal or recycling available. . . which
have less environmental impact or potential risk to other parts of the environment than ocean
dumping...” can authorization for ocean disposal be granted. Thus, a thorough alternatives
screening must be conducted for each dredging project prior to selecting ocean disposal as
the preferred disposal alternative. Such an analysis must show that ocean dumping is the
only practicable alternative for the specific project being proposed. Additionally, the
6
-------
materials proposed for ocean disposal must be shown to be suitable (40 CFR Part 227) for
unrestricted open water disposal at the MBDS (see also Chapter 5 of the DEIS and the
response to comment number 3.9.1.2).
EPA has identified a regional need for disposal of dredged material from dredging
projects in the Massachusetts Bay area. In the DEIS, SDEIS, and the FEIS, EPA evaluated
alternatives for dredged material disposal on the regional scale, including upland disposal,
alternative areas for ocean disposal, and continued use of the existing MEDS.
The analysis of upland and other alternatives discussed in Chapter 2 of the DEIS was
conducted on a long-term, regional level to determine whether enough practicable alternative
capacity existed to negate the need for designating an ocean disposal site. As discussed on
pages 12 and 13 of the DEIS, EPA believes that the capacity of available upland disposal
sites would only accommodate a fraction of the projected regional disposal needs. As part of
the development of this FEIS, EPA further investigated several upland disposal options (for
all project sizes) arid confirmed that available upland capacity is not sufficient to meet
regional disposal needs (SAIC, 1987; Sasaki Associates, 1983; MDPW, 1990). Although
many potential upland disposal sites were identified, the volume of dredged material that
could be accommodated was far less than the 50 year disposal need of the region
(approximately 15 million cubic yards). As a result, EPA and the COE have reaffirmed the
need to designate an ocean dredged material disposal site. Comments particular to the
alternatives analysis conducted in the SDEIS on other alternative areas for ocean disposal are
discussed in the response to comment number 3.2.2.
The analysis EPA performed for the designation process does not replace the project
specific alternatives analysis required for each individual permit proposal through the COE
permitting process under Section 103 of the MPRSA. As discussed above, final designation
simply means that the site would remain available as a disposal option.
3.1.3 Future Use Estimates
Several commentors requested that EPA estimate future use of the proposed MBDS.
Others questioned whether there is sufficient capacity at the proposed MBDS location. Some
commentors requested that EPA estimate the volumes of dredged material to be generated by
future projects and display pre-1976 trends in order to support the perceived need for a site
designation.
EPA Response
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“COE”), the capacity of the MBDS
is large enough to easily accommodate approximately 23 million cubic yards of dredged
material, which correlates to regional disposal needs for nearly the next hundred years (COE,
1988). Disposal site capacity is highly dependant on the topography of the seafloor within
the boundaries of the site, as well as the depth, size, and location of the site. Since the
7
-------
proposed MBDS is in deep water, is large in diameter, and has a relatively flat bottom, it
can accommodate more dredged material than other sites in New England. The COE
correlated the 23 million cubic yards estimate to a one hundred year need by assuming, in
part, that past disposal trends will continue. More accurate long-term estimates are difficult
to establish, as actual future permit applications will be dependent on factors such as
available resources, economic conditions, and construction techniques.
Future needs, as discussed in Chapter 1 of the DEIS, were based in part on historical
trends. Trends established prior to 1976 would only be germane to projects which are not
dredged frequently. EPA does not believe that analysis of pre-1976 trends would modify use
estimates since the DEIS analyzes future use for only the next twenty years. As discussed in
the DEIS, the COE has estimated that approximately three million cubic yards of dredged
material will be disposed of at the proposed MBDS over the next twelve years.
In 1983, approximately 425,000 cubic yards of material was dredged from President
Roads and the Mystic and Chelsea Rivers. The Reserved Channel was last dredged in 1960
and the Main Ship Channel in Boston Harbor was dredged in 1951. For the current
proposed Boston Harbor Improvement Dredging, EPA has determined that surface sediments
proposed to be dredged from Boston Harbor, the Mystic and Chelsea Rivers, and the
Reserved Channel are not acceptable for unrestricted open water disposal at the MBDS. This
corresponds to about 720,000 cubic yards or about 32% of the total amount of material
proposed to be dredged (see Appendix B for EPA’s comment letter on this project).
Dredging volume estimates from the federal Boston Harbor navigational improvement project
and the Third Harbor Tunnel alignment were not included in future volume projections.
Inclusion of these volume projections, as explained in Chapter 1.2 of the DEIS, could have
tripled EPA’s estimate.
3.1.4 Past Disposal Volumes
One commentor noted that the statement on page 7 of the DEIS that 2.8 million cubic
yards of material have been disposed of at MBDS over the past ten years is inaccurate. As
the COE’s site evaluation document and the DEIS Table 1-2 clearly show, the 2.8 million
cubic yards were disposed over 12 years. Clarification of the use of the 10 versus 12 years
in calculations throughout the remainder of the EIS should be provided.
EPA Response
EPA concurs. However, such a change will not have a substantial effect upon the
needs assessment or analysis of past trends which was presented in the DEIS. This is largely
because EPA estimated the projected twenty year need for ocean disposal, which would
include the twelve year projection (see also the responses to comment numbers 3.1.2, 3.1.3,
and 3.1.5). Use of ten years instead of the more accurate twelve year estimate did not affect
EPA’s analyses and therefore EPA believes that further clarification or revision of the DEIS
is unnecessary.
8
-------
3.1.5 Relationship to Other Disposal Sites
One commentor recommended that EPA discuss whether the Cape Arundel and
Portland Disposal Sites have the capacity to meet regional needs.
EPA Response
The Cape Arundel and Portland disposal sites ar not suitable to be used for dredging
projects in Massachusetts primarily because they are not located within the Zone of Siting
Feasibility for these projects. While the DEIS mentions on page 13 that the Portland and
Cape Arundel Disposal Sites may be not economically feasible to use for Massachusetts, it
does not discuss their site capacity. The capacities of these sites combined is far less than
haif the capacity of the proposed MBDS. In addition, the Cape Arundel and Portland
disposal sites are typically used for the regional disposal needs of Maine and New Hampshire
and lack sufficient capacity to handle future disposal needs from the greater Boston area.
Consequently, EPA concurs that these sites can not accommodate the regional disposal needs
of the coastal Massachusetts area.
3.2 Alternatives Analysis
3.2.1 Alternatives Analysis in the DEIS
Several commentors were concerned that EPA did not prepare an adequate
alternatives analysis. Other commentors charged that the DEIS failed to meet the
environmental review requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) (42
USC § 432l and the site designation requirements of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (“MPRSA”) (33 USC § l40l ., and 16 Usc
§ 143l .) including the requirement that all reasonable alternatives, such as the
inclusion of alternatives beyond the Continental Shelf and alternative methods of disposal,
such as upland sites or containment facilities, be considered.
EPA Response
In response to several comments on the DEIS which urged an expanded consideration
of alternative sites to the present MBDS, EPA prepared a SDEIS in July 1990 to greatly
extend its evaluation of such alternatives. The DEIS evaluated potential environmental
effects resulting from continued use of the site after determirnng that no feasible upland
alternative s existed for regional dredging needs. The SDEIS presented an alternatives
analysis which identified areas Within Massachusetts Bay that would best accommodate an
ocean dredged material disposal site. EPA’s SDEIS is effectively the response to these
particular comments and through its preparation, EPA has allowed for integrated planning
and consideration of all reasonable environmentally protective alternatives. Comments on the
alternatives analysis presented in the SDEIS are discussed below.
9
-------
3.2.2 Alternatives Analysis in the SDEIS
Some commentors charged that EPA’s siting decision was based on cost and
convenience, not on environmental considerations. Thus, the disposal site was not being
sited further offshore because it would be too expensive. Some corn mentors believed that the
alternatives analysis presented in the SDEIS was inadequate. Comparing the existing MBDS
to other general areas where an ODMDS could be sited was believed to be inappropriate
because of the differences in scale and detail of information known about each site, and that
EPA should gather specific information on each site to render such comparisons valid. One
commentor believed that the SDEIS should have included charts with bathymetric contours in
order to assist in comparing candidate areas.
EPA Response
EPA’s primary consideration in siting a disposal area was to locate a site which
satisfied the criteria established under MPRSA and promulgated at 40 CFR § 228.5 and
228.6. As explained in the SDEIS, the process for identifying sites for disposal of dredged
material begins with the delineation of a Zone of Siting Feasibility (“ZSF”). This zone must
be located within an economically and operationally feasible distance from potential dredging
projects, but must also exclude environmentally sensitive areas. As explained in the SDEIS,
several factors influence the extent of the ZSF, including:
• cost of transporting dredged material;
• navigation restrictions;
• distance to the edge of the Continental Shelf;
• existing political boundaries;
• environmentally sensitive areas; and
• areas of incompatible uses.
From a management perspective, delineation of the ZSF allows EPA to focus studies on
areas and candidate sites where disposal of dredged material is practical and may be
environmentally acceptable, and to avoid spending limited resources on studies of sites where
dredged material disposal is not economically, operationally, or environmentally feasible. In
the SDEIS, EPA identified the ZSF as three areas which merited additional analyses to
determine their suitability as potential ocean dredged material disposal sites (see page 23 of
the SDEIS).
EPA did not simply trade environmental values for cost savings in its site evaluations
and comparisons. Cost was a secondary consideration in the evaluation of the proposed
disposal site locations. Cost was used to screen and limit a large universe of potential areas
to a more manageable ZSF. As discussed in the SDEIS, costs generally increase with
increasing distance from shore. The distance between the site to be dredged and the disposal
site affects the cost of ocean disposal operations. However, cost of disposal cannot be the
only consideration used for locating an ODMDS. Environmental considerations override site
10
-------
feasibility considerations when they would unduly restrict sites to areas where unacceptable
adverse effects would occur. Alternate sites at greater distances from the dredging area must
be considered when they offer environmental benefits at reasonable cost increases.
The ODMDS site selection process was governed by the need to ensure that
unacceptable adverse impacts would not occur at the selected site. In other words, although
short-term impacts resulting from disposal may occur, the evaluation process is aimed at
ensuring that any long-term unacceptable adverse impacts are avoided or minimized. This
determination was made in accordance with the five general and eleven specific criteria set
forth at 40 CFR § 228.5 and 228.6 and presented in the DEIS on pages 13 and 14 and the
SDEJS on pages 25 and 26.
The site selection process consisted of three distinct phases. First, the ZSF was
demarcated to identify areas which may be suitable to accommodate potential candidate sites.
Then, a screening-level analysis, using the general and specific criteria at 40 CFR § 228.5
and 228.6, was conducted for the general areas to identify and evaluate alternative potential
disposal sites within the ZSF. These two steps are documented in the SDEIS. Finally,
reasonable alternatives remaining after screening (m this case, only the Northern
Massachusetts Bay area, which contains the MBDS, remained) were subjected to a detailed
analysis in the DEIS. The SDEIS analysis, as summarized in Table 4 of that document,
makes it clear that the Northern Massachusetts Bay area, including the existing MEDS, was
equal to or better than the other areas for all criteria considered. Therefore, EPA maintains
that it was reasonable to screen the other alternatives and focus the detailed analysis on the
suitability of the MBDS for continued use. NEPA does not require detailed analyses when
more general analyses will reveal sufficient information on which to base a fully informed
and reasonable decision.
The MPRSA and its implementing regulations (set forth at 40 CFR §228.5(e)) require the
EPA to consider, wherever feasible, designating ocean disposal sites beyond the Continental
Shelf. If the edge of the Continental Shelf is within the ZSF, it should be retained as a
disposal option. As discussed on pages 11 and 12 of the SDEIS, the edge of the Continental
Shelf is approximately 200 miles from Massachusetts Bay. To aid in delineating the ZSF,
EPA estimated that Massachusetts Bay dredging projects using the MBDS for disposal would
be expected to spend $18.00 to $20.00 per cubic yard. This approximation was based on
current equipment rates, after a survey among dredging contractors, and is consistent with
the estimates derived from previous studies associated with siting a potential ODMDS in
Rhode Island Sound (see also the response to comment number 3.2.5). EPA estimated that
transport of dredged material to a site off the edge of the Continental Shelf would cost
approximately $120.00 per cubic yard. Since the Continental Shelf is so far away, additional
costs such as added crew to change shifts and ocean-going barges and tugs will tend to
increase this estimate. Since EPA’s ZSF analysis identified potential environmentally
acceptable sites closer to shore, EPA concluded that it was not necessary to further consider
a potential site off the Continental Shelf. Therefore, sites at the edge of the Shelf and
beyond were not included in the ZSF.
11
-------
EPA believes that enough information was available to allow comparison of the
suitability of candidate site locations using the eleven site specific factors at 40 CFR §228.6.
Some of the information EPA used in making this determination included, spawning fisheries
data from the NMFS, interviews with archaeologists and fishermen, whale migratory route
documentation from universities, and NOAA charts for location of shipping lanes. Use of
such a screening level analysis showed no advantages of designating other areas, and enabled
EPA to assess compliance with the site selection criteria without a more exhaustive and
expensive investigation.
Regarding the comment on candidate site depth characterization, EPA believes that
the text of the SDEIS adequately describes the bathymetric features of each candidate area.
Individuals desiring more detail are welcome to examine navigational charts (13246, 13267,
13270, 13275 and 13278) published by the National Ocean Survey element of the NOAA.
EPA examined such charts in preparing the SDEIS, but did not deem it necessary to
reproduce them in the SDEIS because the other information included was sufficient.
3.2.3 No Action
One commentor recommended that EPA consider the possibility of “No Action.’ t
EPA Response
The “No Action” alternative would result in sustained interim designation status for
the M BDS. This would allow continued disposal at the site (through the COE permitting
process described in Chapter 5 of the DEIS), without fulfilling the directive of MPRSA
which is to proactively determine the continued suitability of ODMDSs in relation to the site
evaluation criteria at 40 CFR § 228.5 and 228.6.
The primary purpose of the NEPA is to disclose the environmental consequences of a
proposed action, thus alerting the agency decision-maker and the public to the environmental
risks involved. An important and intended consequence is to incorporate a continuing
consciousness of environmental considerations into a Federal agency’s decision-making
process. This, in turn, ensures to the fullest extent possible that the agency directs its
policies, plans, and programs toward meeting national environmental goals. The “No
Action” alternative would not provide the opportunity for public involvement. Moreover, in
this case “No Action” essentially translates to no environmental review, which is clearly not
the intent of the NEPA.
3.2.4 Closing of the MBDS
A few commentors recommended that EPA consider closing the existing MBDS as an
alternative.
12
-------
EPA Response
As discussed in more detail in the response to comment number 3.1.1 and in Chapter
1 of the DEIS, the purpose of the DEIS is to determine the continuing need for and
suitability of the MBDS as an avail ihle option for dredged material disposal. Such an
evaluation includes a determination of the appropriateness of the site for dredged material
disposal. Therefore, had no need for an ODMDS been established or had continued use of
the site been found to be inconsistent with the criteria at 40 CFR §*228.5 and 228.6, closure
of the site would have been recommended (see Chapter 2 of the DEIS). However, the need
for an ODMDS was established in Chapter 1 of the DEIS and continued use of the MBDS
was determined to comply with the criteria.
Closure of the MBDS could cause major disposal problems as it would eliminate an
environmentally acceptable alternative for suitable dredged material from an already small
catalog of options. EPA therefore believes that the site closure option is unnecessary both
environmentally and operationally. EPA recognizes that there is a scarcity of upland or other
disposal alternatives in New England arid that ocean disposal can be an environmentally
suitable option if properly managed (as discussed in Chapter 5 of the DEIS), and is therefore
proposing to finally designate the MBDS.
3.2.5 Cost/Benefit Analysis
One commentor suggested that a costfbenefit analysis be performed to weigh the
benefits of a site further offshore with environmental benefit and upland disposal costs. One
commentor stated that Plymouth and Duxbury are outside the economic limit of MBDS, and
that EPA wrongly included them in the $18.00 to $20.00 estimate used for delineating the
Economic Zone of Siting Feasibility. Another commentor stated that EPA’s estimate of
$18.00 to $20.00 per cubic yard of material is a reasonable assessment, but it may make
many projects economically unfeasible. One commentor stated that the economics of upland
disposal should not be the only factor considered in the alternatives analysis, and that the
potential for adverse impacts of other disposal methods must also be evaluated.
EPA Response
EPA selected the final location of the MBDS designation in light of the site selection
criteria at 40 CFR § 228.5 and 228.6. The site selection process considers the costs
associated with disposal and possible environmental impacts as a result of dredged material
disposal at that site (see also the response to comment number 3.2.2). By estimating an
average project cost of $18.00 to $20.00 per cubic yard, EPA could include the majority of
potential disposal site users. It is important to note that this estimate was only developed to
assist EPA in delineating the ZSF and is not a regulatory criterion used in reviewing permit
applications. Actual site use is not limited to specific users and is dependent on many
factors, including, but not limited to, availability of alternatives, project size, willingness or
13
-------
ability to pay for the selected disposal option, and compliance with the requirements of the
Ocean Dumping Criteria. Actual site use is only allowed when permit standards are met.
EPA did not perform a detailed costfbenefit analysis for the designation of a dredged
material disposal site in Massachusetts Bay. Although the MPRSA and NEPA require that
specific environmental criteria be met (regardless of cost), they do not require that a
cost/benefit analysis be conducted. Cost is considered in the final site selection only after
the environmental criteria have been met. Additionally, it is difficult to quantify particular
environmental benefits for an ocean disposal site designation. Since the proposed MBDS
meets the site selection criteria, selection of any further, costlier site would not provide any
quantifiable environmental benefits. Therefore, EPA has chosen a site that is relatively
inexpensive to use and manage and that has satisfied the site selection criteria.
It is important to recognize that each dredging project pres nts a unique set of
opportunities and constraints, causing costs to vary widely. Consequently, many projects
will have costs that vary from the $18.00 to $20.00 per cubic yard estimate. As explained in
the SDEIS, EPA based its zone of economic feasibility on a fifty-five mile radius from
Boston, which aided in site screening. Plymouth and Duxbury are included in this fifty-five
mile radius. However, as noted above, EPA recognizes the individual variability among
dredging projects. Additionally, different projects may have unique disposal options
available to them (see the response to comment number 3.1.2).
3.3 Assessment of To cics
3.3.1 Water Quality
3.3.1.1 Assessment of Water Quality Impacts
Many commentors were concerned that the water quality in Massachusetts Bay would
be degraded as a result of dredged material disposal. They cited the results of analyses
presented in the DEIS, which showed that certain water quality criteria (“WQC”) would be
exceeded either during disposal or shortly thereafter. Many commentors believed that EPA
had underestimated the extent of WQC exceedances that would occur following disposal of
dredged material at MBDS, and expressed the opinion that any exceedances that result from
this activity are not acceptable and are in violation of the Clean Water Act. One commentor
stated that EPA had overestimated WQC exceedances at the MED S.
EPA Response
EPA does not believe that dredged material disposal at the MBDS will significantly
affect the water quality of Massachusetts Bay. As described in Section 4.2.1.4 of the DEIS,
EPA used a numerical model to predict water quality changes during disposal events. The
model simulated the descent of a dredged material plume and the effects of horizontal mixing
due to currents on total (dissolved plus sediment sorbed) toxicant levels for disposal events
14
-------
during the year 1982, during which the largest volume of material was dumped according to
available records. Potential acute and chronic toxic effects on marine organisms were then
assessed by comparing predicted concentrations of pollutants to EPA WQC for Protection of
Aquatic Life (U.S. EPA, 1986). These criteria are established to provide protection to
sensitive stages (such as larvae or juveniles) of sensitive species and are periodically revised
and updated to reflect the latest scientific knowledge.
EPA chooses to maintain a policy of conservativeness to ensure maximum protection
of the marine ecosystem and human health, and therefore built a number of worst-case
assumptions into its water quality model. Although, such a conservative approach may
overestimate the extent of potential impacts, it enables EPA to guarantee a margin of safety
in all of its predictions. The assumptions used in the water quality modeling are discussed
below individually.
• EPA’s modeling effort used a conservative method to evaluate the temporal effect
of disposal events. The applicable ocean dumping regulations which govern water
quality impacts at disposal sites are set forth in 40 CFR Parts 227 and 228. The
regulations allow for temporary perturbations in water quality caused by disposal
operations during initial mixing (mixing within 4 hours after dumping) anywhere
within the site (40 CFR §228.5(b)). However, the quality of material allowed to be
disposed at a site is governed by the limiting permissible concentration (“LPC”) -- the
concentration of any constituent which, after allowance for initial mixing, will not
exceed applicable marine WQC anywhere, and when there are no marine WQC, will
not be acutely toxic (40 CFR §227.27(a)). The LPC is not to be exceeded beyond the
boundaries of the disposal site during initial mixing, and it is not to be exceeded at
any point in the marine environment after initial mixing. Unfortunately, EPA’s
WQC, which are expressed in 1-hour, 1-day and 4-day durations (for example, the
average of a number of water quality levels measured during any one hour can not
exceed the 1-hour criterion), do not correspond with the 4 hour duration of initial
mixing allowed under the Ocean Dumping Regulations. Also, EPA’s chronic WQC
are based on the assumption that an organism is exposed to a continuous discharge,
which is not the case for ocean dumping. EPA showed exceedances of the 1-hour
acute and 4-day chronic WQC for illustrative purposes - these criteria are not
applicable under the ocean dumping regulations. Therefore, for regulatory purposes,
predicted water quality levels after initial mixing are only appropriately compared to
the 1-day acute WQC. As a result, only one WQC exceedance, namely the 1-day
criterion for copper, was predicted by the DES modeling (as discussed below, this
exceedance may have been the result of high ambient water column concentrations for
copper used in the DEIS model). In order to more appropriately determine potential
LPC exceedances during or after the initial mixing period of 4 hours, EPA has
conducted new modeling, which is discussed later in this section.
• EPA also used conservative assumptions concerning the concentrations of
chemicals in the ambient water at the MBDS. The water column concentrations of
15
-------
contaminants at the MBDS presented in Section 3.2 of the DEIS and used in the DEIS
modeling, which were obtained from COE sponsored sampling in 1986 and 1987
(COE, 1988), are substantially higher than those typically found elsewhere in
Massachusetts Bay. Actual water column concentrations at the MBDS may in fact be
quite lower. In an effort to evaluate other water quality data in Massachusetts Bay,
EPA examined the water column chemistry data used in EPA’s Final Supplemental
EIS (“FSEIS ) for the Boston Harbor Wastewater Conveyance System. The site
furthest offshore (and closest to the MBDS) exhibited water column concentrations
quite lower, some several orders of magnitude, than those reported in the DEIS (note
that the quality assurance measures taken for the outfall data were much more
stringent than those used by the COE for the MBDS). These values are listed on
page 5-36 of the FSEIS and summarized in Table 3.3-1. Because ambient water
column concentrations contributed significantly in the calculation of predicted water
column concentrations, the use of the higher water column concentrations may have
resulted in an over-prediction of exceedances. For example, the high ambient copper
value used in the DEIS model, 2.82 gJl (which is very close to the WQC for copper,
2.9 igIl), was the most significant factor in the resulting predicted WQC exceedance.
EPA plans to measure water column concentrations of contaminants at the site in 1992
as part of on-going site management. This will serve to check the water quality data
presented in the DEIS.
TABLE 3.3-1: COMPARISON OF AMBIENT WATER COLUMN CHEMISTRY DATA
(All units in parts per billion)
MTBDS DEIS’ Outfall FSEIS 2 Salem Harbor 3
Cadmium <0.2 0.006 0.023
Chromium 0.412 0.316
Nickel 5.0 0.604 0.440
Copper 2.82 0.078 0.350
Zinc <20 0.810 0.216
Arsenic 2.80 0.498
Mercury 1.35 0.004
Lead 1.77 0.091 0.022
Total PCB 0.012 0.00730
‘COE, 1988
2 Batelle, 1988
3 Gardner iai., 1986
S EPA modeled two scenanos, assuming that 5% and 10% of the disposed dredged
material plume remained suspended in the water column. Literature values report that
between 3% and 5% of the dumped sediment remains suspended within the water
16
-------
column and is subsequently advected and mixed horizontally by ambient currents
(Bokuniewicz, 1978; Gordon, 1974; Johnson, 1978; Tavolaro, 1982). In light of the
literature values, both scenarios modelled by EPA appear to represent conservative
estimates. Clearly, the level of conservancy associated with the 10% case is very
high, and the 5% case may be more indicative of actual disposal conditions.
• EPA used data from 1982, the year in which the largest volume of dredged
material was disposed, thus simulating worst case conditions. Hence, EPA assumed
in its analysis that dredged material would be disposed every day of the year, a
situation has never occurred yet and is not expected to occur. These assumptions
would also tend to overpredict WQC exceedances.
• The model assumes that all pollutants are completely soluble in water, whereas in
reality the solubility of the contaminants is dependant upon the various oxidation
states that each constituent can undergo. Also, the model does not account for the
fact that metals are likely to be co-precipitated with iron and manganese oxides
formed during disposal and that many organic chemicals such as PCBs will most
likely remain adhered to and settle with the sediment particles. These assumptions
would also tend to overpredict WQC exceedances.
• EPA’s model did not account for vertical mixing in the water column and
therefore presented a lower available dilution than is actually available. This would
also tend to result in an overprediction of WQC exceedances.
Despite all the assumptions that would tend to produce overpredictions of WQC
exceedances, only one WQC exceedance was predicted - i.e., for the 1-day criterion for
copper - and this may have been largely the result of the high ambient water column
concentrations used. Therefore, this exceedance is not believed to be significant. This
conclusion is reinforced by the additional modeling discussed below.
The Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Management System
( ADDAMS”) model, available as of May 1992, provides a more realistic portrayal of initial
mixing during disposal than the model used in the DEIS. This is primarily because the
ADDAMS model simulates an actual disposal event and is able to calculate water column
concentrations 4 hours after disposal. This concentration is needed to assess compliance with
the LPC. The ADDAMS model was not used in the DEIS because it was not available at the
time.
EPA has recently run the ADDAMS model using the 1982 sediment chemistry data
and the ambient MBDS water column chemistry reported in the DEIS. This analysis did not
indicate any exceedances of WQC either inside or outside of the proposed MBDS boundary.
In running the ADDAMS model, EPA first determined the contaminant of concern, or
the contaminant which would require the greatest amount of dilution in order to meet the
17
-------
LPC. To determine the contaminant of concern, EPA assumed a worst case analysis. In
particular, EPA entered the highest concentration of each contaminant from the 1982
sediment chemistry data, the ambient water column chemistry data from the MBDS (reported
on page 35 of the DEIS), and the acute WQC (either the 1-hour or i-day, whichever was
more stringent). For this modeling effort, the contaminant of concern was determined to be
copper. Since all the other contaminants required a smaller amount of dilution than what
was needed for copper, it was not necessary to run the ADDAMS model for all cases.
To use the ADDAMS model to predict water column concentrations of contaminants
after a disposal event, elutriate values must be entered. Elutriate data for 1982 was not
available. As a result, EPA estimated what the corresponding elutriate concentration would
be from available sediment concentration data. Available data shows that elutriate water
column concentrations are approximately 1000 to 10,000 times less than the corresponding
sediment concentration (Palermo, 1988). To be conservative, EPA used an elutriate
concentration of 100 times less than the maximum sediment concentration for its ADDAMS
modeling effort.
Using the inputs, the modeled concentrations of copper in the water column were
2.82 g/l inside the proposed MBDS boundary 4 hours after disposal and 2.82 g/l outside
of the proposed boundary at all times after disposal. Both of these concentrations are below
the 2.9 g/l acute criterion for copper. Since the concentrations of contaminants in the water
column, both inside and outside the MBDS, decrease with increasing time post-disposal, EPA
does not believe that it is necessary to model a disposal event for longer than 4 hours post-
disposal.
The ADDAMS model will be used to assess potential water quality impacts from
individual dredging projects as part of EPA and the COFs on-going ocean disposal
programs. EPA believes that use of the ADDAMS model in its ocean dumping program will
provide an enhanced level of safety in dredged material management. If a WQC exceedance
(either outside the site boundary at any time or inside the site boundary four hours after
disposal) is predicted during future project reviews, EPA will recommend that either certain
management restrictions (i.e., limiting the rates or volumes of disposal) be imposed or that
such dredged material not be dumped at the MBDS. Whether EPA chooses to recommend
several mitigation measures or object to a project based on water quality violations is
dependant on many factors, including the number of contaminants which exceed WQC, the
magnitude by which the WQC are exceeded, and the toxicological importance of the
contaminants which exceed the WQC. EPA remains committed to ensuring that dredged
material disposal will not cause LPC exceedances.
3.3.1.2 Request for Additional Studies
One commentor recommended that EPA conduct a study to empirically measure the
amount and fate of suspended silt remaining in the water column since it was a critical
component of the water quality model. One commentor requested that EPA discuss the
18
-------
movement offsite of contaminants associated with fine grained material that may occur during
disposal operations.
EPA Response
EPA does not believe that conducting a study to empirically measure the amount and
fate of suspended silt remaining in the water column is necessary to complete its site
designation studies. The COE has conducted such studies at a range of disposal sites
throughout the country (see Bokuniewicz, 1978; Gordon, 1974; Johnson, 1978; Tavolaro,
1982). Such studies were used by EPA during preparation of the DEIS. While these studies
predicted the percentage of the dredged material plume which remains suspended in the water
column, the movement offsite and ultimate fate of these particles is currently unknown.
Many factors (e.g., current speed and direction at the disposal site, water column density
differences at the disposal site, physical characteristics of the dredged material) affect the
movement of such suspended sediments. The USGS, in coordination with EPA,
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, and the Massachusetts Bays Program, is currently
conducting research on the fate and transport of sediments in Massachusetts and Cape Cod
Bays (see also the response to comment number 3.7).
3.3.1.3 Mercury Levels in Massachusetts Bay Waters
One commentor requested that EPA give a citation for the statement on page 38 of the
DEIS (paragraph 3.2.1.5.7) that mercury levels above the EPA criteria have been recorded
in other parts of Massachusetts Bay.
EPA Response
EPA identified a range of water column chemistry values from 0.0025 to 1.7 gfl for
mercury (COE, 1988; Gardner and Wallace, 1986; and Batelle, 1988). Differences in
collection, sample preparation, or analytical procedures may explain the variability.
Additionally, seasonal and spatial variations exist. Water column concentrations of mercury
also vary with seasonal changes in suspended particulate and phytoplankton and zooplankton
processes (Wallace ., 1982).
3.3.1.4 Merrimack River Inputs
One commentor stated that EPA did not adequately assess the effects caused by the
Merrimack River freshwater input.
EPA Response
As stated in the response to number 3.1, the purpose of these analyses is to determin
the continuing need for and suitability of the MBDS as an available option for dredged
material disposal. EPA believes that sufficient information is available to make this
19
-------
determination. This PETS is not intended to answer global questions about the Massachusetts
Bay ecosystem, but focuses on specific impacts in the area of the proposed MBDS. EPA is,
however, addressing broader contaminant input questions under its Massachusetts Bays
Estuary Program. Some of the findings to date are discussed below.
Among the watersheds discharging to the Massachusetts Bays, which includes Cape
Cod Bay, the Merrimack River is the largest. The total flow, including riverine sources,
publicly owned treatment works, coastal runoff and groundwater, is about 465 cubic meters
per second (Menzie-Cura, 1991). The Merrimack River could therefore contribute up to half
of all freshwater flow to the Bay, but this flow rate likely represents an overestimate because
not all of the water discharging from the Merrimack River enters Massachusetts Bay. It is
clear, however, that the Merrimack is important in terms of setting up the initial stratification
of the Massachusetts Bay system. Moreover, flow from the Merrimack varies seasonally.
Residual circulation during spring runoff months may be dominated by density-driven
forces produced by the Merrimack River plume (Menzie-Cura, 1991). However, the
significance of the Merrimack River as a source of pollutants into Massachusetts Bay remains
uncertain because, in part, precise long-term circulation patterns are difficult to assess. EPA
acknowledges that the MBDS, and sediments in the rest of Massachusetts Bay, receive an
unknown percentage of contaminant inputs from the Merrimack River. Because of the
relatively small area that the disposal site occupies within Massachusetts Bay, EPA does not
foresee contaminant contributions from the Merrimack River to be a principal source of
contaminant inputs to the MEDS. Other significant non-point sources of contaminants, such
as metals and PCBs, include atmospheric deposition and runoff. Quantification of the
relative contribution of non-point sources to the Bay as a whole is on-going and will continue
as part of the Massachusetts Bays Program.
3.3.2 Sediment Quality
3.3.2.1 Impacts from Dredged Material Disposal
Many commentors charged that the sediment data in the DEIS suggests that there are
adverse impacts to marine resources because of dredged material disposal at MBDS and that
continued use of the site will place additional and cumulative stress on the resources of
Stellwagen Basin and Massachusetts Bay. One commentor charged that the elevated PCB
and PAR levels in the sediment at MBDS make it an “Impact Category I Site as designated
in EPA’s Criteria for the Management of Disposal Sites for Ocean Dumping (40 CFR Part
228). Some commentors were concerned that past disposal activities at MBDS had resulted
in PCBs, PARs, and metals at MBDS above Massachusetts Bay background levels and
recommended further investigation.
20
-------
EPA Response
EPA does not believe that poor sediment quality at the MBDS caused by previous
dredged material disposal has adversely affected marine resources. This is supported by
several field and modeling studies that were conducted for the MBDS designation. The
results of all of these field studies (listed in Table 3-1 on page 17 and discussed in Section
5.4 of the DEIS) lend support to the MBDS designation, as neither movement of dredged
material offsite nor adverse effects to marine organisms were identified. More recent
monitoring surveys, which also support this conclusion, are discussed in the response to
comment number 3.9.1 in this FEIS. EPA evaluated sediment chemistry at the MBDS
(Section 3.2.2 of the DEIS) and presented several scatterplots and contour maps. This
analysis illustrated that stations within the MBDS (closest to the disposal buoy) had the
highest concentrations of contaminants, and that stations outside the site, including those on
Steliwagen Bank, were indicative of normal ambient conditions in Massachusetts Bay. EPA
also examined the levels of contaminants in biota at the MBDS (Section 3.2.3 of the DEIS)
to assess potential adverse effects caused by dredged material disposal to marine organisms.
The DEIS reported that no statistically significant differences in contaminant levels between
organisms on the disposal mound and the reference site exist. In fact, in some cases
concentrations of contaminants in the tissues of reference organisms were higher than those
on the disposal mound. EPA also evaluated effects on biota (Section 4.3 of the DEIS) and
on human use (Section 4.4 of the DEIS), and concluded that dredged material disposal at the
MBDS will not cause unacceptable adverse impacts.
Monitoring studies at the existing MBDS have not indicated that any unacceptable
adverse impacts have occurred. While higher than ambient sediment concentrations have
been demonstrated within the MBDS, EPA did not find that these contaminants have
adversely affected the resources either in the MBDS vicinity or on Stellwagen Bank. This
statement is supported by all of the analyses listed above. EPA therefore concludes that
dredged material disposal at the MBDS has not had any significant adverse effects on the
marine resources of Steliwagen Bank (see also the responses to comment numbers 3.4, 3.10,
and 3.11). Moreover, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”)
states on page 141 of their Steliwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary DEIS dated January
1991 that ‘.. .no far field effects have been identified...” and that “.. .bioaccumulation at and
around the disposal site is inconsequential....” NOAA concludes on page 142 that “...does
not appear, therefore, that the previous use of the site has significantly degraded the
resources of the area....” As discussed in Section 3.2.2 of the DEIS, EPA demonstrated that
sediment quality impacts will be limited to a small area within the MBDS.
The regulations for evaluating disposal impact were summarized on pages 221 arid
222 of the DEIS and can be found at 40 CFR §228.10. With regard to the designation of a
disposal site as “Impact Category I”, the regulations (at 40 CFR §228. l0(c)(1)(ii)) state that
a site is classified under Impact Category I when any of the following conditions are present
and reasonably attributable to the disposal activities:
21
-------
“.. .The biota, sediments, or water column of the disposal site, or
of any area outside the disposal site where any waste or waste
constituent from the disposal site is present in detectable
concentrations above normal ambient values, are adversely
affected by the toxicity of such waste or waste constituent to the
extent that there are statistically significant decreases in the
populations of valuable commercial or recreational species, or of
specific species of biota essential to the propagation of such
species, within the disposal site and such other area as compared
to populations of the same organisms in comparable locations
outside such site and area. . . .“
EPA’s regulations do not prohibit use of a site designated as Impact Category I, but
simply require that EPA consider such effects. If EPA determines that activities at the
disposal site have placed the site in Impact Category I, limitations on the use of the site, as
are necessary, shall be imposed to reduce the impacts to acceptable levels. EPA does not
believe that the MBDS is an “Impact Category P’ site, as evidenced by the available data,
and maintains that the MBDS should be classified as an “Impact Category II” site because
none of the effects listed in 40 CFR §228.10 have been identified to date. EPA’s recent
monitoring efforts conducted within the MBDS and the reference site (see the response to
comment number 3.9.1.1) indicated that no statistically significant adverse effects on
valuable commercial or recreational species or their prey have been demonstrated.
Additionally, the COE’s Disposal Area Monitoring System has shown that similar benthic
community structures exist at the MBDS and the reference site.
3.3.2.2 EPA Methodology
One commentor charged that EPA underestimated the concentrations of contaminants
present in dredged material disposed at MBDS. One commentor disagreed with EPA’s
statement that the concentrations of contaminants presented on page 6 of the DES
represented higher than suspected concentrations and used EPA’s PCB data from the MBDS
presented on page V of the Executive Summary to support this contention. One commentor
stated that EPA shou [ d not measure PCBs in environmental samples as Arochior mixtures.
EPA Response
EPA believes that the data used in its analyses is sufficient to make reasonable
conclusions with respect to the siting of an ocean dredged material disposal site in
Massachusetts Bay. EPA does not believe that it underestimated the concentrations of
contaminants present in previously disposed dredged material because these concentrations
were based on a substantial number of sediment chemistry samples that have been taken over
the last ten years at locations within and around the MBDS area. Sampling stations were
illustrated in Figure 3-4 on page 30 of the DEIS and sediment chemistry information is
22
-------
presented in Sections 3.2.2 and 4.2.2 of the DEIS. The concentrations presented in the
DEIS, and used in EPA’s decision-making, were an average of nearly 1000 samples.
In response to the comment which disagreed with EPA’s statement that the
concentrations of contaminants presented in Table 1-1 of the DEJS represented higher than
suspected concentrations, in Chapter 3 of the DEIS, EPA presented a weighted average of
the sediment chemistry data within the MBDS boundary as well as data specific to particular
areas. This analysis was intended to summarize the range of concentrations of chemicals in
the sediments at the existing MBDS. Substantial variability in contamination levels exists
within the MBDS, as evidenced by the large standard deviations presented in Table 1-1 of
the DEIS. The statistical summary presented in Table 1-1 of the DEIS reported an average
PCB concentration of 0.25 parts per million with a standard deviation of 0.62 parts per
million. This correlates to a range of PCB concentrations from below the detection limit to
0.87 parts per million. Thus, the 0.414 parts per million value presented in the Executive
Summary on page V is well within the range presented in Table 1-1 of the DEIS. Although
it is possible for actual chemical concentration averages to be either higher or lower than the
weighted average, EPA does not believe that such extrapolations regarding average chemical
concentrations can be stated with certainty because of the significant variability of dredged
material previously disposed at the site (Chapter 1 of the DEIS). One possible explanation
for differences between the weighted average concentration and other sediment data is that
the sediment chemistry taken as part of site monitoring could have coincidentally been taken
in an area where dredged material with higher concentrations of contaminants than the
weighted average were disposed. EPA continues to believe that the sediment chemistry data
presented in the DEIS is reliable and EPA and the COE will continue to measure sediment
chemistry as part of on-going site monitoring.
In regard to the comment concerning analytical methods for PCB measurement in
sediment, EPA’s most recent analyses have identified specific PCB congeners (in addition to
Arochiors) as demonstrated in the 1989 data (Pruell, ii.), the May 1990 data (Foley, i
al.), and the 1991 data (Gardner, al.). EPA intends to continue to measure specific PCB
congeners in the future.
3.3.2.3 Sediment Toxics in Relation to Physical Characteristics
One commentor believed that comparison of sediment contamination within Broad
Sound and Massachusetts Bay should be performed in light of grain s ize and total organic
carbon ( TOC”), and that EPA had wrongly compared sites within Steliwagen Basin to
surrounding areas. The co’mmentor also indicated that high sediment TOC levels, which
occur naturally in settling basins, are beneficial because they reduce the potential for organic
contaminants to be accumulated in the lipids of marine organisms. Another commentor
requested that EPA discuss the differences in contamination levels between fine and coarse
grained sediments.
23
-------
EPA Response
EPA does not believe that it wrongly compared areas within Broad Sound and
Massachusetts Bay. The comparisons of sediment data between 1983 and 1987 presented in
Chapter 3 of the DEIS were not intended to indicate significant quantitative differences
between regions. The Broad Sound values were provided merely as a qualitative comparison
of background contaminant levels in another depositional area of Massachusetts Bay. EPA
believes this an appropriate comparative reference because Broad Sound is relatively close to
pollution sources in Boston Harbor and will therefore accumulate particles and associated
toxics.
EPA agrees, that as a general trend, higher TOC levels in sediments would likely be
found in settling basins where fine grained sediments tend to accumulate. However, past
disposal activities in small locallzed areas, rather than sediment grain size distribution,
account for the spatial differences in chemical concentration within the MBDS. If sediment
type were the main factor in explaining contaminant levels, sandy sediments would be
expected to contain lower contaminant levels, and fine grained sediments would be expected
to contain higher contaminant levels. However, sediments several kilometers from the
MBDS boundary (Stations “se” and FG-23) have similar fine-grained physical characteristics
to those near (Stations FG-9, 12-0, and MUD-REP) and within the boundary (Stations OFF
and 17-14) of the site and yet generally contain much lower contaminant levels. Thus,
sediment type does not appear to be the dominant factor in explaining the variation in
contaminant levels. Furthermore, one station with sandier sediment within the MBDS
boundary (Station 14-9) has one of the highest levels of contaminants of any station. EPA
agrees that, generally, fine grained sediments are more likely to contain contaminants than
coarser grained material. However, exceptions to this are not uncommon and in the example
provided above, this was clearly not the case.
The above assessment is certainly not a detailed examination of the relationship
between sediment type and contaminant levels. Nonetheless, given these observations, EPA
does not believe it is appropriate to undertake a detailed analysis of the relationship between
sediment types and contaminant levels because of the general non-uniformity of sediments in
the entire study area and the quality of the available data.
In relation to the comment concerning the relationship between TOC, contaminants,
and bioaccumulation potential, EPA agrees that high concentrations of TOC typically reduce
the bioaccumulation potential for organic contaminants. This is largely owing to the fact that
the distribution of nonpolar organics in the environment is controlled largely by their
solubility in various media. Organic contaminants in sediments tend to occur pnmarily in
association with organic matter, and in organisms are found primarily in the body lipids or
fats. Therefore, the tendency for bioaccumulation of nonpolar organic compounds from
dredged material is related to the organic content of the material, the lipid content of the
organism, and the relative affinities of the chemical for sediment TOC and animal lipid
content. By normalizing nonpolar organic chemical concentration data for lipid content in
24
-------
organisms and organic carbon in dredged material or reference sediment, it is possible to
estimate the preference of a chemical for either phase. Concentrations are directly
proportional to the lipid content of the organism and the contaminant content of the dredged
material or reference sediment, and indirectly proportional to the organic carbon content of
the dredged or reference sediment (EPA, 1991; Clarke fli., 1991; Brannon ., 1991).
In other words, typically a high TOC content in dredged material will lead to a lower
bioaccumulation potential. Similar relationships may exist between metals and acid volatile
sulfides.
3.3.2.4 Data Presentation and Interpretation
One commentor stated that the contour maps and scatterplots presented in Chapter 3
of the DEIS could be misleading in that they may have been used inappropriately to identify
a perceived difference between “clean” and “contaminated” areas. One commentor stated
that the use of parametric tests for the sediment chemistry data (Section 3.2.2.3 of the DEIS)
may have been inappropriate and that statistical correlation could be a function of high fines
rather than distance from the dumping point, and that the three kilometer affected area,
identified on the scatterplots, is more an artifact of analysis and station grouping than a true
reflection of environmental impacts. One commentor suggested that the sediment, water, and
body burden data in the DEIS should be discussed with some historical perspective.
EPA Response
In relation to the comment regarding the contour maps, as stated on pages 45 to 55 of
the DEJS, EPA presented the contour maps (pages 47 through 62 of the DEIS) in order to
illustrate “approximate contours. ‘ These maps were not proposed for scientific
interpretation, but to provide the reader with a conceptual representation of the chemical
contamination of sediments in the MBDS area. The intent of the contours was not to suggest
that a continuous linear gradient exists between sampling stations. Rather, the contour maps
were included simply to illustrate that differences in contaminant levels do exist, and that in
many cases (e.g., copper, zinc, lead) the highest concentrations of contaminants are found
within the MBDS boundary. EPA agrees that a more complete and uniform data set would
be required to properly illustrate exact linear gradients. However, in that they graphically
demonstrate that gross differences in contamination levels exist, the contour maps included in
the DEIS are informative and appropriate. Such information assisted EPA in determining
that the existing MBDS is a containment area.
The scatterplots presented in the DEIS between pages 64 and 80 were intended to
provide a graphic indication of the notable differences between sediment sampling stations.
In this context, EPA believes the scatterplots are illustrative and informative. The
scatterplots do not test statistical hypotheses, nor were they intended to do so. In fact, the
DEIS (on page 72) notes the “variance in data” and states that, “many of the individual
sampling stations cannot be effectively compared because stations with just one observation
have no variance.” Consequently, the DEIS was appropriate in indicating that in some cases
25
-------
apparent differences iii concentrations exist, while indicating that these differences were not
tested for statistical significance.
hi response to the comment regarding the use of parametric tests, parametric tests are
appropriately used on data sets with a normal or near-normal distribution, or with data sets
with large sample sizes to compare and interpret numerical data. Non-parametric tests are
appropriately applied to data sets which are not normally distributed, especially when these
data sets involve smaller sample sizes. Because non-parametric tests apply a hierarchical
ranking to individual values, they do not fully reflect the true dispersion of values about a
mean. Consequently, non-parametric tests do not properly weigh high and low outliers, and
thus do not accurately describe the extreme variation in the data. EPA believes that use of
parametric tests in the DEIS was appropriate because the data sets exhibited near-normal
distribution and were composed of large sample sizes.
EPA believes that a discussion of the sediment, water, and body burden data in light
of a historical perspective would likely detract from the analysis. EPA did not assess the
data from a historical perspective because of the lack of reliable documentation on disposal
dates and locations. Similarly, the time elapsed between deposition and sampling dates is not
well documented. Other factors, such as small spatial variability of sediment contamination
and the variability of currents and biological production, could also obscure analysis of any
historical trends. Given the non-uniformity of historical data, the lack of proper
documentation, and the small scale spatial variability, EPA believes that discussing the data
with a historical perspective would likely detract from the analysis.
3.3.2.5 Presence of PAils
One commentor objected to the statement on page 59 of the DEIS (paragraph
3.2.2.2.4.) that PAHs are ubiquitous in dredged material. The commentor stated that,
though common, PAHs are not necessarily ubiquitous in dredged material.
EPA Response
EPA concurs.
3.4 Impacts to Biota
3.4.1 Assessment of Dredged Material Disposal Impacts on Biota
Several commentors worried that dredged material disposal would have negative
impacts on the health of aquatic organisms including benthic (bottom dwelling) organisms,
endangered species, and commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish. Others
requested that EPA conduct additional studies on the biological effects of dredged material
disposal at MBDS, including toxicity, reduced reproductive potential, bioaccumulation, and
pathological alterations.
26
-------
EPA Response
EPA acknowledges that adverse environmental effects such as burial of fish eggs and
larvae on the dredged material mound and mortality of plankton in the immediate vicinity of
the dredged material plume may be occurring within the immediate area where initial mixing
occurs (Section 4.3.2 of the DEIS). However, such effects can and will be limited as
required by the existing statutes. The limited water quality effects, as described in Chapter 4
of the DEIS and in the response to comment number 3.3.1, are allowed under the existing
statutes and are considered to be acceptable adverse impacts. Through long-term monitoring
studies, EPA evaluates existing impacts which reflect cumulative use of the site for many
years. However, EPA is aware of the cumulative nature of persistent pollutants being placed
in the marine environment and continues to apply management controls on the disposal of
dredged materials based on the current level of understanding of chemical and biological
interactions in the marine environment and a commitment to protecting the health of that
environment. EPA believes that the monitoring studies conducted at the existing MBDS are
adequate to assess potential adverse biological effects resulting from dredged material
disposal (see also the response to comment number 3.9.1). As a result, EPA does not
believe that additional studies are needed for final site designation.
3.4.2 Effects of Overfishing
One commentor was concerned that EPA did not assess the effects caused by
overfishing of the area.
EPA Response
As discussed in the response to comment number 3.1, the purpose of EPA’s analysis
is to determine whether continued use of the MBDS is appropriate and to assess potential
effects caused by dredged material disposal in relation to the Ocean Dumping Criteria found
in 40 CFR Part 228. Overfishing in Massachusetts Bay is not a potential impact caused by
dredged material disposal. It is and will continue to be regulated by the New England
Fisheries Management Council.
EPA recognizes that Massachusetts Bay has been continuously overfished and that
more information regarding the relative abundance of the fish stocks over recent years is
needed. Additionally, EPA believes that an assessment of whether current regulations have
demonstrated an effectiveness in addressing any reductions in stock as a result of
concentrated fishing effort in this area is needed to evaluate the overall health of
Massachusetts Bay’s resources.
3.4.3 Assessment of Commercial Fisheries Impacts
Some commentors believed that EPA did not adequately address potential impacts to
commercial fisheries.
27
-------
EPA Response
EPA does not believe that dredged material disposal at MBDS significantly affects
commercial fisheries in Massachusetts. As discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS, the
percentage of the catch of commercial fishing vessels that is collected in the MBDS is
relatively small when compared to catch data in the surrounding area. In Section 3.4 of the
DEIS EPA estimated that the maximum potential catch value for all species caught in the
MBDS is about $21,320 per year. EPA believes that the value of fish harvested in the
MBDS relative to those caught in the remainder of Massachusetts Bay is insignificant. As a
result, even if there were impacts to commercial fisheries, they would not significantly
impact the economics of the fishing industry. Additionally, as discussed in the response to
comment number 3.6, many fishermen avoid the area because the scattered debris within the
site damages their equipment.
3.4.4 Cumulative Effects
Several corn mentors were concerned that EPA did not adequately assess the potential
for cumulative effects. In particular, some commentors were concerned that the potential for
synergistic or cumulative effects from the numerous constituents present in the dredged
material was not addressed.
EPA Response
EPA believes that synergistic effects caused by contaminants present in dredged
material are adequately assessed through the biological testing required prior to disposal and
conducted during site monitoring. Our current knowledge of chemical interactions in the
marine environment does not make it possible to deduce potential synergistic or cumulative
effects from sediment chemistry alone. Rather, bioassay tests are used to determine whether
dredged material disposal will cause an acute chemical interactive effect on the organism.
These bioassays, which involve exposing organisms to whole sediments and observing
effects, account for synergistic and cumulative effects, but do not identify the chemicals
which cause toxicity. Bioassays are most often used in conjunction with sediment chemistry
tests, which identify the levels of individual pollutants in the sediment.
Other cumulative effects, such as bioaccumulation, are also addressed through the
testing required under EPA and COE testing protocols. Bioaccumulation testing involves
exposing organisms to whole sediments and then determining the amount of any constituent
which has been taken into the tissue of the organism. Dredged material must not exhibit the
potential to cause cumulative effects, such as bioaccumulatioii. If the potential for significant
bioaccumulation of chemicals present in the dredged material is demonstrated through testing,
such dredged material is not allowed for unrestricted open water ocean disposal. Material
which does not meet these requirements is either not dredged, is disposed either upland or in
a contained area, or is allowed with certain management constraints imposed to minimize the
28
-------
potential for adverse impacts. Bioaccumulation is further addressed under the response to
comment numbers 3.5 and 3.9.1.2.
As discussed in Chapter 4 of the DEIS, cumulative effects resulting from continued
disposal over time include physical impacts such as burial and isolation. These effects
should be limited to burial of fish eggs and larvae on the dredged material mound and
mortality of the plankton in the immediate vicinity of the dredged material plume. Burial of
benthic fauna may limit food to potential predators. EPA believes that these effects are not a
significant cause for concern. Successive deposition over previous discharges tends to
maintain the pioneering stage of the benthos. Monitoring surveys conducted by the COE did
not detect a significant difference in the diversity of the infaunal community between the
MBDS and a reference area. Deployment of a taut line buoy and better control of the actual
disposal activities at this buoy will minimize the areal extent of impact. Toxic effects from
sediments are also discussed in the response to comment number 3.3.2.
3.4.5 Fishing Bans
One commentor believed that there should be an enforced ban on fishing activities in
the MBDS area. A few commentors requested that EPA discuss any shellfish closures near
the MBDS.
EPA Response
In 1971, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued a “Notice to Harvesters”
which warned that shellfish and other bottom harvested marine animals from the MBDS
could be contaminated from wastes dumped in the Industrial Waste Site (“IWS”), an area one
nautical mile westward of the existing MBDS. FDA did not explicitly state the rationale for
the closure, namely whether actual chemical contamination of biota or sediments was found,
or whether simply the presence of barrels of waste at the adjacent 1WS was sufficient
justification. In 1980 the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) closed the IWS to
harvesting surf clams and ocean quahogs because of possible environmental degradation. As
discussed in the DEIS, most fishermen avoid the MBDS because of the possibility of fouling
or damaging their equipment.
Responsibility for imposing and enforcing fishing bans in federal waters is the
responsibility of the N1 4PS. Future monitoring conducted by the COE and EPA will assist
the NMFS in determining whether any adverse ecological or public health effects resulting
from dredged material disposal have occurred (see also the responses to comment numbers
3.6 and 3.9.1). To date, however, no adverse effects as a result of dredged material disposal
at the MBDS have been demonstrated.
29
-------
3.4.6 Locations of Breeding and Spawning Areas
One commentor was concerned that EPA did not present any information pertaining
to spawning or breeding areas.
EPA Response
EPA believes that location in relation to spawning or breeding areas has been
adequately addressed in the DEIS and the SDEIS. Spawning and nursery grounds are
discussed in Chapter 3 (pages 114 to 117) of the DEIS and on pages 12 to 16 of the SDEIS,
and illustrated on page 5 of the SDEIS.
3.5 Bioaccumulation in Biota
3.5.1 Assessment of Tissue Levels
Many commentors were concerned that there may be bioaccumulation of toxics
occurring at MBDS as a result of past disposal events. A few commentors were concerned
that the elevated levels of PCBs in the tissues of the benthic infaunal polychaete worm,
Nephsys incisa, as presented in Table 3-18 on page 92 of the DES, may cause potential
impacts to the food web and fisheries. One commentor charged that through transfer of
contaminants through the food chain, the MBDS may be contaminating a significant amount
of the commercial fish population in Massachusetts Bay. One commentor charged that EPA
did not adequately assess juvenile use of MBDS and was concerned that young fish would be
preying on small polychaete worms in contaminated sediments. One commentor charged that
EPA wrongly assessed tissue levels by limiting its analyses of benthic infaunal body burden
solely to Nephiys incisá. A few commentors requested that EPA collect data on small
polychaetes and oligochaetes. One commentor requested that EPA explain the extent of our
current knowledge about bioaccumulation, discuss any gaps in our knowledge and how they
affect our decision-making, identify plans for future monitonng, and specify how EPA would
respond if clear evidence of bioaccumulation in fish at the MBDS was found.
EPA Response
EPA believes that potential bioaccumulation effects resulting from dredged matenal
disposal at the MBDS were adequately assessed in the DES. Chemical analysis of benthic
body burden (Chapter 3 of the DES), comparison with EPA’s marine water quality criteria
(Chapter 3 of the DEIS), and the dredged material testing protocol (Section 5.3 of the DES
and Section 3.9.1.2 of this document) were used to assess bioaccumulation at the MBDS.
Also, as discussed further in the responses to comment numbers 3.6 and 3.9.1, in 1991 EPA
analyzed the livers and edible portions of several commercially harvested species at the
MBDS. EPA concluded that no significant unacceptable adverse impacts, including
bioaccumulation of toxics, resulting from dredged material disposal at the MBDS have
occurred.
30
-------
Regarding the comment which questioned the appropriateness of Nephtys incisa for
analyzing potential for bioaccumulation in the food web, EPA consulted with Dr. Anne
McElroy of the University of Massachusetts, an expert in aquatic toxicology and
bioaccumulation, who assured EPA that the benthic infaunal polychaete worm, Nephtys
incisa, is a suitable species to use and is characteristic of lower trophic level species within
Massachusetts Bay (pers. comm., November 1989). Jn addition, Nep/uys incisa is the only
worm that can be easily collected in large enough quantities at the MBDS for chemical
analysis. In other words, Nephtys incisa represents the majority of the polychaete biomass in
the MBDS vicinity. Although the Benthic Resources Assessment Technique study
determined that small short-lived pioneering polychaete worms, such as spionids, would
dominate the disposal mound benthic community between disposal events (Lunz, 1986),
spionids are so small in size and in number that they are much more difficult to separate and
analyze than Nephrys incisa. Many bottom-dwelling fish species, including Witch flounder,
Winter flounder, and American plaice prey upon benthic infaunal polychaete worms,
including Nephzys incisa. Additionally, the existing historical database of body burden levels
in Nephiys incLca enables EPA and the COE to assess long-term trends at the site. As
discussed in the response to comment number 3.9.1, testing the body burden of all of the
worms collected together to determine the total amount of contaminants available to
organisms which prey on benthic infaunal worms is among some of the future monitoring
activities considered for the MBDS.
In response to the comment concerning the elevated concentrations of PCBs in
polychaete worms reported in Chapter 3 of the DEIS, EPA believes that while elevated tissue
levels of PCBs were found in one sample of Nephzys incisa taken on dredged material inside
the existing MBDS, a statistical difference between dredged and reference materials cannot
be supported with the existing data. Since the single analysis cited by the commentor
exhibited an unusually high concentration of PCBs, EPA believes that that particular sample
is an outlier. Since all of the other samples were several orders of magnitude lower than the
sample cited by the commentor, it is possible that the unusually high value reported could be
attributed to an error in the laboratory procedures rather than actual contamination of the
tissue. No chronic or acute effects owing to sediment toxic accumulation at the MBDS have
been documented.
When a compound is present in the water column or sediments, an organism may
accumulate the compound to some degree by either absorption or ingestion. If the
contaminant is available to the organism in high concentrations, significant bioaccumulauon
may occur and may impair some essential life process (e.g., respiration or reproduction) or
cause mortality. Fisheries and other biological resources are exposed to contaminants
through three primary routes of exposure: 1) through the water column, 2) by sediment
contact, and 3) by consumption of contaminated prey.
Bioaccumulation consists of the u take of toxic substances from both water (via the
g s or epithelial tissue) an (detritu p y, plant tissue)(Bruirgsañ i Mount, 1978).
The dë r e f accumulation in aquatic organisms_varies dependinjon iiföo bTthe
- —- —
31
-------
availability and persistence of the contaminants in the environment, and the physicochemical
5röë es of the contaminant (Spade and Hamelink, 1984). Unde idinöf1h
very complex processes through experimental work and
simplistic theoretical models is still in its development stages and is an on-going process. A
number of studies (Bertine and Goldberg, 1972; Brannon ., 1976; Luoma, 1977;
Turekian, 1977; Neff t i., 1978; Peddicord and McFarland, 1978) have concluded that the
bulk concentrations (dry weight) of toxicants in sediments are often unrelated to how much a
toxicant will be bioaccumulated by an organism or if it will c is toxicity. Weight, age, and
sex areamoiig the pa meters that can influence the likelihood of bióa èumulation effects.
Cbmp1ete unders andin f1hepfi eiioiiieiiciii
limited. EPA believes that it is beyond the scope of this document to survey the current state
of knowledge concerning this subject. There are, however, a number of reviews and studies
available in the literature which describe various aspects of our current state of knowledge,
many of which are referenced in this FEIS. The following list of references represents only
a small fraction of the existing literature: Battelle, 1988; Bertine ., 1972; Boon, 1985;
Boon et ., 1987; Boon, 1988; Brannon i., 1976; Brannon, 1978; Breteler j.., 1985;
Brungs a !., 1978; Bryan, 1985; Chiou, 1985; Dillon, 1984; Dillon ., 1985; Dillon i,
fli., 1990; DiToro n al., 1990; Duinlcer al., 1989; Ernst l., 1977; George, 1982;
Gentile al., 1988; Gibson i., 1989; Goerke flj., 1977; Goerke et al., 1990; Gossett
., 1983; Harding al., 1986; Harvey ., 1974; Hawker l., 1985; Hutzinger
flj., 1972; James, 1989; Karickhoff, 1984; Karickhoff al., 1986; Kay, 1984; Lake et al.,
1987; Lake ., 1986; Lake flj., 1990; Landrum, 1989; Lee ., 1989; Livingston,
1985; Luoma, 1977; Luoma, 1989; Mackay g .t flj .., 1981; McElroy al., 1988; McFarland,
1984; McFarland j . ., 1986; McFarland al., 1989; Neff al., 1978; O’Connor et L,
1982; O’Conner aL, 1987; O’Donnell i al., 1985; Peddicord al., 1978; Pruefl al.,
1986; Reuber flj .., 1987; Rice ., 1987; Roesijadi i., 1977; Rubenstein j., 1988;
Rubenstein ., 1984; Schneider, 1982; Snedecor flj .., 1980; Spacie J .., 1982; Spacie
et al., 1984; Swartz i., 1980; Turekian, 1977; Tanabe g. al., 1988; Tavolaro, 1984; and
Wallace etal., 1982.
The bioavailability of contaminants in sediment is critical to our understanding of
bioaccumulation. Bioavailability depends upon a number of factors including the type of
contaminant, physicochemical properties of the sediment and overlying water column, the
hydrodynamic environment at the disposal site, the characteristics of the organism exposed to
the sediments, and the organisms place in the food web. The number of vanables that
influence each factor can be quite large. Recent theories, which are based on thermodynamic
principles, have emerged to explain the concept of bioavailability. Equilibrium partitioning,
or the dissociation of a contaminant from the sediment, is based on the behavior of chemicals
in different media (Karickhoff, 1984; Reuber flj .., 1987) and is the basis for the sediment
quality criteria currently being developed by EPA (EPA, 1989). As discussed in more detail
in the response to comment number 3.3.2.3, the bioaccumulation potential of an organic
contaminant can be predicted by norimilizing the contaminant concentration to the lipid
concentration of an organism and the total organic carbon content of the sediment (Makay
and Patterson, 1981; McFarland, 1984; McFarland and Clarke, 1986; Karickhoff and
32
-------
Morris, 1986; Lake i., 1986). By and large, there are many assumptions and unknowns
with this approach. Until we can better understand, quantify and field test these approaches,
we must rely on standard laboratory bioaccumulation tests, which employ empirical evidence
rather than predictive tools, to assess bioaccumulation potential for regulatory purposes.
As discussed in Section 5.3 of the DEIS, the bioaccumulation test currently used is
designed to determine whether a sediment proposed for disposal contains contaminants that
may be bioavailable to biota around the disposal site (EPA/COE, 1978, 1989, and 1991; Lee
fli., 1989). The test is performed by exposing representative deposit-feeding and/or
burrowing animals to the sediments to be dredged and to reference sediment. After a
twenty-eight day exposure period, the body burdens of the test and the reference organisms
are statistically compared to determine “incremental” bioaccumulation. Based on the
statistical significance, number, and type of contaminants accumulated, a suitability
determination for ocean disposal is made from the bioaccum’ulation tests and the companion
toxicity tests (EPA/COE, 1991). Past criticisms of the bioaccumulation test relate to the
accuracy with which potential effects can be assessed. Some of these criticisms include, i)
the adequacy of laboratory tests in providing an assessment of ii i . ifli impacts, ii) the species
used in the bioaccumulation test do not reside in the disposal site and may not be
representative of the disposal site biota, lii) the length of the test may not represent steady
state conditions found in the environment, and iv) biomagnification is not considered. These
criticisms are discussed below.
In the 1980s, EPA and the COE jointly initiated a multi-million dollar research
program, in part to address whether laboratory tests accurately represent iii conditions.
This program, called the Field Verification Program (“FVP”) (Gentile ii., 1988), included
studies of the environmental effects of a contaminated disposal mound in Long Island Sound
and a comparison of those effects to the effects predicted by several laboratory tests. These
studies determined that the laboratory tests used by EPA and the COE can be used to predict
bioaccumulation of PCBs and PAHs in field exposed organisms (Lake ei al., 1987). PCBs
were the most consistent of the laboratory and field exposures, while PAHs exhibited lesser
consistency. The FVP has also recently indicated that laboratory acute toxicity and
bioaccumulation signals are reflective of field conditions at the disposal site.
Regarding the appropriateness of the test species, EPA believes that it would be
impractical to test every type of organism at the disposal site as part of a regulatory program.
Collecting and testing organisms in environments similar to the disposal site is preferred. To
date, a suitable species to use in the laboratory has not been discovered at the disposal site in
sufficient quantities. Species which live, burrow, breathe, and ingest surface sediments
typically represent a worst case bioaccumulation of available contaminants. As discussed in
Chapter 5 of the DEIS, the species currently used include the polychaete, Nereis virens, nd
the deposit-feeding bivalve, Macoma nasuta, a west coast species. EPA requires Macoina
nasura, in lieu of its east coast cousin Macoma baithica, because Macoma baithica cannot be
collected in sufficient quantities. EPA is currently trying to determine the efficacy of using
Macoina nasuta or discover an alternative species. Until this effort is completed, Macoma
33
-------
naswa will be the preferred organism to use in the biological tests. Prior to implementation
of the regional testing manual and the revised Green Book (EPA/COE, 1991), the bivalve,
Mercenaria mercenaria, was used. Since this organism periodically shuts down (i.e., stops
filter-feeding) when exposed to contaminated sediments and therefore will not represent
worst-case bioaccumulation rates, it is no longer the preferred species (Lee L, 1989;
Norm Rubenstein, pers. comm.). EPA believes that use of Macoma nasuta provides a
worst-case bioaccumulation rate and is an environmentally conservative approach for
protecting other organisms at the site.
Recent testing by EPA’s Environmental Research Laboratory in Narragansett, RI has
indicated that the steady state values of bioaccumulation in laboratory animals may require
exposures as long as a hundred days or more (Norm Rubenstein, pers. comm.). From a
timing and cost perspective, this would not be practical to use in a regulatory program. Lee
. (1989) found that in most cases, the twenty-eight day test now implemented
(EPAICOE, 1991) generally results in tissue residues Within eighty percent of the steady state
residue level. When steady state is not approached within the twenty-eight days, tissue levels
for organisms usually were within two to four times that of steady state concentrations.
This, as Lee i. (1989) disclose, is consistent with the American Society for Testing and
Materials bioconcentration test. A critical element to the regulatory decision-making is
whether there is a definitive bioaccumulation signal, such as an elevated body burden, which
can be statistically compared to a reference. Steady-state values are not necessary for this
type of analysis unless they are to be compared to field body burdens.
EPA and the COE have developed procedures to perform both laboratory and field
steady-state body burdens beyond the twenty-eight day test (EPA/COE, 1991) in Tier IV of
the testing protocol. To date, however, Tier IV laboratory tests have not been required. For
the Tier IV Test to be useful, an adequate data base of background concentrations for the
same species is required for comparison. The only tissue standards currently available are
the FDA action levels for a limited number of organic compounds and mercury. Studies
relating health effects to the body burden are very limited (Dillon, 1984; Dillon and Gibson,
1985, 1989, and 1990). Although many marine animals, birds, and humans have
detoxification mechanisms which can reduce or sometimes enhance a toxic effect of
bioaccumulation (James, 1989; George, 1981; Harding and Addison, 1986; Livingston,
1985), such mechanisms are not well understood. Until such information is sufficient to be
used in a regulatory program, EPA must take an environmentally conservative approach.
Biomagnification is the result of the process of bioconcentration and bioaccumulation
by which tissue concentrations of bioaccumulated chemicals increase as the chemical is
transferred through two or more trophic levels. The term implies an efficient transfer of
chemical from food to consumer, so that residue concentrations increase systematically from
one trophic level to another. The biomagnification potential increases with increasing trophic
levels (Brungs and Mount, 1978). Because a reliable means for conducting biomagnification
assessments is currently not known (Kay, 1985), EPA relies upon environmentally
conservative tests to prevent biomagnification. As discussed further in the response to
34
-------
comment number 3.9.2, EPA believes that the combination of stringent dredged material
testing protocols, site monitoring, requirements for a thorough alternatives analysis,
relocation of the reference site, and other programs will ensure that adverse environmental
impacts, such as significant bioaccumulation, are prevented.
Th 4 ffi of dredged material for ocean disposal is dependant upon a balancing
of many to the
rna i o iiiieiit or to human health do not occur. The suitability determination for a
dredged material proposal for ocean disposal is made in light of environmental protection and
can app oipplicated to those unfamiliar with the process. Many factors , including but not
l1iñited the number of lllcibioaccumuiatióii s tistica1ly greater, the
number of contaminants for which bioaccumulation is statistically greater, the magnitude by
which bioaccumulation from the dredged material exceeds that from the reference material,
and the toxicological importance of the contaminants which were bioaccumulated in
statistically significant quantities, are considered when assessing the suitabili yofaparticular
dredged material f . Ad onally, the selection of materials suitable for
ii li saIirbased on a complex analysis of sediment type, historical actions and
activities in the area surrounding the dredge site, the size of the project, and the pollutant
levels in the sediments to be dredged. Site monitoring and risk assessments are also among
the tools used to evaluate potential effects from dredged material disposal. If found to be
necessary, several mitigation measures could be imposed, including limitations on the
concentration of a particular contaminant in dredged material proposed for disposal or taking
the material to a containment site for contaminated dredged material. If statistically
significant bioaccumulation over reference sediment was exhibited and was determined to
cause unacceptable adverse impacts at the proposed MBDS, EPA would not allow that
dredged material to be disposed at the site. As evidenced by several comment letters,
including those for the Gloucester State Fish Pier, Coastal Oil, the Central Artery/Third
Harbor Tunnel project, and Boston Harbor (see Appendix B), EPA remains committed to
ensuring that disposal of dredged material at the proposed MBDS will not endanger marine
resources or human health.
3.5.2 Adequacy of Data
Several commentors believed that the data collected to assess the potential for
bioaccumulation of chemicals in biota was inadequate. The commentors stated that PCBs
and PAHs in fish samples, including the flesh, organs, and bile, should be analyzed. One
commentor criticized EPA for not including data on bioaccumulation in phytoplankton,
zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton. A few commentors charged that the bioaccumulation data
presented in the DEIS was difficult to interpret because not all parameters were sampled on
the same date.
35
-------
EPA Response
EPA presented body burden data for bivalves, polychaete worms, shrimp, and
scallops collected in the MBDS vicinity on pages 83 through 93 of the DEIS. In Chapter 4
of the DEIS, EPA analyzed mortality from physical stress and sublethal effects caused by
dredged material disposal on benthic invertebrates, plankton, and fish inhabiting the MBDS.
Additionally, the potential to bioaccumulate chemicals is routinely assessed by application of
the national and regional dredged material testing protocols for regulatory review of
individual projects proposed for ocean disposal (Chapter 5 of the DEIS and Section 3.5.1 of
this document). Also, as part of ongoing site monitoring and management, EPA has
conducted further analyses of bioaccuinulation potential in marine species at the MBDS (for
details, see the response to comment number 3.9.1).
In 1991, EPA collected chemical and histopathological data from fish, lobster, clams,
and scallops caught at the MBDS. EPA uses this information to assess the health of these
organisms and to determine if any chemicals have been bioaccumulated in their tissue. As
discussed further under the response to comment number 3.6, the results of a public health
risk assessment did not indicate any unacceptable risks of developing either cancer or non-
cancer effects from the consumption of seafood harvested from the MBDS. EPA believes
that this data aids in demonstrating that substantial bioaccumulation is not occurring as a
result of dredged material disposal at the MBDS.
EPA believes that effects caused by dredged material disposal on plankton were
adequately assessed in Section 4.3.1 of the DEIS. EPA concluded that mortality from the
physical processes and toxics associated with dredged material disposal may occur to a minor
extent, but will not have a significant impact on the Massachusetts Bay plankton community.
Significant impacts to plankton are not anticipated because of the small area of Massachusetts
Bay affected by dredged material disposal.
EPA agrees that all of the data used in its analyses are not necessarily directly
comparable. EPA presented all available data in order to disclose the environmental effects
of previous ocean disposal at the MBDS and to evaluate the potential consequences of the
proposed ocean disposal site designation. EPA maintains that the data presented in the DEIS
and the SDEIS are sufficient to assess compliance with the site selection criteria at 40 CFR
§ 228.5 and 228.6.
3.5.3 Assessment of Bloaccumulation in Protected Species
One commentor stated that EPA underestimated the use of the MBDS by whales and
failed to examine the impacts of bioaccumulation of pollutants on whales. One commentor
suggested that EPA examine lipid samples (collected by biopsy) of whales to assess
bioaccumulation and health risk. A few commentors charged that bioaccumulation of
contaminants in protected species may reduce reproduction or increase mortalities.
36
-------
EPA Response
In the summer of 1991, EPA analyzed blubber biopsy samples of Humpback whales
in New England waters for organic constituents. Preliminary results show the presence of
certain organic chemicals such as PCBs, DDT series, and chlordanes (Dr. Mona Haebler,
pers. comm., December 1991). The biological significance of the presence of these
compounds is currently unknown. While some chemicals were detected, it is difficult to
state with certainty where or how the whales were exposed to these chemicals. Cause and
effect relationships are virtually impossible to determine for many endangered species for
several reasons, including the large number of contaminant sources (some unregulated) into
the large habitat area used by the species over its lifetime. Clearly, much more research is
necessary to try to determine where and how these whales were exposed.
Additionally, EPA attempted to collect sand lance, a common forage of Humpback
and Finback whales, in Massachusetts Bay in May and July of 1991 to assess the potential
for trophic level transfer through the food web. These collection efforts were unsuccessful.
EPA believes that this is because sand lance prefer sandy habitats and the MBDS consists
largely of finer grained sediments. EPA is committed to continuing marine mammal
research. Future studies will attempt to improve our understanding of routes of exposure and
biological effects of chemical contaminants in these and other species of endangered whales.
As discussed in detail in the response to comment number 3.10, EPA believes that by
coordinating with the appropriate federal agencies concerning threatened or endangered
species, it has appropriately complied with requirements of the Endangered Species Act, the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. Both the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have determined that
designation of the MBDS will not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or
threatened species, their prey, or their critical habitat.
3.5.4 PCB Metabolism
One commentor suggested that the statement on page 200 of the DEIS that PCB’s are
metabolized is incorrect, although true for PAHs.
EPA Response
EPA checked the scientific literature and with Dr. Richard Pruell of EPA’s
Environmental Research Laboratory in Narragansett, RI, and has determined that PCBs are
indeed metabolized. The following references lend support to this view: Boon, 1985; Boon
4., 1987; Boon, 1988; O’Conner 4., 1987; Elskus 4., 1989; Goerke 4., 1977;
Ernst 4., 1977; Goerke 4., 1990; Duinker 4., 1989; Hutzinger 4., 1972; and
Tanabe 4., 1988.
37
-------
3.6 Potential for Public Health ImDacts
Many commentors were concerned that insufficient data was collected for
commercially important fish species and no human health risk assessment was conducted on
consumption of these fish. Several commentors requested that EPA analyze the edible tissue
of such fish. Several commentors were concerned that EPA did not adequately assess
potential human health risks. Many commentors were concerned about the presence of toxic
chemicals in dredged material and their potential impacts on public health. Many
commentors stated that exposure to historically contaminated sediments may be hazardous to
public health and that capping of these sediments may be needed.
EPA Response
In preparation for this FEIS, EPA evaluated potential human health risks associated
with consumption of seafood from the MBDS. EPA concluded that dredged material
disposal at the MBDS will not cause significant adverse impacts to public health. EPA’s
health risk assessment did not indicate any unacceptable risks of developing cancer or non-
cancer effects by eating seafood harvested from the MBDS. The methods and results of
EPA’s health risk assessment are discussed below.
Risk assessment is a tool used to determine the magnitude and probability of potential
harm to human health by exposure to toxic substances. It is based on scientific information
combined with certain assumptions, and can be an effective tool for providing estimates of
potential health risks from various sources, including consumption of seafood containing
toxic contaminants. There are several different approaches to assessing potential health risks
associated with fish consumption. Two of these methods include comparison of fish tissue
contaminant levels to regulatory guidelines such as U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(“FDA”) Action Levels and application of risk assessment methodology to the site-specific
fish tissue contaminant loads. Additionally, the dredged material testing protocol, as
discussed in the response to comment number 3.9.1.2, addresses tl potential to
bioaccumulate contaminants. Such information could be used to predict trophic transfer and
biomagnification. All of these approaches have a nsk assessment component, and EPA used
all of these approaches to evaluate potential risks associated with consumption of fish
harvested from the MBDS.
Risk assessments are typically used to help make regulatory risk management
decisions concerning the appropriate course of action to protect human health. Such risk
management concerns led to the development of regulatory guidelines, including FDA action
levels, which were derived using risk assessment.
In a risk assessment, the chemicals of concern are identified, the rate of exposure to
populations of concern are estimated, the potential toxicological responses to various doses of
the chemicals are determined, and the potential risks of adverse health effects based on dose-
38
-------
response data and exposure data are estimated. The resulting numbers represent a potential
upper-bound likelihood of adverse health effects.
Cancer risks are expressed in terms of predicted additional cases of cancer in an
exposed population over a lifetime. For example, 2.7 additional cancer cases in 100,000
individuals would be expressed as 2.7 x l0 . Various EPA regulatory programs define
acceptable risk differently, with levels of acceptable risk ranging from a level of risk of 1 in
10,000 (10 ) to the extremely protective level of 1 in 10,000,000 (l0 ). Determination of an
acceptable risk is a risk management decision to be made by the responsible regulatory
agency (e.g., a state health department or FDA).
Non-carcinogens are assumed to have a threshold below which health effects are not
initiated. This threshold, or reference dose, is the estimated highest average daily exposure
to humans over a lifetime unlikely to cause adverse health effects. Because the reference
dose reflects the acceptable dose below which no adverse health effects would be expected,
any observed dose below the reference dose would be considered acceptable. By comparing
the reference dose to the dose from a particular area, a Hazard Ratio can be calculated. If
the Hazard Ratio is less than one, the dose is considered safe. If the Hazard Ratio is one or
greater, then adverse health effects may be likely, with the likelihood increasing as the
Hazard Ratio increases. No non-cancer risks from eating seafood harvested from the MBDS
were identified, as all hazard ratios were well below one.
Fish may accumulate toxic chemicals in their tissues through several routes of
exposure to contaminants, including absorption through the water column, sediment contact,
or by consumption of contaminated prey. EPA presented sediment chemistry and benthic
body burden data from the MBDS in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. Additionally, in 1991, EPA
collected lobsters, clams, scallops, and bottomfish. EPA analyzed the edible tissues of these
organisms for organic chemicals, pesticides, and metals. The results of these analyses are
summarized in Table 3.6-1 (see Appendix D for raw data).
In evaluating the likelihood of health risks associated with eating fish caught from the
MBDS, EPA first compared the measured tissue levels with regulatory guidelines established
by the FDA. The FDA is responsible for establishing and enforcing safe levels (action levels
and tolerances) for contaminants in fish and shellfish in interstate commerce. Al] tissue
concentrations from the organisms collected at the MBDS were well below the FDA action
levels and tolerance limits (see Table 3.6-2). A limitation to this approach is that only a few
FDA levels exist. Consequently, action levels for many chemicals of concern, such as
metals and PAHs, are not available. Also, the FDA levels are based on national
consumption rates and may not representative of risks in coastal areas like New England
where consumption rates may be higher than the national average.
The second and most reliable approach, owing to the site-specific nature of the
methodology, is the risk assessment approach. The risk assessment procedure for seafood
consumption consists of determining the dose of a chemical that a human would be exposed
39
-------
TABLE 3.6-1: SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANT LEVELS IN MBDS SEAFOOD
(Edible muscle tissue only; Concentrations expressed in parts per billion dry weight)
American
plaice’
Winter
flounder 2
Lobster2
Scallops 2
Quahog 3
Cadmium
12
27
55
2120
3460
Copper
1580
1070
106900
3550
48600
Chromium
350
140
290
7040
1260
Nickel
120
570
467
660
28200
Zinc
26000
26800
151000
65830
236000
Lead
100
110
160
330
5800
Manganese
760
1470
5880
2590
15300
Sum of the
measured PCBs
122.89
82.51
49.76
43.29
66.63
Sum of the
measured PAils
15.20
10.6
66.99
219.11
279.18
p,p’-DDT
1.17
0.97
0.28
BDL
0.98
p,p’-DDD
3.36
2.67
1.07
0.78
8.42
p,p’-DDE
14.82
9.32
7.93
4.76
6.82
Mirex
0.23
0.24
0.16
0.13
BDL
Trans-nonachlor
3.09
2.83
1.11
1.22
1.82
Hexachloro-
benzene
0.63
0.69
0.79
0.35
1.68
Lindane
0.17
0.18
0.05
0.09
2.45
a-Chlordane
1.71
1.38
0.63
0.57
2.38
BDL = Below detection limit
‘Average concentration of 3 samples; 2 Average concentration of 9 samples; 3 Only 1
sample analyzed (Metals concentrations reported for whole organism)
Source: Gardner et ., 1991
40
-------
TABLE 3.6-2: COMPARISON OF CONTAMINANT LEVELS TO FDA LEVELS
(Edible muscle tissue only; Concentrations expressed in parts per million wet weight)
American
plaice’
Winter
flounder 2
Lobst&
Scallops 2
Quahog 3
FDA
Action
Level
Sum of the
measured PCBs
0.0241
0.0179
0.0102
0.00853
0.00773
2.0
p,p’-DDT
0.00023
0.00021
0.000057
BDL
0.00011
5.0
p,p’-DDD
0.00066
0.00058
0.00022
0.00015
0.00098
5.0
p,p’-DDE
0.00291
0.00202
0.00162
0.00094
0.00079
5.0
Mirex
0.000045
0.000052
0.000033
0.000026
BDL
0.10
BDL = Below detection limit
‘Average concentration of 3 samples; 2 Average concentration of 9 samples; 3 Only 1
sample analyzed (Metals concentrations reported for whole organism); 4 FDA
Tolerance level
Source: Gardner al., 1991
41
-------
to during a lifetime, based on a certain consumption rate of seafood with observed tissue
levels, and predicting the likelihood of adverse health effects from this dose, based on EPA
toxicity values. EPA has developed guidelines for performing risk assessments and has
issued a guidance manual entitled Assessing Human Health Risks from Chemically
Contaminated Fish and Shellfish (USEPA, 1989). Risk estimates for the consumption of
seafood harvested from the MBDS were developed using this methodology.
EPA used the tissue concentration data collected in 1991 in its risk assessment
calculations (See Appendix D). Estimates of potential risks were made for the “avenge”
New England consumer for each species. EPA assumed that the average consumer ate about
three meals per month of a variety of seafood, only a small portion of which may come from
the MBDS. The meal size used, 150 grams (about 113 of a pound), was based on TJSEPA
(1989). It should be noted that for the avenge consumer, surveys indicate that canned tuna
accounts for most of the seafood eaten. Also, any potential health effects associated with
consumption of seafood from the MBDS are decreased because commercially harvested
organisms from the area are mixed in the marketplace with other organisms from coastal and
offshore areas. Therefore, for this risk assessment, the avenge consumer was assumed to
eat an avenge of one gram per day of seafood harvested from the MBDS. This consumption
rate is consistent with the consumption rate used for both the Quincy Bay and Narragansett
Bay studies for an avenge consumer. EPA found that increasing the consumption rate by a
factor of 100 did not result in increased cancer risks above the acceptable range.
Although these avenge consumer estimates arc typical values for a coastal population,
they are probably quite high for the M.BDS, since there is little recreational or commercial
fishing in the area. In 1971, the FDA issued a warning advising sheilhishermen to avoid the
MBDS because of potential contamination from toxic and low-level radioactive waste
disposed in the vicinity. Also, in 1980 the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”)
closed the adjacent Industrial Waste Site (“IWS”) to harvesting surf clams and ocean
quahogs. Additionally, on June 9, 1992 the FDA and the NMFS have requested that the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration place an informational “note” on
Massachusetts Bay nautical charts advising fishermen against harvesting fish and shellfish
because of possible contamination in the IWS. Moreover, since the seafloor at the MBDS is
uneven and scattered with debris and sunken vessels, many fishermen avoid the area because
their equipment is easily damaged. Trawling at the MBDS is difficult and many trawl nets
were either damaged extensively or lost during all of EPA’s trawling efforts at the MBDS.
Furthermore, any fish caught in the MBDS area are not necessarily resident because of the
movement of most fish and the protracted length of commercial traw ls. Generally, human
health risks are a concern when a particular population are at a sigmficantly higher risk (e.g.,
recreational fishermen that catch and eat large quantities of one species from a certain area).
There is no such population near the MBDS that would be exposed to contaminated fish on a
regular basis.
Based on EPA ’s estimates for MEDS bottomfish, some general trends within the data
can be identified. First, tissue levels can be compared to fish tissue levels collected from
42
-------
other areas in New England. MBDS tissue levels were only slightly higher than those
collected at George’s Bank and were substantially lower than those collected front Quincy
Bay (See Appendix D).
EPA’s risk calculations for both cancer and non-cancer risk generally indicate that the
risk associated with the consumption of seafood harvested from the MBDS is within the
acceptable range. The data used in EPA’s analysis is presented in Table 3.6-1 and the
cancer and non-cancer risk results are presented in Tables 3.6-3 and 3.6-4, respectively. The
standard assumptions that were made include: i) exposure over a 70 year lifetime, ii)
average human body weight of 70 kilograms, and iii) 100% of all of the chemicals ingested
are absorbed. Also, for PARs, EPA applied the carcinogenicity potency factor for
benzo(a)pyrene, the most potent PAR compound, to total PARs. All cancer risk levels
calculated are within the acceptable range of i0 to iO discussed above. For the cancer
risks, the highest risk calculated, 7.091 x 10 , was from PARs in scallop muscle.
Generally, cancer risks are added, and the highest total cancer risk was 8.038 x i0 , which
was from scallops. No non-cancer risks from eating seafood harvested at the MBDS were
detected.
One factor which makes it difficult to assess risk for fish from any area in the open
ocean such as the MBDS is the motility of the fish. Since fish move around it is difficult to
be certain where any contaminant exposure occurred, much less that all exposure came from
a limited area such as the MBDS. According to a report entitled Sources and Loadings of
Pollutants to the Massachusetts Bays , dredged material represents approximately 1 % of the
direct contaminant loadings of both PCBs and PARs to all of Massachusetts Bays (Menzie-
Cura, 1992). EPA therefore believes that the organisms exhibiting PCBs and PAHs in their
tissues could have been exposed to sources of PCBs and PARs other than dredged material.
EPA has concluded that the human health risks associated with consumption of
seafood harvested from the MBDS are minimal and no immediate additional risk management
actions beyond the on-going dredged material management actions described in Chapter 5 of
the DEIS and in Chapter 4 of this FEIS are deemed necessary. Additionally, concentrations
of PCBs and PAHs in MBDS fish were much lower than fish from several urban and coastal
areas, including Boston Haibor, Quincy Bay, New Bedford Harbor, Buzzards Bay, and
Narragansett Bay. In particular, tissue concentrations of species collected from the MBDS
were substantially lower than those collected in Quincy Bay and Narragansett Bay, yet EPA
concluded that it is acceptable to eat fish harvested from these bays (USEPA, 1988; USEPA,
1991). EPA and the COE will continue to check tissue levels of manne resources as part of
the regular management of the MBDS to ensure that the marine ecosystem and public health
are not endangered.
43
-------
TABLE 3.6-3: CANCER RISKS FROM EATING MBDS SEAFOOD
American
plaice
Winter
flounder
Lobster
Scallops
Quahog
Sum of the
measured
PCBs
2.650 x 10
1.970 x 10
1.117 x 10
9.381 x i0
8.502 x iO
Sum of the
measured
PAils
4.894 x i0
3.779 x i0’
2.245 x 10
7.091 x 10
5.320 x 10
p,p’-DDT
1.114 x i0
1.022 x iO
2.774 x 10b0
1.531 x 10.10
5.522 x 10’°
p,p’-DDD
2.258 x iO
1.986 x iO
7.484 x 10.10
5.268 x 10’°
3.349 x iO
p,p’-DDE
1.411 x 1O
9.823 x iO
7.857 x iO
4.555 x iO
3.843 x iO
Hexachioro-
benzene
2.999 x i0
3.636 x i0
3.914 x i0
1.675 x i0
4.733 x 1O
Lindane
6.188 x 10.10
7.254 x 10.’°
1.894 x 10.’°
3.293 x 10.’°
5.278 x iO
a-Chlordane
6.224 x i0
5.561 x i0
2.387 x i0
2.085 x i0
5.127 x iO
Total
Cancer Risk
3.167 x l0
2.371 x 10
3.377 x 10
8.038 x 10
6.193 x 1O
44
-------
TABLE 3.6-4: NON-CANCER HAZARD RATIOS FROM EATING MBDS SEAFOOD
(Known critical effects are listed in parentheses after each chemical)
American
plaice
Winter
flounder
Lobster
Scallops
Quahog
Cadmium
(Significant
proteinuria -
renal cortex)
3.360 x 10
8.370 x 10
1.603 x 10
5.966 x i0
5.734 x 10
Copper
1.196 x 10 ’
8.965 x i0
8.420 x 10
2.700 x 10
2.177 x l0
Chromium
1.960 x 10
8.680 x i0
1.690 x 1O
3.963 x 10
4.176 x 10
Nickel
O)ecreased
body and organ
weight)
1.680 x i0
8.835 x i0
6.805 x i0
9.287 x i0
2.337 x iO
Zinc (Anemia)
3.640 x 10
4.154 x 10
2.200 x i0
9.263 x 10
1.955 x iO
Sum of the
measured
PAHs (Ocular
and internal
lesions)
1.064 x i0
8.215 x i0
4.881 x i0
1.542 x l0
1.157 x i0
p,p’-DDT
(Liver lesions)
6.552 x 10
6.014 x 10
1.632 x 10
9.006 x j0
3.248 x l0
Hexachioro-
benzene (Liver
and
hematologic
effects)
2.205 x l0
2.674 x i0
2.878 x 10
1.231 x 10
3.480 x 106
Lindane (Liver
and kidney
toxicity)
1.587 x 10
1.860 x i0
4.857 x iCY’
8.443 x 10’
1.353 x iO
cr-Chlordane
(Regional liver
hypertrophy)
7.980 x iO
7.130 x l0
3.060 x 10
2.674 x 10
6.573 x iO
45
-------
3.7 Sediment Movement
Several commentors stated that there may be unacceptable impacts beyond the site
boundary and therefore EPA’s conclusion that the MBDS is a containment site is unjustified.
Another commentor charged that the potential for dredged material movement towards
Stellwagen Bank was not adequately assessed in the DEIS. Some commentors were
concerned that contaminants may be remobilized because of resuspension events. Several
commentors stated that EPA should quantify the transport or fate of resuspended sediments,
specifically addressing site wind data, site disturbance information, and
stabilizing/destabilizing effects on sediment distribution.
EPA Response
EPA assessed the likelthood that disposed sediments would be contained in the MBDS
by predicting the potential for sediment resuspension (Section 4.1.2 of the DEIS) and by
examining sediment contaminant levels outside of the existing M.BDS boundary to determine
if historically dumped sediments had migrated outside the site (Section 3.2.2 of the DEIS).
Progressive sediment movement outside the MBDS boundary, including movement toward
Stellwagen Bank, has not been documented. Monitoring results from precision bathymetry
and REMOTS studies at the MBDS have confirmed that the majority of dredged material
disposed at the site remains within the site boundary (COE, 1988). EPA found that
resuspension of dredged material deposited at the site can only occur through wave influence
or a combination of waves and currents because near-bottom steady currents at the MBDS
were much lower than the lowest steady current needed to cause erosion (see Section 4.1.2 of
the DEIS). EPA therefore concluded that significant resuspension can only be caused by a
combination of bottom currents and strong northeasterly winds.
In the DEIS, EPA estimated that wave-induced sediment resuspension may occur on
the average of only once every three or four years, if at all. However, EPA’s resuspension
modeling effort was based on a limited data set. For example, after analysis of wind speed
data for the years 1978 through 1985 (see page 167 of the DEIS), EPA found that winds
capable of causing significant resuspension only occurred once, in February 1978, dunng that
seven year period. Since publication of the DEIS, EPA has evaluated data from 1991 and
found two times when the winds were strong enough to potentially cause wave-induced
sediment resuspension. These events occurred on April 21, 1991 and October 30 and 31,
1991. Although actual frequencies are not known, the occurrence of potential wave-induced
sediment resuspension events appears to be rare.
In response to the comment that requested EPA to quantify the transport and fate of
resuspended sediments, including site disturbance information arid stabilizing/destabilizing
effects, EPA’s modelling effort revealed that only the surflcial 4% of unconsolidated
sediments is what is subject to wave-induced resuspension at the proposed MBDS.
Generally, after disposal, finer grained sediments consolidate owing to pressure and orgamc
bonding. Additionally, mucal binding, caused by the excretions of benthic fauna and
46
-------
bacteria, aids in consolidating disposal mounds. All of these factors will reduce the
likelihood of resuspension events at the MBDS. Also, continuous disposal may result in
newer deposits covering previous deposits so that a smaller footprint, or area subject to
resuspension, will likely be created. The ultimate fate of resuspended sediment particles is
dependant on many factors, including near-bottom currents, grain sizes, and physical impacts
such as trawling. EPA does not believe that a detailed study determining where this small
percentage of dredged material ultimately results would be useful because of the demonstrated
infrequency of resuspension events and the small amount of material that is subject to
resuspension. EPA, in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute, the University of New Hampshire, and the University of
Massachusetts, is addressing sediment transport in Massachusetts Bay under the
Massachusetts Bays Program. Contaminants associated with dredged material will be
remobilized, but as discussed above, the resuspended sediments represent a very small
percentage of the total amount of disposed dredged material and EPA therefore believes that
this can be considered negligible. Moreover, the MBDS, as discussed in the response to
comment number 3.9.1, will continue to be monitored to determine whether any unacceptable
adverse impacts from dredged material disposal occur.
Although the sediment chemistry data from transects extending from the site showed a
predominance of high contaminant levels within the existing MEDS boundary, some areas
beyond the site boundary also exhibited relatively high contaminant levels (Chapter 3, DEIS)
when compared to ambient sediment chemistry in Massachusetts Bay. EPA believes that this
could be attributed to several factors including shortdumping over the forty year history of
the site, previous disposal in the overlapping area of the Industrial Waste Site, and settling of
the small percent of dredged material that may remain in the water column after a disposal
event (see also response to comment number 3.3.1). The only increased levels of
contaminants found outside the MBDS were concentrated in the southwest area, the area
where shortdumping is most likely to have occurred. This is because the southwest area is
on the path that vessels coming from the Boston area would have taken to get to the site.
This area is on the opposite side of the site from Stellwagen Bank. The levels of
contaminants found outside of the existing MBDS boundary which can be attributed to recent
dredged material disposal are virtually impossible to distinguish from other potential causes.
Moreover, no elevated levels of contaminants were detected outside of the existing MBDS on
the eastern side, near Stellwagen Bank (Chapter 3, DEIS).
As discussed further in the response to comment number 3.8, the proposed MBDS
boundary encompasses both the contaminated sediment area outside of the existing MBDS
and the existing location of the disposal buoy. Thus, EPA anticipates that these contaminated
areas will eventually be covered by cleaner sediments (see also the responses to comment
numbers 3.8 and 3.9.2), and hence at least partially isolated from the marine environment.
Also, use of a taut wire-moored buoy will tend to minimize the size of the dredged material
footprint and an on-board CUE representative will ensure that shortdumping will not occur
(see also the response to comment number 3.9.2).
47
-------
3.7.1 Request for Data Presentation
One cominentor requested that EPA present the wind data used in its resuspension
modeling effort.
EPA Response
EPA used wind velocity data from Logan Airport provided by the National Weather
Service in accordance with the resuspension modeling to predict the frequency of storms
strong enough to potentially cause resuspension. Actual wind speed data at the MBDS is not
available. EPA does not suspect significant differences between wind velocities at Logan
Airport and the MBDS because land masses, which typically slow wind speed because of
friction, are not present between the MBDS and Logan Airport. The wind data used consists
of hourly velocity readings taken over an eight year period. EPA believes that inclusion of
all of this data would not be useful and that only the interpretation of such data, as presented
on page 167 of the DEIS, would be valuable to the reader. The actual data is available to
individuals who desire it at the EPA Region I office or upon request to the National Weather
Service.
3.8 Final BoundaryConfiguration
Some commentors were not certain what the final coordinates of the proposed location
of the MBDS designation were. Some commentors questioned EPA’s proposal to overlap the
MBDS and Industrial Waste Site (“IWS ”) boundaries. Other commentors seemed to favor
moving the site approximately one nautical mile westward to overlap the IWS. One
commentor stated that the northeastern portion of the MBDS site is unsuitable for disposal
because it is the toe of Stellwagen Bank. One commentor suggested that EPA consider a two
nautical mile square centered over the 1WS for the MBDS boundary, since it would include
most of the areas used for past disposal.
EPA Response
The responses to these issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4.1 of this FEIS.
3.9 Management and Monitoring of the Site
3.9.1 Monitoring
3.9.1.1 Reference Sediment
A few commentors were concerned that the existing reference site may be
contaminated. One commentor, on the contrary, believed that the existing reference sediment
is representative of disposal site conditions prior to any disposal, similar in grain size to the
material to be dredged, and substantially free of contaminants. One commentor charged that
48
-------
EPA did not completely understand the selection of a reference site. One corn mentor stated
that use of existing reference data in the DEIS is inappropriate to delineate effects if the
reference site is deemed to be impacted. One commentor stated that EPA should include a
plan to identify a clean reference site.
EPA Response
The suitability of dredged material for ocean disposal is determined in part through its
comparison to a reference sediment. EPA continues to believe that a clean reference site is a
crucial part of ocean disposal site management as it may govern what dredged material is
deemed suitable for disposal in the ocean. On page 218 of the DEIS EPA explained that an
appropriate reference sediment is one which i) is substantially free of contaminants, ii) is
similar to the dredged material to be disposed with respect to grain size, and ni) represents
conditions that would exist at the disposal site if no disposal had ever occurred.
As indicated on page 219 of the DETS, EPA shares concerns regarding potential
contamination at the reference site used for determining dredged material suitability, and has
therefore investigated the adequacy of the existing mud reference site through several
research studies. EPA and the COE continuously monitor reference sites used for dredged
material suitability determinations and disposal site monitoring. Sediment chemistry and
berithic body burden of Nephiys incisa for the existing and potential new reference sites were
analyzed in May of 1990. Although not for every constituent measured, the information
collected has indicated that a statisticaliy significant difference between the contaminant levels
in the existing reference site and a potential new reference site near Stellwagen Bank exists.
Because of these statistically significant differences and other indicated trends, EPA and the
COE have chosen to relocate the reference site (MUD REF) to the following coordinates:
42° 22.70’ north latitude and 700 30.30’ west longitude (REF A). These sites were
illustrated on page 220 of the DEIS. A summary of the sediment chemistry data for the two
reference sites is presented in Table 3.9-1. Evaluation of the suitability of the reference site
will continue as part of the on-going monitoring conducted at the MBDS.
49
-------
TABLE 3.9-1: COMPARISON OF REFERENCE SiTE SEDJMENT CHEMISTRY
(All units in parts per million; Mean of six analytes)
MUD REF REF A
Former Reference Site Relocated Reference Site
Total PCBs 0.021 0.017
SumoftheParentPARs ’ 1.51 1.09
Arsenic 17.5 19.6
Cadmium’ 0.14 0.09
Chromium’ 113 95
Copper’ 23.6 19.3
Mercury 0.172 0.152
Nickel 32.3 30.0
Lead’ 60.3 53.9
Zinc’ 114.7 102.3
The former reference site has significantly higher concentrations of this contaminant
than the relocated reference site when compared statistically (Wilcoxon 2-sample test,
p < 0.05)
Source: Arthur D. Little, September 1990
50
-------
3.9.1.2 Adequacy of Testing Protocol
One commentor requested that EPA define the difference between “clean” and
unacceptable sediments. A few commentors stated that the regional dredged material testing
protocol was not adequate and that more conservative testing requirements are needed. One
commentor charged that the existing testing procedures will enable sediments perceived to be
contaminated, such as those from Boston Harbor, to be disposed at the MBDS. One
commentor requested that EPA explain the new bioaccumulation testing procedures. One
commentor charged that bioassay and bioaccumulation tests should not be the only criteria
used in judging the acceptability of dredged material, and that subjective measures should be
included. One commentor recommended that the dredged material testing guidance be
developed in conjunction with a Citizen’s Advisory Board.
EPA Response
The acceptability of sediments for ocean disposal is dependant on its potential for
impacting the marine environment as determined by the chemical and biological testing
required under the revised testing protocols (EPA/COE, 1989 and 1991). A copy of the
regional dredged material testing protocol was included in Appendix A to the DEIS.
Sediments that exhibit significant mortality or potential to bioaccumulate contaminants are not
deemed suitable for unconfined ocean disposal.
EPA believes that the dredged material testing protocols are adequate because they are
based on over fifteen years of research. Additionally, as discussed in the response to
comment number 3.5.1, research under the Field Verification Program has indicated that
acute toxicity and bioaccumulation exhibited in the laboratory tests used are reflective of field
conditions at the disposal site.
As discussed in detail in Section 5.3 of the DEIS, both the regional and national
dredged material testing protocols employ a tiered approach to testing. In general, the tiers,
in order of increasing complexity, consist of a review of available information, sediment
chemistry and grain size analyses, and bioassay and bioaccumulation tests. The revised
regional dredged material testing protocol was jointly developed by the EPA, the COE, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and several other
agencies and is believed to include sensitive and adequate tests.
In response to the comment that requested EPA to explain the bioaccumulation testing
procedures, the revised bioaccumulation procedures are explained in the dredged material
testing protocol, Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal , which is
commonly referred to as the “green book”, (EPA/COE, 1991) and also in the regional
dredged material testing protocol (EPAJCOE, 1989). The bioaccumulation test lasts for 28
days and requires use of the bivalve, Macoina nasuta, and the polychaete, Nereis viren.s.
EPA believes that the bioaccumulation testing has been improved by adding Macoma nasuta,
a deposit-feeding bivalve. These procedures are based on the recent work by Lee
51
-------
(1989) which is currently being reviewed by the American Society for Testing and Materials
(‘ASTM”).
As discussed in Chapter 5 of the DEIS, the toxicity test revisions now employ a more
sensitive test organism, Ampelisca abdita, which is recognized by the ASTM as a reliable
indicator of sediment contaminant toxicity. EPA believes with this and other stringent
modifications, such as lower detection limits and testing for an increased selection of
contaminants, the testing protocol has been improved. Further research, including the
development of chronic toxicity tests, is being conducted to refine testing procedures even
further.
In response to the comment which charged that the testing protocol will allow
contaminated sediments to be ocean disposed, EPA has determined that the surficial
sediments from Boston Harbor, as tested along the proposed Third Harbor Tunnel alignment
and the Mystic River, Chelsea River, and Reserved Channel for the federal navigation
improvement project, are not suitable for unrestricted open water disposal at the MBDS (see
Appendix B). Moreover, any contaminated sediments, those not meeting the requirements of
the protocol, will not be disposed at the MBDS (see also Chapter 4 of this document). Only
dredged material which meets such requirements will be allowed for disposal at the MBDS.
The need for ocean disposal, the availability of other alternatives, and site management are
also considered before a permit for ocean disposal is issued.
The green book was noticed in the Federal Register on April 4, 1991, and has
undergone extensive public review. The green book guidance provides the framework for a
nationally consistent program. Locally, EPA and the COE plan to revise the regional
protocol in order to make it consistent with the green book. A subcommittee of State Coastal
Zone Management and COE Dredging and Dredged Material Task Force, consisting of
agency, constituency and public members, will provide input during this process. Since,
there will otherwise be opportunity for public participation, EPA does not believe that
establishment of a separate Citizen’s Advisory Board to review the protocol is warranted.
3.9.1.3 Need to Include a Specific Plan
EPA received varied comments on the types of monitoring and mitigation activities
that should be conducted to ensure that potential adverse impacts from dredged material
disposal are prevented. Many commentors were concerned that a specific monitoring
program was not included in the DEIS. One commentor requested that EPA clarify (Section
5.4.3) what sediment types require monitoring more frequently than once per year.
EPA Response
EPA agrees that a monitoring program is necessary to continue to 1) establish baseline
conditions at the disposal site, 2) evaluate potential impacts resulting from dredged material
disposal, and 3) ensure that no unacceptable adverse effects have occurred. Site monitoring
52
-------
data is also used to assess whether management techniques at the site are adequate to mitigate
any undesirable effects caused by dredged material disposal at the site. EPA remains
committed to ensuring that adverse ecological or human health effects do not occur.
In Chapter 5.4 of the DEIS, EPA provided a conceptual strategy for disposal site
monitoring. EPA discussed the types of effects that are monitored and the techniques used to
monitor ocean disposal sites. EPA also provided information regarding historical monitoring
at the MBDS. As discussed in Section 5.4 of the DEIS and partially listed on Table 3-1 of
the DEIS, the MBDS has received substantial monitoring in the past. To date, the data
collected as part of EPA and the COE’s ocean disposal site monitoring programs at the
existing MBDS (presented in Chapter 3 of the DEIS and in Appendix D to this FEIS) has not
shown that unacceptable adverse impacts resulting from dredged material disposal at MBDS
have occurred.
EPA and the COE have entered into a regional Memorandum of Understanding,
which states that any site with final designation status “. . .shall be monitored on a regular
basis by the COE to ensure that use of the site is not unreasonably degrading or endangering
the marine environment or endangering human health....” The COE and EPA meet annually
to determine the scope and extent of monitoring activities to be conducted (see Section 5.14
of the DEIS). As discussed further in Chapter 4, EPA plans to share future draft monitoring
plans with the Dredged Material Task Force (see also the response to comment number
3.9.2.3).
The type and amount of monitoring is primarily dependent on three factors - intensity
of site use, the degree of concern about potential environmental effects, and availability of
resources for funding and conducting such monitoring. Individual monitoring plans are
governed by the current state of knowledge and the questions raised by it; specific monitonng
plans should be flexible enough to respond to new questions, unexpected results, or available
technology. Generally, EPA and the COE monitor characteristics such as movement of
material, changes in sediment or water quality, benthic diversity, and bioaccumulation.
Future monitoring of the MBDS is expected to be similar to that already described in the
DEIS and supporting documents. However, because of the need for specific monitoring
plans to be responsive to new information as it is gathered and new questions as they are
asked, it is not appropriate for EPA or the COE to commit to a specific course of monitoring
for each year. Target species and analytes are discussed in Chapter 4 of this FEIS. As
future monitoring plans are developed, EPA will make them available for public review.
In 1992, the COE plans to conduct precision bathymetry and REMOTS studies at the
MBDS in the vicinity of the disposal buoy. Such work will enable EPA and the COE to
determine where the dredged material has settled and physically assess whether a mound has
been created. EPA plans to analyze water column chemistry in July 1992. Future
monitoring may include total spionid body burden analysis to aid in predicting trophic level
transfer and comparison of toxicity tests on the disposal mound and reference site to ensure
that toxic effects from dredged material disposal have not occurred. Monitoring studies
53
-------
conducted by EPA to locate containers of low-level radioactive or industrial waste are
discussed in the response to comment number 3.9.2.5.
In response to the comment that requested EPA to clarify what sediment types require
more frequent monitoring, EPA believes it has adequately described the consistent approach
taken to characterize potential adverse effects from dredged material disposal in Chapter 5.4
of the DEIS. To recapitulate, the tiered approach to monitoring utilizes rapid data collection
techniques to test the effects of dredged material disposal on the marine environment. The
tiered monitoring approach employs a framework of early warning triggers that lead to either
more intensive monitoring in a higher tier or management action. The first tier is usually a
physical assessment of mound placement and uses bathymetric and sediment profile camera
surveys (Section 5.4.3 of the DEIS). Another tool involves comparing the colonization of the
sediments by benthic organisms to the expected pattern of seasonally adjusted benthic
succession to determine whether the disposed dredged material has caused unacceptable
adverse impacts to the environment. Community type and rate of recolonization are effective
indicators of sediment impacts. Higher tiers are employed if sediment movement or adverse
effects are demonstrated in earlier tiers. Intensity would also be increased in the event that
monitoring results do not conform to predicted conditions. Also, any results which indicate a
potential environmental effect would trigger more intensive monitoring for that specific
effect.
3.9.1.4 Request to Monitor for Additional Species
Many commentors believed that fish, prey, and endangered species should be
monitored.
EPA Response
In 1991, EPA conducted monitoring studies in the vicinity of the MBDS in order to
determine whether any ecological or human health impacts exist. The location of the 1991
trawl transect is illustrated on Figure 3.9-1. The results of this study and a discussion of
their significance can be found in Appendix D. These activities included:
i) complete histopathological analyses of Winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes
wnericanus; American plaice, Hippoglossoides plaressoides; Yellowtail flounder,
Limandaferruginea; and sea scallops, Placopecrin sp. from the MBDSIIWS area
(histopathological smdie provide an indication of organism health);
ii) chemical analyses on the edible tissue of winter flounder, American plaice, sea
clams, sea scallops, and lobster, Homarus ainericanus (chemical analysis of the edible
tissue of these organisms will enable EPA to assess potential effects on the organisms
and to human health - see also the response to comment number 3.6);
54
-------
Figure 3.9-1:
Location of the Trawl Transect
a
CAPE ANN
0
Former
Proposed
JVBDS
‘Ifs
South
55
/
west
MB 115
Trawl Transect
N
S
a
Existing
i’igu,’e not driwn to se Z*.
-------
iii) chemical analyses of liver and hepatopancreas on winter flounder, American
plaice, and lobster to assess potential effects on these organisms; and
iv) sediment chemistry from the MBDSIIWS area to compare to any effects
demonstrated by the tissue chemistry or histopathology.
While EPA believes that the histopathology and body burden studies are important in
developing a biological database for Massachusetts Bay, the natural movements of Winter
flounder, American plaice, scallops, and lobsters may limit their usefulness in assessing
effects caused solely by dredged material disposal. Also, the natural migratory patterns of
Winter flounder and lobster include contaminated areas in coastal Massachusetts, including
Boston Harbor and Quincy Bay. Additionally, Winter flounder typically do not inhabit
depths over 150 feet, and depths at the MBDS average 290 feet. The Winter flounder
collected at the MBDS were caught in the northeastern area of the site, approximately one
and a half nautical miles from the disposal buoy and in an area 150 feet shallower.
Also in 1991 (as discussed further in the response to comment number 3.10) EPA
initiated studies to identify organic chemical contaminants in blubber biopsy samples from
Humpback whales in New England waters. Preliminary results show the presence of certain
organic chemicals such as PCBs, DDT series, and chiordanes. The biological significance of
these compounds and whether these chemicals occur in most whales or in whales from other
areas are currently unknown. As discussed in Section 3.3.4 of the DEIS, whales cover an
enormously large area in their lifetime. As a result, EPA does not believe that the MBDS
can be considered to be the only source of contaminants, or even a significant source of these
contaminants. Additionally, the blubber samples were collected in the Gulf of Maine, and it
is not known if these whales ever visited the MBDS. Future studies will attempt to improve
our understanding of routes of exposure and biological effects of chemical contaminants in
endangered whales (see Chapter 4 of this document for a list of target analytes).
3.9.1.5 Request for Additional Studies
A few commentors recommended that EPA study potential trophic transfer of
pollutants.
EPA Response
As discussed in Section 5.4 of the DEIS, trophic transfer of pollutants is inherent in
the tiered approach to monitoring and is considered in both the COE’s and EPA’s monitonng
programs. Typically, monitoring programs attempt to identify indicators of adverse effects
before they occur. Sources of contaminants to fish, including water column contaminants,
sediment contaminants, and body burden of prey species, have historically been analyzed at
the MBDS in order to assess the magnitude and extent of different exposure routes. As
discussed in the response to comment number 3.9.1.4, tissue chemistry was performed on
American plaice, Winter flounder, lobster, clams, and scallops taken from the MBDS. All
56
-------
samples exhibited levels of contaminants well below FDA action levels (see also the response
to comment number 3.6).
3.9.2 M n2gement
3.9.2.1 Cont imin ted Sediment Management
Several commentors requested that EPA restrict the disposal of “contaminated
sediments” at the site. Several commentors believed that contaminated sediments should not
be disposed at M]3DS and that EPA should consider disposing solely clean sediments. Some
commentors believed that tighter constraints on the levels of contaminants of concern should
be placed in permits. Many commentors stated that EPA should not rely upon site
management measures to prevent impacts associated with disposal of contaminated sediments.
EPA Response
As discussed in the response to comment number 3.9.1.2, contaminated sediments are
those that indicate significant mortality or potential to bioaccumulate chemicals in biological
tests. Such sediments are not allowed to be dumped at the MBDS (see Appendix B). As
illustrated on page 215 of the DEIS, these sediments, which are deemed to have the potential
for unacceptable adverse ecological or public health impacts, are not acceptable for
unrestricted open ocean disposal. As explained in Chapter 5 of the DEIS and in Chapter 4 of
this document, only dredged material that meets the requirements of the testing protocol will
be allowed for disposal at the MBDS.
EPA believes that tighter constraints on the disposal of dredged material than those
imposed in the past have been imposed at the MBDS. These constraints include: i) stricter
requirements in the dredged material testing protocol as discussed in Section 5.3 of the DEIS
and in the response to comment number 3.9.1.2, ii) relocation of the reference site to a
cleaner area near Stellwagen Bank as explained in the response to comment number 3.9.1.1,
iii) the requirement by the COE for disposal inspectors on every trip to the MBDS (see
Section 5.1.2 of the DEIS), and iv) the use of a taut wire moored buoy.
3.9.2.2 Capping as a Mitigation Measure at the MBDS
Several commentors believed that the feasibility of capping as a management strategy
at MBDS should be studied before it is used. One commentor stated that, based on past
problems, more restrictive positioning and verification of mound formation is needed to show
that capping is effective. Several commentors stated that capping may not be effective in
deeper water. One commentor recommended that the Blue Circle Atlantic and General
Electric dredging projects be used in a pilot study to test the feasibility of capping at MBDS.
57
-------
EPA Response
EPA agrees that there are many uncertainties associated with the effectiveness of
capping contaminated sediments as a management strategy at the MBDS. Several of these
uncertainties were noted on pages 229 and 230 of the DEIS. EPA concluded that the
viability of capping as a management strategy was uncertain. Since publication of the DEIS,
several other uncertainties related to capping have been identified, including:
i) whether intrusion of water to the dredged material plume causes enough dispersion
to prevent formation of an effective mound;
ii) whether the physical characteristics of the dredged material to be disposed at the
site render the material more inclined to disperse during its descent to the seafloor;
iii) whether capping can sufficiently reduce risks to the marine ecosystem such that
they become less than those associated with disposal in other media;
iv) whether there would be sufficient volume of clean material to cap the contaminated
material for any particular project; and
v) whether adequate long-term monitoring and contingency plans are in place.
EPA continues to believe that these issues and others must be adequately addressed before
capping can be relied upon as an effective management tool at MBDS. Moreover, EPA
compiled a list of forty one unresolved issues related to capping as a mitigation measure at
the MBDS which was sent to the COE on September 27, 1991. A copy of this letter is
included in Appendix B. Based on the available data, it remains unclear if disposal of
contaminated materials and subsequent capping at the MBDS can be routinely and
successfully performed. Currently, dredged materials which do not meet the requirements of
the testing protocol will not be allowed for disposal at the MBDS. As evidenced in EPA’s
letters to the COE dated June 12, 1991 and September 27, 1991 regarding the federal Boston
Harbor Improvement dredging, EPA will strongly uphold its policies on dredged material
suitability arid capping for ocean disposal (See Appendix B).
According to COE records, the Blue Circle Atlantic project, consisting of 33,800
cubic yards of dredged material and the General Electric project consisting of 4,800 cubic
yards of dredged material, were both dredged and disposed in 1986. Hence, these sediments
cannot be used in a pilot study.
The COE conducted an experiment in 1982 and 1983, to compare hopper and
clamshell dredging apparati. This study did not indicate that a mound could be created at the
MBDS. Although provisions for point dumping at a taut wire moored buoy were made, the
distribution of dredged material following disposal indicates that such provisions were
58
-------
unsuccessful in controlling disposal. In some instances, dredged material was detected over
750 meters from the disposal point (SAIC, 1984; SAIC, 1985).
EPA believes that pilot studies should be conducted, albeit with uncontaminated
dredged material. Differences between the dredged material and the cap material could be
detected by using material with different grain sizes or material with different isotope
signatures. Placement of the material could be tracked with side scan sonar and REMOTS to
delineate the footprint and to determine whether the dredged material has been completely
covered. The capped mound would then be closely monitored to determine its effectiveness
in isolating potential contaminants. EPA is currently working with the COB and others to
develop a pilot capping feasibility study at the MEDS. Until this study and others are done,
the efficacy of capping in deep oceanic environments, such as the MBDS, remains uncertain.
3.9.2.3 Public Dredged Material Management Workshops
Several commentors recommended that a Citizen’s Monitor Group be created to
monitor and assess disposal activities at the MBDS. Additionally, several commentors
recommended that the sanctuary manager for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary, if designated, be included in such a group in order to review permits and
management of site.
EPA Response
EPA believes it has satisfied the comments regarding the recommendation to create a
Citizen’s Monitor Group. In April 1991, EPA and the COE initiated a series of public
workshops on dredging arid disposal issues in the Massachusetts region. The aim of the
workshops was to foster improved communication and understanding of the complex issues
surrounding management of dredged material by bringing together environmental
organizations, site users, and managers to examine relevant research and monitoring efforts.
Consistent with this goal, the workshops accommodate presentations from participants and
allow ample time for discussion. To date, EPA and the COB have hosted several workshops
discussing the current state of our knowledge related to i) capping and ii) the industrial and
low-level radioactive containers. Alternatives for contaminated dredged material is the topic
planned for the next meeting. EPA and the COE were pleased that individuals from
numerous disciplines participated in these workshops.
Recently, the COE and the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office initiated a
Dredging and Dredged Material Task Force. Representatives from EPA, other state and
federal agencies, environmental groups, bay users, and the public have been asked to
participate in the task force. Several subcommittees are being established, which cover topics
such as dredged material testing, regulatory controls, and management options. The Dredged
Material Task Force hopes to develop a long-term, state-wide management strategy for
dredged material.
59
-------
EPA has also recently created the “Advisory Committee on the Waste Barrels in
Massachusetts Bay”, which will review information generated by EPA and others on past
dumping practices at the Industrial Waste Site and elsewhere in Massachusetts Bay. Again,
the group is composed of representatives from environmental groups, fishermen, bay users,
elected representatives, state and federal officials, and the public.
In response to the comment that recommended that the sanctuary manager be involved
in permit review and site management, the COE stated in their letter to NOAA dated
November 9, 1990, that it welcomes NOAA involvement in the permitting process in an
advisory role (see Appendix B). EPA also welcomes such involvement from the NOAA
sanctuary program. Additionally, the COE’s permitting process is public. Each permit
application is made available for public comment so that interested parties can participate in
each disposal permit decision (see also Chapter 4 of this document). Also, site monitoring
information developed by EPA and the COE will be available to NOAA for review.
3.9.2.4 Need for a Conti minated Dredged Material Plan
Several commentors believed that EPA should develop a plan for contaminated
dredged material in the region. Many commentors charged that a long-term disposal
management strategy is needed. Such a strategy would include alternative disposal options
for dredged material deemed unsuitable for disposal at MEDS, such as upland or nearshore
containment. Many commentors were concerned that sediments dredged from Boston Harbor
would be disposed at MBDS in the absence of such a plan.
EPA Response
EPA recognizes the need for a long-term strategy to address contaminated material not
suitable for disposal at the MBDS, and is currently participating in an effort to develop such
a strategy. This effort is being conducted through the Dredging and Dredged Material Task
Force discussed in the response to comment number 3.9.2.3. Also, the COE is currently
providing funding and technical support to Massachusetts and New Hampshire to assist in
evaluating engineering, environmental, and economic issues related to dredging and dredged
material disposal planning. EPA is participating in both of these efforts and plans to be a
signatory to a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOW) that is being prepared for EPA, the
COE, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, and Massport. The
MOU will establish agreements for developing a long-term management plan.
The Task Force hopes to develop a plan to address management of both clean and
contaminated sediments from Boston Harbor and elsewhere in the state and would address
such issues as, i) projecting the location, quantity, and quality of sediments to be dredged for
the next 50 years; ii) identifying potential disposal alternatives and sites (including upland,
riearshore and other aquatic environments, and other options such as commercial reuse); iii)
determining the engineering, environmental and economic feasibility of disposal alternatives,
60
-------
such as containment structures; and iv) coordinating and improving the regulatory structure
and process for dredging projects.
Until such a long-term strategy is formulated, EPA and the COE will continue to
review permit applications on a case-by-case basis. EPA does not believe that the absence of
such a strategy invalidates this case-by-case approach, because under any conditions
contaminated sediments (those which fail prescribed testing protocols) are not acceptable for
unconfined disposal at the proposed MBDS. Final site designation does not constitute
approval for disposal of any particular material from an individual dredging project at
MBDS, nor does it supersede the ocean dumping regulations prohibiting unconfned open
water disposal of contaminated sediments. In the context of the limited purpose of this FEIS
and the limited nature of the federal action at issue here — to decide whether MBDS should
remain available for use — EPA believes that it is appropriate to proceed with site
designation prior to development of a long-term plan for regional contaminated dredged
material disposal.
At the time of publication of the DEIS, EPA had not reviewed actual sediment and
biological test data from Boston Harbor sediments. In June 1991, EPA determined that
surface sediments dredged from Boston Harbor, the Mystic and Chelsea Rivers, and the
Reserved Channel, are not acceptable for disposal at the MBDS (See Appendix B).
Alternatives to ocean disposal will be explored in detail in an Environmental Impact Report
to be developed by Massport and an EIS by the COE, both of which are subject to public
review. EPA plans to work closely with Massport and the COE on this project.
Additionally, EPA has conducted an initial screening of viable alternatives for contaminated
dredged material. In particular, the work has been limited to identification of areas,
including upland disposal, aquatic containment areas, and confined disposal facilities, that
may be worthy of further investigation.
3.9.2.5 Industrial Waste Site Issues
Several commentors expressed concern regarding the presence of radioactive waste
previously disposed at the Industrial Waste Site (“IWS”). Some commentors saw this as
potentially problematic because if dredged material was allowed to be dumped on the barrels
it could hinder future study. Several commentors recommended that a thorough study of the
proposed MBDS and 1WS should be conducted to look for barrels of radioactive and
hazardous waste, followed by a thorough alternatives analysis considering remediation. A
few commentors believed that EPA should periodically monitor the barrels, canisters, and
other industrial and radioactive waste. One commentor stated that the Boston Lightship and
the IWS should be identified on charts. One commentor suspected that EPA was not
cognizant of the adjacent IWS and stated that there should be reference to explosives in the
site history section.
61
-------
EPA Response
As stated in the response to comment number 3.1.1, the purpose of the analyses
presented in the DEIS, SDEIS, and this FEIS is to determine the continuing need for and
suitability of the proposed MBDS as an available option for dredged material disposal. EPA
does not intend to expand the stated purpose to include potential remedial actions at the 1WS
should they be necessary. Consequently, this FEIS will not determine whether remedial
action is needed at the IWS or how it should be done if necessary. However, EPA is
engaged in an on-going effort to determine the extent of environmental or public health risks
posed by past dumping in Massachusetts Bay, and the potential need for remediation.
As discussed in Chapter 1 of the DEIS, industrial waste such as organic and
inorganic compounds, intentionally sunken derelict vessels, and construction debris have been
dumped at the IWS since the 1940s. According to EPA records, the IWS was last officially
used in 1977. Chemicals, low level radioactive waste (“LLW”), and munitions have also
been disposed at the 1WS. The last disposals of LLW at the 1WS are believed to have taken
place in 1959. The IWS has not been permitted for use since 1977, and it was formally de-
designated as a chemical waste dump on February 2, 1990 (55 FR 3688).
Further information on wastes disposed at the site and their potential environmental
impacts (known to date) can be found in an EPA report entitled Data from Studies of
Previous Radioactive Waste Disposal in Massachusetts Bay . published December 1984. EPA
is currently revisiting the results of this report. This survey was based in part on studies
conducted by EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admimstration (“NOAA”)
during 1981 and 1982 on LLW dumped at the IWS. These studies included side scan sonar;
sediment and biota chemistry; comprehensive radiological monitoring of biota, sediments,
and water; and tests on commercial seafood samples. The report states that between 1952
and 1962, 4,008 containers of LLW, including 1438 five gallon pails, 1860 thirty gallon
drums, and 710 fifty-five gallon drums, was authorized by the Atomic Energy Commission to
be dumped at the IWS. Upon impact, these barrels were partially covered by soft sediments.
The report concludes that “...most analyses for radionucides in biota and sediment samples
collected from Massachusetts Bay show levels of radãoactivity below the mean detection
limit.... N The report also states that the concrete used to encase the LLW was specthcally
formulated to resist sea water corrosion and that “...Each container was expected to remain
intact in its disposal environment for at least 800 years....”
In July, 1991, EPA funded a joint research project with the International Wildlife
Coalition (“IWC”) to locate barrels and visually assess the condition of waste containers over
a ten square nautical mile area in the area surrounding the western half of the IWS (but in
areas not surveyed by EPA and NOAA in 1981 and 1982) using side scan sonar and remote
underwater video (Wiley i., 1992). The IWC used this data to categorize and rank
targets for a August 1991 follow-up survey using a remotely operated video (“ROy”)
camera. The 1WC estimated that the barrel density Within the north-central portion of the
IWS to be approximately 5190 per squarenautical mile. Ninety three targets were inspected
62
-------
in eighteen study sites. Of these ninety three targets, sixty four were identified as fifty five
gallon drums. Seventy five percent of these barrels were open. Of the thirty seven barrels
that were inspected in detail, half were empty. The remaining half contained either
laboratory glassware or concrete.
In December 1991, EPA surveyed the former Boston Lightship Disposal Site, an area
which was reportedly used for waste disposal (Schoenherr ., 1992). The survey
employed side scan sonar and ROV camera to locate and assess the condition of the waste
containers. Careful interpretation of the sonar records provided the location of up to 196
possible barrels over the 16 square nautical mile study area. An additional 101 unidentified
targets were also located. It is important to note that the presence of “targets” on side scan
sonar records does not necessarily mean that actual barrels exist at that location, but could be
targets that give the same sonar signatures as barrels. EPA was unable to confirm the
identification or assess the condition of the targets with the ROV camera because of technical
problems and weather constraints. Currently, it is not possible to provide a total number of
waste containers for either the 1WS or the Boston Lightship Site. However, given
conservative assumptions, the probable density of waste containers in the IWS area is about
three orders of magnitude higher than in the Boston Lightship area.
EPA plans to continue its assessment of the extent of and potential risk to the
ecosystem and public health from waste disposal in Massachusetts Bay. The short-term
strategy will focus on public health and ecological risk at two identified sites, namely the
1WS and a “re-dump” area off Cohasset, where Massachusetts fisherman have reportedly
disposed waste containers retrieved during their dragging operations. Sediment, water, and
marine organisms will be collected in the immediate vicinity of the waste containers. On-
going investigations regarding past disposal practices will assist EPA in identifying areas
where sampling efforts should continue. Over the long-term, EPA hopes to conduct
additional surveys of areas believed to contain waste containers to determine the need for
further sampling or management action.
EPA has also established an independent scientific peer review committee to review
all pertinent study objectives, methods, plans, results, and proposed management plans
developed by the study team to ensure technical soundness, quality, and usefulness of the
effort. The Advisory Committee on the Waste Barrels in Massachusetts Bay, will continue to
meet periodically to review and discuss activities such as study plans, results, and
management actions (see also the response to comment number 3.9.2.2). EPA will also mail
pertinent information regarding studies and meetings to the interested pubhc as they are
developed, and will have open public meetings as necessary.
Additionally, EPA is planning to evaluate the 1WS again under the Superfund
program. The Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) model has very recently been revised to
more fully assess threats posed by potential hazardous waste disposal sites through
incorporation of environmental considerations. Sites which were scored using the original
HRS model may be re-scored using the revised HIRS if those sites possess characteristics
63
-------
which were not assessed using the original HRS model. EPA believes that the IWS is such a
site, and plans to reassess it using the revised HRS model.
The first steps in the Superfund reassessment will be to collect and review all the
currently available site information, and to determine whether any additional data is needed
to support a revised HRS score. The information produced from the aforementioned research
and monitoring studies will provide vital information for this reassessment. If the HRS score
for the 1WS meets or exceeds the ranking threshold for National Priorities List (“NPL”)
eligibility, the site will be considered for possible inclusion on the NPL. If listed on the
NPL, the IWS would become eligible for Superfund program remediation funds.
EPA believes that further work is needed to state with certainty whether remedial
action is warranted and what any such action might entail. EPA continues to believe that it is
imperative to base any possible remedial actions on sound technical information. This is not
only because of the great expense that could be involved in a remedial action, but because, as
is discussed below, certain kinds of remedial activities could cause more harm to the
environment or risk to public health than the IWS currently presents.
It is important to emphasize that no remedial action has yet been recommended.
However, if it is determined that remedial action is needed, a full analysis of possible
remedial alternatives will be performed. Three general remedial alternatives would likely be
considered: 1) the “no action” alternative (with or without certain site management measures
to control particular potentially hazardous activities at the site), 2) removal of wastes, and 3)
capping the wastes with an appropriate material (such as clean marine clays). EPA
recognizes that difficult questions need to be addressed when determining what remedial
action, if any, is appropriate for the industrial and radioactive wastes at the 1WS. These
questions include the potential risk to the marine environment or public health posed by
present conditions at the IWS, the dangers that would be posed by either attempting to
remove or cover wastes on the seafloor, the availability of upland or aquatic disposal sites for
any wastes that are removed, the availability of suitable cover materials and the efficacy of
capping the waste containers, and the costs associated with each of the various options.
Continued use and final designation of the MBDS for dredged material disposal will not
preclude any of these remedial options.
3.9.2.6 Roles of EPA and the COE
One commentor requested that EPA explain the relative roles of EPA and the COE,
and declared that the COE is the permit decision-maker and EPA’s role is to advise, elevate
and veto.
EPA Response
EPA believes that its role is that of a joint regulatory authority. EPA has primary
authority for determining whether particular dump sites may be designated. EPA also adopts
64
-------
the regulatory criteria that are used to determine whether a particular dumping proposals
should be permitted. Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the DEIS discuss EPA’s and the COE’s
respective enforcement and permitting authorities as set forth under the MPRSA, whereby
EPA can veto proposed permits if it deemed them not to comply with applicable regulatory
criteria. EPA and the COE jointly assess compliance with the MPRSA and its accompanying
regulations. EPA and the COE share particular enforcement authorities, with EPA being
responsible for seeking penalties, under the MPRSA.
3.9.2.7 Other Mpnagement Comments
One commentor requested that EPA discuss measures to prevent short-dumping.
Another commentor requested that EPA discuss the reasons for moving the “A” buoy after
January 1975. Some commentors suggested that EPA impose seasonal restrictions on
disposal at the MBDS to prevent impacts to endangered species and their prey. One
commentor did not believe that seasonal restrictions were an adequate management tool at
MBDS. One commentor charged that EPA proposed to dilute project material with clean
materials, and stated that this is not an acceptable management practice. Several commentors
requested that EPA consider setting maximum limits on the volume of material dumped and
the rate of disposal in order to avoid toxic exceedances.
Response
As discussed under Section 5.1 of the DEIS, enforcement of the MPRSA and its
accompanying regulations is a joint responsibility of EPA and the COE. Section 5.1 of the
DEIS also states that an onboard COE representative accompanies all vessels transporting
dredged material for ocean dumping. One duty of this representative is to ensure that short-
dumping, or disposing of dredged material before actually reaching the disposal site, does not
occur. If short-dumping does occur, it is reported promptly to the COB and EPA for
enforcement action. Dredged material permits issued by the COE specify which material
from a particular project is allowed for open water ocean disposal, the location of the allowed
dumping, and other conditions.
In 1963, the U.S. Coast Guard deployed disposal marker “A” buoy to the northwest
of the present MBDS (42° 26.8’N and 70° 35.O’W). This area became known as the
Industrial Waste Site (“IWS”). In 1975, at the request of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and the COE, the IWS buoy marker was moved to its present location (42°
25.7’N and 70° 35.O’W). EPA has been unable to verify the rationale for moving the ‘IA”
buoy. The basis for the current proposal to move the boundary of the MBDS to the
southwest, which overlaps both the existing MBDS and the JWS in part, is discussed in
Chapter 4 of this document.
EPA did not identify any unacceptable effects from previous dredged material disposal
at the MBDS, including those on endangered species or their prey (see the response to
65
-------
comment number 3.10). EPA therefore concludes that seasonal (or other) restrictions on
dredged material disposal currently are not necessary to prevent such impacts.
EPA agrees that dilution with clean materials is not acceptable management practice.
This is why discrete chemical testing is required on the sediments to be dredged, without
cornpositing different areas together. During dredging some dilution does occur because
surface materials axe mixed with deeper (and usually cleaner) sediments. This dilution is not
considered during testing of the material, however, and only sediment which passes the test
protocols without such dilution is approved for disposal at the MBDS.
EPA has, on a case-by-case basis at disposal sites much shallower than the MBDS,
approved sequential capping as a management tool. Sequential capping involves disposal of
more contaminated sediments followed by capping with less contaminated sediment. This
reduces long term exposure of biota and does not involve dilution of sediment contaminants.
However, as noted in Section 5.4.7 of the DEIS and discussed under the response to
comment number 3.9.2.2, EPA currently does not believe that capping can be relied upon as
a mitigation measure at the MBDS. Moreover, EPA continues to maintain that dredged
material which does not meet the requirements of the testing protocols is not suitable for
open ocean disposal at the MBDS. Other management options, as discussed in Chapter 4 of
this document, may be considered to mitigate potential effects from dredged material
disposal.
EPA believes that the existing management of the MBDS combined with the ocean
dumping regulations are sufficiently protective of the environs of the disposal site. As a
result, EPA does not believe that placing general site limitations on the volumes or rates of
disposal of sediments is necessary at this time. Such types of restrictions, if warranted, may
be considered by the COE for individual permits.
3.10 Endangered Species
3.10.1 Methodology of Endangered Species Assessment
Many commentors charged that EPA did not fully or accurately evaluate potential
impacts to endangered species, including the potential effects of dredged material disposal on
prey species. One commentor stated that EPA should consider the conservation
recommendations of the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) to prevent potential
adverse effects from dredged material disposal to endangered species.
EPA Response
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC § l53l (“ESA”) requires all
federal agencies and their permittees and licensees to ensure that their actions are not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitats of such species. If any activity may
66
-------
affect an endangered or threatened species, the federal agency must assess the potential
impacts in detail and obtain a biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(“USFWS”) or the NMFS about the potential effects. EPA believes that by coordinating with
the appropriate federal agencies concerning threatened or endangered species, it has
appropriately complied with requirements of the ESA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
and the National Environmental Policy Act. EPA used all available data in its EISs and has
acknowledged the data provided by a commentor (see the response to comment number
3.10.2).
The NMFS is responsible under Section 7 of the ESA for consulting with federal
agencies to assess whether any federal projects will jeopardize the continued existence of
endangered or threatened species including marine mammals, fish, or reptiles. The NMFS
may recommend further actions to facilitate conservation and recovery of endangered or
threatened species. These actions may include protection of their prey or essential habitat.
EPA closely consulted with the NMFS, a cooperating agency, during preparation of the
DEIS. NMFS concluded that although disposal of dredged material could affect certain
federally listed threatened or endangered species, designation of the proposed MBDS will not
jeopardize those species, their prey, or their critical habitat. EPA and the COE are presently
implementing the conservation measures recommended by the NMFS in their Biological
Opinion.
Additionally, the USFWS in their letter dated November 22, 1989, has determined
“...that designation of the MBDS will not jeopardize endangered or threatened species under
the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service....” Copies of the Biological Opinions
conducted by the USFWS and the NMFS are located in Appendix C.
3.10.2 Additional Information
One commentor stated that EPA did not accurately represent the presence of fin
whales within the MBDS and that a better description is necessary. One commentor offered
a number of informational comments and clarifications regarding endangered species. These
comments include: schooling fishes are not always the preferred prey; sightings of humpback
whales in Spring and Fall have been documented within the site; mother and calf pairs are
frequently seen at MBDS as documented in 1988 and 1989; right whales have been observed
every April since 1985; 19 right whales, including four mother and calf pairs reside t
MBDS in July through October, as documented in 1986; Sei whales are usually seen with
right whales; and sand lance use sediments on the northeastern portion of Stellwagen Bank
within the existing MBDS.
EPA Response
As discussed in the response to comment number 3.10.1, EPA believes it has
adequately assessed impacts to protected species, and this is support by the NMFS of No
Jeopardy to the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species (See Appendix
67
-------
C). EPA used the same information and references in its assessment that the commentor
quoted (see the following references that were used and listed in the DEIS: Balcomb t
1978; CETAP, 1982; Chu, 1986; COE, 1988; Gaskin, 1976; Ham i., 1981, 1982; Hays
., 1985; Jonesgard, 1966; Katona g flj., 1977, 1979, 1980, 1984; Kenney i., 1981;
Krausetal., 1981, 1984, 1986; Leatherwood etal., 1976; Mayo ?i., 1982, 1985;
Mitchell, 1974, 1977; MBO, 1980-1985; Moore fli .., 1952, 1963; Nicholas, 1979;
Overholtz 1979; Payne ., 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986; Schevill ., 1960, 1976,
1979; Schmidley, 1981; Scott 1981; Sergeant, 1966; Watkins 1979; Weinrich,
1985; Whitehead ., 1981, 1982; and Winn flj., 1975). Also in the DEIS, EPA
explained that the majority of dredging and dredged material disposal occurs in the winter,
while whales are present in the area of the MBDS principally during the summer, and
occasionally in the spring and fall.
3.11 Coexistence with National Marine Sanctuary
3.11.1 Impact of National Marine Sanctuary Designation on MBDS Designation
Several commentors requested that EPA discuss the potential for confficts between its
proposed designation of the MBDS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s (“NOAA”) proposed sanctuary designation, including the legal implications
for EPA’s proposed designation and future use of the MBDS should a Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary (the “Stellwagen NMS”) be designated. A few commentors
asserted that the NOAA is authorized to regulate any dumping to ensure consistency with
purposes of the sanctuary designation. One commentor believed that the MBDS should be
placed within the proposed Stellwagen NMS boundary in order to allow for greater regulation
of the site. Several commentors asserted that EPA did not adequately address potential
impacts to sensitive habitats such as the Stellwagen Bank area.
EPA Response
The siting of both ocean disposal sites and national marine sanctuaries (“NMSs”) is
governed by the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (“MPRSA”).
Title I of the MPRSA authorizes EPA to designate dredged material disposal sites and Title
III authorizes NOAA to designate NMSs to provide comprehensive and coordinated
conservation and management for areas of the marine environment that are determined to be
nationally significant.
Title ifi of the MPRSA does not preclude a dredged material disposal site being
encompassed by, or adjacent to, a NMS. To the contrary, Title III ( 16 USC §1431(b)(5))
specifically directs that NMSs should accommodate multiple and existing uses, where
consistent with protection of the NMS’s critical resources. Title III ( 16 USC §1434(c)(1)
and (2)) also states that NMS designation does not give NOAA any right to terminate existing
permits or other authorizations to conduct activities in the marine environment, but only that
68
-------
NOAA may condition the exercise of such authorizations as necessary to protect the NMS’s
critical resources.
In February of 1991, NOAA issued a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Management Plan (“DEIS/MP”) which set forth several potential boundary
configurations and management alternatives for a proposed NMS in Stellwagen Bank.
NOAA’s preferted NMS boundary presented in the DEIS/MP is illustrated on Figure 3.11-1.
NOAA’s boundary configuration does overlap part of the existing MBDS, but does not
overlap the final MBDS boundary recommended in this FEIS.
Key sections of NOAA’s discussion of the relationship between the proposed
Stellwagen NMS and the MBDS are presented in pages 136 through 142 of the DEIS/MP. In
the DEISIMP, NOAA proposed that, assuming the Stellwagen NMS ultimately does
encompass the MBDS, dredged material disposal would continue to be allowed at the MBDS
provided that there is no destruction, loss, or injury to Sanctuary resources, but with
oversight from NOAA as part of its NMS management effort. Such oversight would include
certifying all dredged material disposal permits to ensure consistency with the NMS.
Certification could involve adding permit conditions or denying permits. Dredged material
disposal would be prohibited elsewhere in the Stellwagen NMS.
NOAA based this approach in part on its recognition, as explained in its DEISIMP,
that no adverse impacts to the marine ecosystem in Stellwagen Bank have been found to
result from dredged material disposal at the MBDS, and that state-of-the-art methods are
being used to monitor the MBDS to identify and address possible impacts. Also, EPA
addressed potential impacts to sensitive habitats in Sections 3.2.3, 3.3, and 4.3 of the DEIS
and in the responses to comment numbers 3.3.2 and 3.7 in this document. NOAA also
acknowledged that Title ifi of the MPRSA expressly indicates that NMSs are intended to
accommodate multiple and existing uses of the designated area, if those uses are compatible
with protection of the NMS’s critical resources. In addition, NOAA noted that there are
precedents for dredged disposal sites being accommodated within NMSs off the coast of
California. Finally, NOAA indicated that if the MBDS was not within the Stellwagen NMS,
then it would only seek to regulate dredged disposal if it believed the effects of particular
disposal operations threaten to enter the NMS and harm its critical resources.
EPA supports NOAA’s proposed designation of a Stellwagen NMS. Regardless of the
location of the NMS boundaries finally selected by NOAA, EPA agrees that there is no
reason to terminate use of the MBDS even if it was encompassed by the Ste]lwagen NMS.
Furthermore, EPA also agrees that dredged material disposal activities should not be
authorized if they are shown to potentially injure Sanctuary resources. The existing Ocean
Dumping Regulations, guidance, policies, and practices constitute a strict regulatory regime
designed to protect the marine environment including a Steliwagen NMS should it be
designated. The key regulations are set forth at 40 CFR Part 227 and § 228.5, 228.6, 228.10
and 228.11. These regulations do provide that in monitoring the effects of dredged materials
69
-------
Figure 3.11-1: NOAA’s Preferred National Marine Sanctuary
Boundary for Steliwagen Bank
Former I S
Boundary
Proposed Southwest
1BPS Boundary
S
70
-------
disposal, special attention be paid to marine sanctuaries. Moreover, if harmful effects are
found to occur at a sanctuary, disposal site use must be modified to reduce those effects.
EPA believes that while NOAA should play a role in future permitting, the proposed
certification role is excessive and inconsistent with Title 111 of the MPRSA ( 16 Usc
§ 1431(b)(2) and (5) and 1434(a)(1)(A) and (a)(4)), which only authorizes NOAA to exert
regulatory authority where existing regulation is not adequate to protect NMS resources and
further regulation is reasonably necessary to provide such protection. Congress’s intent was
to prevent redundant bureaucracy from being created as a result of Title ifi ( Senate
Report 96-894, Part 1, 96th Cong., 2d Session 4, 1980 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News
2583). As indicated above, EPA believes that the existing regulatory regime is a stringent
one and is adequate to protect the resources of the NMS and, therefore, that NOAA’s
proposed permit certification role is not necessary. To ensure such protection of the NMS,
EPA believes that NOAA should involve its sanctuary personnel as necessary in the existing
permit review and development process.
NOAA already currently has a role in the permitting process for dredged material
disposal at the MBDS. The National Marine Fisheries Service, an arm of NOAA,
participates with EPA, the COE and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a joint review of
all proposed ocean dumping permits. EPA and the COE welcome this participation, in
addition to NOAA’s expressed desire for the state coastal zone management agencies (who
are funded by NOAA) to also participate in this review process. NOAA should also have its
sanctuary personnel take part in the existing multi-agency joint review process for permits to
ensure that information and knowledge concerning disposal proposals and sanctuary resources
are shared among the agencies as permit decisions are being made. Given the complexities
of both sanctuary and disposal site management, EPA and NOAA agree that they must,
together with the COE, develop a better understanding of how respective regulatory
authorities will be exercised. EPA, NOAA, and the COE are currently developing a protocol
to govern the interaction of the agencies with respect to activities in the MBDS.
3.11.2 Buffer Zone Creation
One commentor believed that the MBDS should not be located within the Steliwagen
NMS boundary, but thought that a “buffer zone” should be established.
EPA Response
EPA does not believe that a buffer zone is necessary because no unacceptable effects
have been demonstrated even inside the MBDS boundary (see also the responses to comment
numbers 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9, and 3.10). Thus, if near-field effects within the existing
MBDS have not been exhibited, it is reasonably foreseeable that effects outside the MBDS
boundary (away from dredged material deposits) will not occur. Further, the NOAA states
on page 142 of its DEIS/MP that previous use of the MBDS has not significantly degraded
the resources of the area. The NOAA also acknowledges that no far-field effects caused by
71
-------
dredged materia1 disposal have been identified. These statements serve to bolster EPA’s
conclusion that dredged material disposal has not harmed sanctuary resources. Moreover,
stricter controls imposed on disposal, as discussed in the response to comment number 3.9.2,
will ensure that unacceptable adverse effects will not occur with future dredged material
disposal.
3.11.3 Reference Sites Relocated to within the National Marine Sanctuary Boundary
One commentor asserted that the existing reference site and sites A and C, being
considered as possible new reference sites, are within the proposed Stellwagen NMS
boundary. This commentor cautioned that sediment removal activities may, therefore, be
subject to prohibition or regulation.
EPA Response
Since the relocated reference site is located within the proposed NMS boundary,
research or monitoring activities at these sites could be prohibited because they could be
categorized as “Alteration of, or Construction on, the Seabed.” EPA has requested a
“Special Use” permit from NOAA to continue use of the reference site located within the
proposed Stellwagen NMS. EPA does not believe that this activity wifi harm any of the
marine resources of Stellwagen Bank. To the contrary, use of the relocated reference site
will advance our knowledge of the condition of the area and will ultimately result in stricter
controls on the disposal of dredged material (See also the response to comment number
3.9.1.1).
3.12 Miscellaneoijs Comments
3.12.1 Use ofMWRAData
One commentor criticized EPA for not using data from certain MWRA studies in the
DEIS.
EPA Response
The data from the MWRA studies was used in the MBDS analyses. EPA listed it in
the references section under: U.S. EPA, 1988. Boston Harbor Wastewater Conveyance
System Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement because all of the data used in
MWRA’s EIR was referenced in this EIS.
3.12.2 Presentation of Physical Oceanography Data
One commentor charged that the physical oceanography discussion in the DEIS should
have been a synthesis rather than a summary of separate studies.
72
-------
EPA Response
EPA’s analysis, presented in Chapter 3 of the DEIS, was a synthesis of information
regarding separate physical oceanographic studies. Various studies were cited within the
synthesis discussion both as references and to illustrate the wide (and sometimes varying)
data set. Because of the vast variability of the circulation within the Gulf of Maine, it is
simply difficult to state with certainty what the predominant patterns are.
3.12.3 Insufficient Access to Public Hearing
One commentor was concerned that the public hearing did not allow for sufficient
public access.
EPA Response
EPA made every possible attempt to encourage public involvement and inform
interested parties via written announcements. EPA notified approximately 200 individuals
and organizations directly (through announcements) of the date, time, and place of the public
hearing. Additionally, EPA published a press release in various newspapers along the
Massachusetts coast.
Unfortunately, entry to the public hearing held on November 1, 1989 at the
Department of Transportation building in Cambridge, MA was initially restricted and some
attendees gained access through the back door. However, to EPA’s knowledge, everyone
who had intended to attend the public meeting was granted access. Additionally, formal
comment was accepted in writing on the DEIS and SDEIS until November 13, 1989 and
August 22, 1990, respectively.
3.12.4 Identification of Other Historically Used Sites
One commentor stated that the Boston Lightship and the IWS should be identified on
charts.
EPA Response
The Boston Lightship Disposal Site and the WS are identified on Figures 1-2 and 1-3
of the DEIS, respectively.
3.12.5 Reference citations
One commentor stated that several citations in the DEIS text are not included in the
list of references. For example, COE, 1988 (p.148) and MMS, 1983 (p.149) are not given
in the references. Conversely, Clarke and Gibson (1987) and TRIGOM (1974) were listed
twice in the DEIS. On page 13 of the SDEIS, the TRIGOM 1974 reference is not listed.
73
-------
EPA Response
“COE, 1988” is listed in the DEIS under “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988.”
“MMS, 1983” is listed in the DES under “Minerals Management Service (MMS), 1983.”
The second “Clarke and Gibson” reference and the first “TRIGOM” reference in the DEIS
should be deleted. The “TRIGOM 1974° reference is listed in the SDEIS under “The
Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine (I’RIGOM), 1974.”
3.12.6 Minimriing Impacts through Comparison to the Gulf of Maine
One commentor charged that EPA attempted to minimize potential adverse effects
caused in the MBDS vicinity through comparison with the Gulf of Maine.
EPA Response
EPA’s presentation of ambient data in the Gulf of Maine is intended solely to allow
the reader to put predicted impacts at the MBDS in context. EPA also compared sediment
and water quality at the MEDS to other specific areas within Massachusetts Bay. EPA’s
final siting decision for the proposed MBDS was based on compliance with the site selection
criteria, not on comparisons with other areas.
3.12.7 Segmentation
One commentor stated that EPA wrongly separated designation and management
issues during the ES process.
EPA Response
The purpose of the DES was to assess whether the physical and biological
characteristics of the MBDS make it an appropriate site for dredged matenal disposal in hght
of regulatory criteria and existing and proposed management techniques. This is evident in
Chapter 5 of the DES, Chapter 4 of this FEIS, and in the response to comment number 3.9,
where both management and monitoring considerations are discussed in detail.
However, the EIS is not a decision-making document for site management and
monitoring. Site management is largely governed by the permitting process which, as
discussed in Chapter 5 of the DES, is governed jointly by EPA and the COE. Site
monitoring is also jointly conducted by EPA and the COE. Additionally, EPA has held a
series of dredged material management workshops and the COE and CZM have orgamzed a
Task Force to foster improved communication and understanding of the complex issues
surrounding management and monitoring of dredged material (see the response to comment
number 3.9.2). Site monitoring issues will be discussed at future workshops and through the
Task Force.
74
-------
3.12.8 Involvement of Other EPA Staff
One commentor stated that EPA’s permit review staff should be included in the
MBDS designation process and charged that their expertise and counsel, which would add
immeasurably to the process, has not been used to date.
EPA Response
EPA did include the permit review staff during the EIS preparations. EPA’s primary
ocean dumping permit reviewer is also the main preparer of the site designation EISs.
Moreover, permit review staff from the NMFS, USFWS, and the COE were also involved in
the EJS development.
75
-------
CHAPTER 4. RECOMMENDED PLAN
This Chapter discusses the location of EPA’s proposed final boundary of the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (“MBDS”), the factors considered during project evaluation,
coordination and publicity for dredging projects and monitoring studies, target species to be
collected and chemicals to be measured (in sediments, water, and organisms) as part of
specific MBDS monitoring surveys, and decision options should unacceptable effects to
marine resources be identified.
Although this FEIS concludes that properly managed continued use of the MBDS will
not result in significant unacceptable adverse impacts on the marine environment, it does
concede that past disposal may have resulted in some environmental degradation. EPA is
confident that environmental conditions at the MBDS will improve for several reasons.
First, only dredged material that meets the requirements of the national and regional testing
protocols is allowed to be disposed at the MBDS (see also Sections 3.9.1.2 and 3.9.2.1 of
this document). In particular, sediments that are allowed for ocean disposal are those that do
not exhibit significant mortality or the potential to bioaccumulate contaminants (see Section
5.3 of the DEIS). Second, capping, a mitigation measure used to isolate contaminated
sediments, will not be relied upon until the efficacy of capping at the MBDS has been
effectively demonstrated (see also Section 3.9.2.2 of this document and Appendix B). Third,
tighter constraints on the disposal of dredged material have been imposed at the MBDS.
These constraints include: i) stricter requirements in the dredged material testing protocol as
discussed in Section 5.3 of the DEIS and in Section 3.9.1.2 of this document, ii) relocation
of the reference site to a cleaner area near Stellwagen Bank as explained in Section 3.9.1.1
of this document, iii) the requirement by the COE for disposal inspectors on every trip to the
MBDS (see Section 5.1.2 of the DEIS), and iv) the use of a taut-wire moored buoy.
Moreover, as explained in Section 4.1, by relocating the MBDS boundary the eastern portion
of the existing MBDS will remain pristine and previously disposed dredged material can
eventually be covered with newer deposits. All of these factors lead EPA to believe that
conditions at the proposed MBDS will improve.
EPA and the COE conduct annual monitoring surveys at the MBDS to determine
dredged material distribution and movement (including resuspension), benthic organism
colonization on dredged material, sediment chemistry, and bioaccumulation of contaminants
in benthic organisms (see Chapter 5.4 of the DEIS and Section 3.9 of this document). The
COE’s Disposal Area Monitoring System ( DAMOS”) monitors the region’s ocean disposal
sites for physical, chemical, and biological effects and is considered the most advanced and
comprehensive monitoring program of its ldnd in the nation (Section 5.4.4 of the DEIS).
The COE’s DAMOS program includes bathymetric surveys, side scan sonar, underwater
photography, divers, sediment analyses, biological analyses, and submersible vessels.
EPA and the COE plan to share specific monitoring plans for the MBDS with the
Dredged Material Task Force as they become available (see Section 3.9.2.3 of this
document). Review and comment on specific monitoring plans from area experts will assist
76
-------
EPA in meeting its environmental goals. The Dredged Material Task Force anticipates that a
long-term management strategy for dredged material will be approved in the near future. In
its ocean dumping program, EPA continues to explore opportunities and approaches to
reduce contaminant sources to protect the marine resources of Massachusetts Bay.
4.1 Final MBDS Boundary Configuration
EPA is currently proposing to designate an area southwest of the existing MBDS, a
two nautical mile diameter circle centered at 70° 35.0’ west longitude and 42° 25.1’ north
latitude, as the modified boundary for the MBDS (Figure 4-1). These are the coordinates
EPA proposes to list in the Federal Register when the Final Rulemaking is published. The
boundaries of the existing MBDS, the Industrial Waste Site (“JWS”), and the proposed
MBDS are depicted on Figure 4-1.
EPA’s proposal to revise the existing MBDS boundary by moving it slightly to the
southwest will have several advantages. First, the revised MBDS boundary will not
encompass the relatively pristine eastern portion of the existing MBDS, including the toe of
Stellwagen Bank. This area has not been used historically for dumping and is not included in
the proposed MBDS boundary and will therefore remain clean. Second, although the new
boundary would overlap the JWS in part, the proposed MBDS boundary avoids the northern
area within the 1WS where old waste barrels and debris are concentrated. Relocation of the
MEDS boundary to the southwest area will not result in disposing dredged material on top of
previously disposed barrels or debris. Given the uncertainty as to the condition and proper
management of these waste containers, EPA is not currently proposing (and in fact has never
proposed) to dispose dredged material on top of barrels, as has been suggested by some
commentors. The potential public health and environmental risk from past disposal at the
IWS and other sites in Massachusetts Bay is the subject of ongoing EPA studies (see Section
3.9.2.5 of this document). Third, the new MBDS boundary encompasses an area outside the
existing MBDS where contaminated sediments have been identified, probably as a result of
past short-dumping (see Section 3.7 of this document). Relocating the MBDS boundary will
enable EPA and the COE to eventually cover this contaminated area with cleaner sediments
(see Section 3.9.2 of this document). Fourth, the revised disposal site boundary will not
encroach onto the proposed boundaries of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary as
proposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAAN) (see Section
3.11 of this document). EPA believes that the proposed boundary illustrated on Figure 4-1 is
a more suitable boundary than the two nautical mile square centered over the IWS
recommended by one commentor for the reasons discussed above. Comments regarding
EPA’s alternatives analysis in the SDEIS are addressed in Section 3.2.2 of this document.
The actual disposal location will not change since the disposal buoy (the site where
barges dump dredged material) will remain in its present location for the next several years.
The disposal site boundary delineates the area where dredged material is to be contained.
The existing location of the disposal buoy is illustrated on Figure 3-4 on page 30 of the
DEIS. The disposal buoy can be moved within the disposal site boundary, but that is not
77
-------
Figure 44:
Location of the Proposed MBDS Final Boundary
N
S
CAPE
a
I
Former
IN’S
Existing
A/BPS
/
Proposed
South west
A/BPS
78
-------
proposed at this time. Since the existing disposal buoy is located in the area of overlap
between the existing MBDS and the proposed MBDS boundary, it will not be necessary to
relocate the disposal buoy.
4.2 Project Evaluation and Coordination
A review of a particular project’s disposal alternatives must be conducted prior to
selecting ocean disposal as the preferred disposal option (Section 5.2.1 of the DEIS and 40
CFR Part 227). The availability of other feasible disposal alternatives, the proposed method
and time of dredging, the environmental conditions at and near the disposal site, and the
physical and chemical nature of the material to be dredged are all considered. The options
available for a particular dredging project depend in part on the nature of the sediments (see
also Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2 of this FEIS). Dredged material has been used to replenish or
nourish beaches, trucked to landillls t p be used for cap or daily cover material, used as the
foundation for structures or as construction aggregate, and to create saitmarshes or islands,
and dumped in the ocean.
When characterizing dredged material, many factors are considered, including sources
of contamination at the dredging site, such as, natural drainage patterns in the area, the
presence of any outfafls in the vicinity, and the area’s hydrology; any previous or current
sediment test data for other projects nearby; the extent of any historical or current industrial
activity in or around the site; and any spills of oil or other substances that have occurred in
the area. Sediment samples are taken in areas that will adequately characterize the sediments
to be dredged. Selection of sampling sites and the chemical and biological testing procedures
are explained in the regional dredged material testing protocol (Appendix A to the DEIS).
The COE announces each dredged material disposal project via a public notice that
usually allows 30 days for comments (Section 5.2 of the DEIS). Anyone who wishes to
receive these notices can be added to the COE’s mailing list. All projects are also closely
coordinated with the EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service, all of whom receive sediment testing results. State concurrence, in the
form of state permits and water quality and coastal zone management certifications, is also
required for dredging projects.
As additional safeguards, the COE routinely imposes special conditions on dredging
projects. Special conditions in permits are administered on case-by-case bases. Examples
include restrictions on the type of dredging equipment used, seasonal restrictions, and
conditions to assure accurate placement, if disposal in the ocean is allowed. As added
precautions for ocean disposal projects, disposal is restricted to sites that have been identified
from scientific investigations as environmentally suitable, buoys are maintained at the
designated sites, and precise coordinates are stipulated for the approved disposal point within
the site. Violations are aggressively pursued by EPA and the COE (Section 5.1 of the
DEIS).
79
-------
4.3 Specific Chemicals and Organisms to be Monitored at the MBDS
This section discusses the target organisms to collect and chemicals to measure (in
sediments, water, and organisms) as part of specific MBDS monitoring surveys. Inclusion of
these list does mean that EPA plans to collect all of these organisms and measure all of these
constituents in water, sediment, and tissue. The generic lists of organisms and chemicals
within this section will be used in generating specific monitoring plans.
4.3.1 Target Analytes
The following sections discuss the analytes targeted for sediment, water, and
organism tissue samples collected as part of the on-going MBDS Monitoring Program. A list
of target constituents to measure in sediments, water, and tissue can be found in Table 4-1.
Recommended methods and expected detection limits are presented in the dredged material
testing protocol (Appendix A to the DEIS). The target analyte list was developed by
identifying contaminants that either are known to be present in dredged material or that
exhibit any of the following factors:
• Persistence in the marine environment
• Biological availability
• Potential to bioaccumulate
• Toxicity to marine organisms or humans
4.3.1.1 Target Analytes in Sediments and Water
The following sections briefly discuss the rationale for measuring each of these
analyte categories in marine sediments and the water column as part of the on-going MBDS
Monitoring Program.
4.3.1.1.1 PAils
Alkyl-substituted PAM compounds, parent PAM compounds, and alkyl homologues
are all recommended target PAH analytes. Ailcyl-substituted PAH compounds are often
found in greater abundance than the respective parent PAM compound. The relative
concentrations of the different alkyl homologues within a family (e.g., naphthalene, C 1 -
naphthalenes, C 2 -naphthalenes, C 3 -naphthalenes, and C 4 -naphthalenes) provides information
regarding the source of the contamination.
80
-------
TABLE 4 -1: TARGET CONSTITUENTS TO MEASURE IN SEDIMENTS, WATER,
A.ND 11SSUE
I. Total Organic Carbon’
II. Grain size analysis (percent sand, silt, & clay)’
Iii Percent Water’
IV. Polychiorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Total PCBs
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Individual PCB Congeners
8 - 2,4’-dichlorobiphenyl
18 - 2,2’ ,5-trichlorobiphenyl
28 - 2,4,4’-trich lorobiphenyl
44 - 2,2’,3,5’-tetrach lorobiphenyl
47 - 2,2’,4,4’-tetrachlorobiphenyl
52 - 2,2’,5,5’-tetrachlorobipheny l
66 - 2,3’,4,4’-tetrachlorobiphenyl
101 - 2,2’,4,5,5’-pentach lorobiphenyl
105 - 2,3,3’,4,4’-pentach lorobiphenyl
118 - 2,3’,4,4’,5-pentachlorobiphenyl
128 - 2,2’,3,3’,4,4’-hexachlorobiphenyl
138 - 2,2’ ,3 ,4,4’ ,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl
151 - 2,2’,3,5,5’,6-hexachlorobiphenyl
153 - 2,2’ ,4 ,4’ ,5 ,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl
170 - 2,2’ ,3,3’,4,4’,5-heptachlorobiphenyl
180 - 2,2’ ,3 ,4 ,4’ ,5 ,5 ‘-heptachiorobiphenyl
187 - 2,2’,3,4’,5,5’,6-heptachlorobiphenyl
194 - 2,2’,3,3’,4,4’,5,5’-octachlorobipheny l
195 - 2,2’,3,3’,4,4’,5,6-octachlorobiphenyl
206 - 2,2’,3,3’ ,4,4’,5,5’,6-honactilorobiphenyl
209 - 2,2’,3,3’ ,4,4’,5,5’,6,6’-decachlorobiphenyl
81
-------
TABLE 4 -1: TARGET CONSTiTUENTS TO MEASURE IN SEDIMENTS, WATER,
AND TISSUE (Continued)
V. Chlorinated Pesticides
Hexachlorobenzene
Lindane
Aipha-Chiordane
Gamma-Chiordane
Oxyc hlordane 2
Dieldrin
Trans-nonachior
p,p’-DDD
p,p’-DDE
p,p’-DDT
Mirex
VI. Polycycic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PANs)
Sum of Parent PARs
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Cl homologs of phenanthrene and anthracene
C2 homologs of phenanthrene and anthracene
C3 homologs of phenanthrene and anthracene
C4 homologs of phenanthrene and anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz [ a]anthracene
Chrysene
Sum of benzofluoranthenes
Benzo [ a]pyrene
Benzole}pyrene
Perylene
Indeno [ l ,2 ,3-cd]pyrene
Benzo [ g,h,i]perylene
Sum of molecular weight 276 PAils
Dibenz [ a,h]anthracene
Sum of molecular weight 278 PANs
Coronene
Sum of molecular weight 302 PAHs
82
-------
TABLE 4 -1: TARGET CONSTITUENTS TO MEASURE IN SEDIMENTS, WATER,
AND TISSUE (Concluded)
VU. Trace Metals
Aluminum’
Cadmium
Lead
Antimony
Nickel
Tin
Silver
Mercury
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Selenium
Nickel
Zinc
hon
Manganese
1 Sediment analysis only
2 Tissue analysis only
83
-------
4.3.1.1.2 PCBs
Individual PCB congeners are preferred for analysis because the usefulness of
measuring PCBs as Aroclor mixtures may be limited. This is primarily because analytical
methods that quantify PCB concentrations by Aroclor assume that the distributions of PCBs
detected in environmental samples are identical to industrial formulations, which is not
usually the case. Furthermore, Aroclor determinations do not provide information regarding
the potential biological significance of the PCBs.
4.3.1.1.3 Butyltin Compounds
The butyltin compounds are targeted because of their use in antifouling paints.
Tributyltin and related compounds are more likely to occur in harbors and marinas where
vessels treated with the paint are moored. To date, butyltin compounds have not been
detected in the sediments, water, or organisms collected at the MBDS. Moreover, in 1988
the use of antifouling paints containing organotins were banned for vessels less than twenty
five meters in length. As a result, levels of butyltin in sediments are expected to diminish
further.
4.3.1.1.4 Physical Characteristics
Physical characteristics of the sediments, such as percent water and grain size, allow
EPA and the COE to predict how the dredged material will behave during disposal. Total
organic carbon is often used to predict how much an organic constituent will be
bioaccumulated in a test organism (see section 3.3.2.3 of this document).
4.3.1.2 Target Analytes in Organisms
Selection of target analytes in organisms is often dependent on the results of sediment
analyses. Unless biomagnification is predicted, only analytes or compound classes that are
detected in sediments are measured in the organisms because if an analyte is found in tissue
but not in sediments, it is likely to have been bioaccumulated somewhere other than the
disposal site. Additionally, not all constituents need to be measured. For example, PAHs
are metabolized in fish and PCBs are metabolized in lobsters. Therefore, these constituents
may not need to be measured in the tissues of these particular organisms. Chemicals that are
likely to bioaccumulate include PCBs, PAHs, pesticides, phthalate esters, mercury, copper,
arsenic, cadmium, zinc, lead, and chromium. Contaminants in tissues are affected by
endogenous factors such as the lipophilic nature of the contaminants and the reproductive
state and feeding state of the organism, and exogenous factors such as water temperature,
dissolved organic matter, and interactive responses as a result of exposure to multiple
compounds (McElroy t i., 1989).
84
-------
4.3.1.2.1 Auxiliary Analyses
Additional analyses which may be undertaken in the MBDS Monitoring Program may
include histopathological examination of tissue samples. Histopathological abnormalities
resulting from exposure of organisms to contaminants can often be detected microscopically.
Abnormalities can also be caused by nutritional stress, natural toxins, poor water quality,
disease, and parasitism (see also Appendix D).
4.3.2 Species Selection
Target species of bottom-dwelling finfish, shellfish, and benthic infauna to collect as
part of MBDS site monitoring are discussed in the following sections and listed in Table 4-2.
It is important to recognize that the natural movements of some species limit their usefulness
in trying to relate demonstrated effects and particular exposure routes. EPA based its species
selections on the existing data and on the following criteria:
• Organisms that normally inhabit the MBDS and are thus available for sampling for
the duration of a monitoring program
• Selected commercial species of bottom-dwelling finfish and shellfish
• Organisms that can be collected in sufficient biomass to allow quantification of
contaminant residues by current and validated analytical methods
• Organisms that are efficient bioaccumulators
• Organisms that have a limited ability to metabolize organic chemicals, or that
accumulate metabolites in their bile
• Organisms that are exposed to the dredged material to maximize the probability that
any detected contaminants in their tissues were derived from disposed materials
• Organisms that have limited migratory patterns
4.3.2.1 Bottom-dwelling Finfish
The American plaice, Hippoglossoides plaessoides, is the recommended species of
bottom-dwelling (demersal) finfish in the MBDS area for monitoring. In bottom trawis
performed in the vicinity of MBDS by the COE, the NMFS, and the Massachusetts Division
of Marine Fisheries (“MDMF”), American plaice was dominant throughout the year and also
accounted for the highest percentage of total catch by weight (Chapter 3, DEIS). American
plaice occurs on sand and soft bottom substrates and has been the most abundant species
recorded in bottom trawis in the MBDS.
85
-------
American plaice was selected over the winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes
americanus, primarily because of the declining numbers of winter flounder noted in this area
(Bridges, 1991; Hubbard, 1991). Also, winter flounder typically do not inhabit waters that
are deeper than 150 feet and depths at the MBDS average 300 feet. Because of their
migratory nature, significant numbers of winter flounder were not caught in the spring,
summer, and fall bottom trawis in the vicinity of the MBDS conducted by COE, NMFS, and
MDMF (Chapter 3, DEIS). Spring and fall 1991 MDMF bottom trawls 2 to 3 miles west of
the MBDS captured American plaice, but no winter flounder (Currier, 1991).
The witch flounder, Glyptocephalus cynoglossus, although also a relatively non-
migratory resident of Massachusetts Bay, was not chosen because it is less abundant than the
American plaice and is less important commercially, accounting for less than six percent of
the commercial catch in the vicinity of the MBDS (Chapter 3, DEIS).
Because size, weight, and duration of exposure of an organism can affect measured
concentrations of contaminants and the ability to metabolize contaminants, EPA would
attempt to collect American plaice in the size range of ten to twenty centimeters for analysis.
This is primarily because fish in this size range forage upon a range of prey sizes. Seasonal
variations should also be noted for bottomfish species. For example, high levels of lipids
associated with reproductive products during spawning season could result in elevated levels
of organic contaminants that would not normally occur during other times of the year.
4.3.2.2 Shellfish
The shellfish species recommended for MBDS monitoring is the American lobster,
Homarus wnericanus. Although the American lobster can be found on many bottom types,
they prefer rocky substrates. This species has been collected in sufficient numbers for
chemical analysis both within the MBDS and in bottom trawis conducted by the COE, the
NMFS, and the MDMF in the spring and fall in the vicinity of MBDS (Chapter 3, DEIS).
The migratory habits of the American lobster in Massachusetts Bay are currently being
summarized by the MDMF.
The American lobster is commercially significant and may accumulate contaminants
from a variety of food sources because it is a scavenger. Also, the hepatopancreas of the
lobster, or the “tomalley”, accumulates lipophilic contaminants. Since the hepatopancreas is
esteemed to be a culinary delicacy by certain ethnic groups, chemical analysis of this organ
provides important information in assessing human health risks.
The Northern shrimp, Pandalus borealis, is a commercially harvested species that is
common on Stellwagen Bank. Its usefulness in a monitoring program may be limited
because of its seasonal migration inshore during spawning season (February/March). This
migration could expose the organism to other sources of contaminants. Although Pandalus
borealis has been monitored at the MBDS in the past, and would be considered for future
monitoring, it is not the preferred shellfish species to monitor.
86
-------
TABLE 4-2: TARGET ORGANISMS TO USE IN MONITORING TIlE MBDS
I. Fish
1. American plaice, Hippoglossoides platessoides
2. Witch flounder, Glytocephalus cynoglossus
3. Winter flounder, Pseudopleuronecres americanus
H. Shellfish
1. American lobster, Homarus americaluLs
2. Northern shrimp, Pandalus borealis
ifi. Benthic Infauna
A. Polychaete Worms
1. Nephtys incisa
2. Sandworm, Nereis virens
3. Spionids
B. Bivalves
1. Ocean quahog, ATtica islandica
2. Clam, Astarte sp.
3. Sea Scallop, Placopectin sp.
87
-------
4.3.2.3 Benthic Lnfauna
The benthic infaunal species recommended for monitoring at the MBDS are the ocean
quahog, Arcilca islandica, and the polychaete worm, Nephiys incisa. Nepluys incisa can be
collected within MBDS in biomass sufficient for chemical analysis. Also, EPA and the COE
have an existing database of tissue concentrations of metals and organic contaminants in
Nephrys incisa collected at the MBDS (Chapter 3, DEIS).
Spionid polychaetes, although an abundant infaunal species in the vicinity of MBDS,
are too small, too difficult to collect, and too difficult to sort. Also, spionids probably do
not provide a significant portion of the diet of any of the commercially harvested flounder
species and would therefore not provide a useful trophic transfer link to these fish species.
Neph/ys incisa is a larger polychaete which is a common food of flounders (see also Section
3.5.1 of this document).
Another large polychaete worm, Nereis viren.s, is commonly found in intertidal and
subtidal shores and is rare in deeper waters. Nereis virens has been commercially harvested
in order to be used as bait for anglers. Although Nereis virens can be found on all sediment
types, it has not been collected at the MBDS and therefore was not selected as a target
species.
One commercially significant infaunal species in the MBDS area is the ocean quahog,
Arctica islandica. Although not common, it has been collected in the vicinity of the MBDS.
Another clam, Astazie sp., can be found on all sediment types, but prefers sand and till.
This clam has been collected at the MBDS, but is usually rare on silty substrates. Astarre
sp. is present in Stellwagen Basin, although rare, and is not commercially harvested. The
sea scallop, Placopectin sp., is a commercially harvested species that is common throughout
the Gulf of Maine, including the Stellwagen Basin area. Placopectin sp. has been collected
in the MBDS. The motility of this species may limit its usefulness in a monitoring program.
For these reasons, Arctica isiandica has been selected as the target species.
4.4 Tiered Monitoring and Management Decision Options
EPA and the COE monitor dredged material disposal sites to ensure that sediments
dredged from the harbors and waterways are properly managed. Monitonng considers both
short-term and long-term effects immediately observable and monitored before, during, and
immediately following the time of disposal. The procedures and monitoring techniques to be
used to assess whether unacceptable adverse impacts resulting from dredged material disposal
have occurred were described in Chapter 5 of the DEIS.
This section discusses possible management options to consider when adverse impacts
resulting from dredged material disposal at the proposed MBDS are detected, including those
defined in the Ocean Dumping Regulations. It does not attempt to specify particular
responses to any predicted or actual adverse impact resulting from disposal activities. As
88
-------
discussed in Section 3.9.1.3 of this document, the timing of monitoring surveys and other
activities is governed by agency funding resources, the frequency of disposal at the MBDS,
and the results of previous monitoring surveys. Should any adverse effects caused by
dredged material disposal be demonstrated, appropriate management responses will be
decided by EPA and the COE on a case-by-case basis. Examples of actions to be considered
under each tier are discussed below.
4.4.1 Tier 1: Sediment Transport Evaluation
Potential effects from sediment deposition and transport can include: i) identifiable
progressive movement or accumulation of disposed dredged material that may affect any
shoreline, marine sanctuary, or critical biological area; and ii) consistent detection of
significant amounts of dredged material outside the disposal site boundary using side-scan
sonar, bathymetric surveys, sub-bottom profiling, sediment profile camera surveys, or other
similar oceanographic survey methods. If dredged material movement offsite is discovered,
EPA or the COE could employ several management actions. These include:
1. Revise size or location of the dump zone, or move the disposal buoy to a more
central location vithin the disposal site
2. Incorporate and enforce stricter permit conditions on navigation and placement of
barges
3. Limit the amount of dredged material disposed at the site each year
4. Reconfigure the disposal site boundaries
5. Specify dredged material density or modify the consistency (i.e., percent
clumping)
6. Evaluate the effect of sediment movement outside the MEDS on sensitive benthic
communities under Tier 2 or 3
7. Limit designation of the MBDS to a finite time and initiate environmental studies
for a new disposal site
8. Implement other management options that are developed as the monitoring
program progresses
9. Specify tidal current conditions in disposal permits under which disposal may
occur
89
-------
4.4.2 Tier 2: Physical Impacts on Biological Resources of Concern
If dredged material at the MBDS is shown to have physical impacts on sensitive
biological resources, such larval life stages, then identification of the magnitude and
significance of these impacts will occur in Tier 2. An assessment of the sensitive benthic
resource will be made by comparing the specific resources of concern at the MBDS to the
same resources at the reference sites. Resources of concern may include benthic organisms,
shellfish, or fisheries. EPA or the COE may address effects to sensitive biological resources
by:
1. Restricting disposal to specific locations within the MBDS to allow other areas
within the site to recolonize
2. Restricting disposal to a more central location within the disposal site to prevent
material from moving out of the site boundary
3. Incorporating and enforcing permit conditions on navigation and placement of
barges
4. Assessing the significance of adverse impacts on commercial and recreational
fisheries resources or human health
5. Evaluating body burden impacts and bioaccumulation effects in Tier 3
6. Reconfiguring the disposal site boundary
7. Initiating environmental studies for a new disposal site
8. Implementing other feasible and responsible management options that are
developed as the monitoring program progresses
9. Restricting disposal operations to certain times of the year
4.4.3 Tier 3: Body Burden Analysis of Biological Resources
If effects to sensitive benthic resources either outside or within the MBDS boundaries
are anticipated, then monitoring body burdens of resident species will occur in Tier 3. Body
burdens of chemicals of concern will be assessed by comparing tissues of specific resources
of concern at the MBDS to the same resources at the reference sites. The resources of
concern should be the same as those identified in Tier 2 or higher trophic levels that prey
upon the benthic resource. EPA or the COE could address such effects in several ways,
including:
90
-------
1. Re-evaluate bioaccumulation testing and analytical procedures before issuing
disposal permits
2. Define the levels of contaminants in dredged material that would be suitable for
ocean disposal, or restrict the quality of material to be dredged
3. Determine extent of adverse impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries
resources or human health
4. Initiate environmental studies for a new disposal site
5. Implement other feasible and responsible management options that are developed
as the monitoring program progresses
6. Restrict disposal operations to certain times of the year
91
-------
CHAPTER 5. ERRATA
Several typographical errors and recommended text changes were identified within the
DEIS.
1. Throughout the DEIS, “specie” should be changed to “species.”
2. On page 177 of the DEIS, the formula should also be divided by “H” in order to provide
the correct units.
3. On page 178 of the DEIS, “ppm” should be “ppt.”
4. On page 11 of the DEIS the references to Sections 2.C., 5.B., and 5.C., should be
changed to 2.3., 5.2., and 5.3., respectively.
5. On page 35 of the DEIS, Table 3-2, the footnote “2” on the average water column
concentration of lead should be moved one line up to the average water column concentration
of mercury.
6. On page 43 of the DEIS, the value of “4952” ppb for PCB analysis in sediment samples
is inaccurate. It should read “495’” ppb.
7. At the bottom of page 43 of the DEIS, “outliner” should be “outlier.”
8. Throughout the DEIS, the noun “data” should be used in the plural form.
9. On page 101 of the DEIS, “Paranois” should be “Paraonis.”
10. In paragraph 2 on page 124 of the DEIS, the “two species” of turtles in the Gulf of
Maine, should be changed to “three species.”
11. On Table 3-32 and pages 143 and 144, “Ridleys” should be “ridley.”
12. The List of Preparers should include all of the personnel involved in the preparation of
the COE’s Site Evaluation Document.
13. On page 33 of the DEIS, the source citation for the figure should read “Modified from
SAIC 1987.”
14. On page 171 of the DEIS, the summary statement should state that “at most only 4% of
the recently deposited material” would be resuspended.
15. On page 218 of the DEIS, paragraph 2, “simulate” should be changed to “stimulate.”
92
-------
16. On page 110 of the DEIS, the references to footnotes “c” and “d” should be reversed.
17. On page 217 of the DEIS, paragraph 2, “Section 5.3.5” should be “Section 5.4.7”.
18. On page 3 of the DEIS, the last two sentences should read “...The repositioning of the
iLe (buoy) may .... that lack of stringent (appropriate) disposal controls earlier in the century
(in the past) and repositioning ....“
19. On page 7 of the DEIS, “1.6 million” cubic yards of “maintenance” dredging of the
federal Boston Harbor Channel should be changed to “2.3 million” cubic yards of
“improvement” dredging.
93
-------
Battelle. 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan. Volume V, Appendix B. Chemical
and Biological Oceanography. March 31, 1988. Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Charlestown, MA.
Bertine, K.K. and E.D. Goldberg. 1972. Trace Elements in Clams, Mussels, and Shrimp.
Linmol. Oceanography. 17:877-884.
Bokuniewicz, H.J., J. Gebert, R.B. Gordon, J.L. Higins, P. Kaininsky, C.C. Pilbeam, M.
Reed, and C. Tuttle. 1978. Field Study of the Mechanics of Placement of Dredged
Material at Open Water Disposal Sites. Technical Report D-78-7. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Boon, J. p. 1985. Uptake, Distribution, and Elimination of Selected PCB Components of
Clophen A40 in Juvenile Sole, Solea solea , and Effects on Growth, Marine Biology of
Polar Regions and Effects of Stress on Marine Organisms, pp. 493-5 12.
Boon, Jan P. . 1987. The Kinetics of Individual Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners in
Female Harbour Seals, Phoca vitulina , with Evidence for Structure-related
Metabolism, Aquatic Toxicology, 10, pp. 307-324.
Boon, Jan P. 1988. The Possible Role of Metabolism in Determining Patterns of PCB
Congeners in Species for the Dutch Wadden Sea, Marine Environmental Research,
24, pp. 3-8.
Brannon, J.M., R.M. Engler, J.R. Rose, P.G. Hunt, I. Smith. 1976. Selective Analytical
Partitioning of Sediments to Evaluate Potential Mobility of Chemicai Constituents
during Dredging and Disposal Operations. Dredged Material Research Program
Technical Report D-76-7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Brannon, J.M. 1978. Evaluation of Dredged Material Pollution Potential. Synthesis Report
Technical Report DS-78-6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Breteler, R.J. and F.C. Saksa. 1985. The Role of Sediment Organic Matter on Sorption
Description Reactions and Bioavailability of Mercury and Cadmium in an Intertidal
Ecosystem. Aquatic Toxicity and Hazard Assessment. Seventh Symposium ASTM
STP 854 ASTM Philadelphia, PA. pp. 454-468.
-------
Brungs, W.A. and D.I. Mount. 1978. Introduction to a Discussion of the Use of Aquatic
Toxicology for Evaluation of the Effects of Toxic Substances. In J. Cairns, Jr., K.L.
Dickson and A.W. Male (eds.). “Estimating the Hazard of Chemical Substances to
Aquatic Life” ASTM 657. American Society of Testing and Materials.
Bryan, G.W. 1985. Bioavailability and Effects of Heavy Metals in Marine Deposits. In
B.H. Ketchum, J.M. Capuzzo, W.V. Burt, I.W. Deedall, P.K. Park and D.R. Kester
(eds.). “Wastes in the Ocean”, J. Wiley & Sons, N.Y. Vol. 6.
Chiou, C.T. 1985. Partitioning Coefficients of Organic Compounds in Lipid-Water Systems
and Correlations with Fish Concentration Factors, Environmental Science and
Technology, 19:57-62.
Chiou, C.T., V.H. Freed, D.W. Schmedding, and R.L. Kohnerto. Bioaccumulation of
Selected Organic Chemicals. Environmental Science Technology, 11:475-478.
Dawe, Clyde 3. 1990. Implications of Aquatic Animal Health for Human Health,
Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 86, pp. 245-255.
Dillon, T.M. 1984. Biological consequences of Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Animals. An
Assessment of the Current Literature, Technical Report D-84-2. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Dillon, T.M. and A.B. Gibson. 1985. Bioaccumulation and effects on reproduction in aquatic
organisms: An Assessment of the Current Literature. Miscellaneous Paper D-85-2.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Dillon, T.M. and A.B. Gibson. 1990. Literature Review for Residue-Effects Relationships
with Hydraulic Contaminants in Marine Organisms. Environmental Effects of
Dredging Technical Notes, EEDP-01-24. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
DiToro, D.M., J.D. Mahoney, D.J. Hansen, K.J. Scott, M.B. Hicks, S.M. Mayr, and M.S.
Redmond. 1990. Toxicity of Cadmium in Sediments: The Role of Acid Volatile
Sulfides. Environ. Tox. and Chem. 9:1487-1502.
Duinker, 3. C. . 1989. Individual Chlorinated Biphenyls and Pesticides in Tissues of
Some Cetacean Species from the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean; Tissue
Distribution and Biotransformation, Aquatic Mammals, 15.3, pp. 95-124.
Ernst, W. j. 1977. Fate of ‘ 4 C-Labelled Di-, Tn- and Pentachlorobiphenyl in the Marine
Annelid, Nereis virens , Degradation and Faecal Elimination, Chemosphere, No. 9,
pp. 559-568.
-------
Gardner, George B. . 1986. Baseline Assessment of Salem Harbor - Salem Sound and
Adjacent Waters. Submitted to the new England Aquarium by the University of
Massachusetts. Boston, MA.
Gardner, George R. i. December 1991. Chemical Contamination and Environmentally
Related Diseases in Aquatic Organisms at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Narragansett, RI.
Gatcher, G.B. & G.T. Wallace. 1986. Initial Results of Phase One of 12 Baseline
Assessment of Salem Harbor - Salem Sound and adjacent Waters, Part I. In Appendix
F, Volume 2, South Essex Sewage District Salem, MA, Section 301(h) Revised
Application for Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements for Discharges
into Marine Waters, Cami5, Dresser & McKee, Boston, MA.
George, S.G. 1982. Subcellar Accumulation and Detoxification of Metals in Aquatic
Animals. In F.S. Vernberg, . (eds.), “Physiological Mechanisms of Marine
Pollutant Toxicity” pp. 3-52.
Gentile, J.H. . 1988. Synthesis of Research Results: Applicability and Field Verification
of Predictive Methodologies for Aquatic Dredged Material Disposal. Technical
Report D-88-5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Gibson, A.B. and T.M. Difion. 1989. Bioaccumulation of Chlorinated Contaminants and
concomitant Sublethal Effects in Marine Animals: An Assessment of the Current
Literature, Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Notes EEDP-0l-15, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Goerke, H. . 1977. Fate of ‘ 4 C-Labelled Di-, Tn- and Pentachiorobiphenyl in the
Marine Annelid, Nereis virens , Accumulation and Elimination after Oral
Administration, Chemosphere, No. 9, pp. 551-558.
Goerke, Helmut I. 1990. Population-dependent Elimination of Various Polychiorinated
Biphenyls in Nereis diversicolor (Polychaeta), Marine Environmental Research, 29,
pp. 205-226.
Gordon, R.B. 1974. Dispersion of Dredged Spoil Dumped in Nearshore Waters. Estuanne
and Coastal Marine Science. 2:349-35 8.
Gossett, R.W., D.P. Brown, and D.R. Young. 1983. Predicting the Bioaccumulation of
Organic Compounds in Marine Organisms using the Octanol-Water Partitioning
Coefficients. Marine Poll. Bull. 14:387-392.
Harding, C.C. and R.F. Addison. 1986. Accumulation and Effects of PCBs in Marine
Invertebrates and Vertebrates. In J.S. Waid (ed.). PCBs and Environment. Vol II.
CRC Press. pp. 10-30.
-------
Harvey, G.R., H.P. Milcias, V.T. Bowen, and W.A. Steinhauer. 1974. Observations on the
Distribution of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Atlantic Ocean Organisms. I. Mas. Res.
32:103-118.
Hawker, D.W. and D.W. Connell. 1985. Relationships between Partitioning Coefficients,
Uptake Rate Constants, Clearance Rate Constants, and Time to Equilibrium for
Bioaccumulation. Chemosphere. 14:1205-1219.
Hutzinger, 0. . October 1972. Polychiorinated Biphenyls: Metabolic Behavior of Pure
Isomers in Pigeons, Rats, and Brook Trout, Science. Vol. 178, pp. 312-3 14.
James, M.O. 1989. Biotransformation and Disposition of PAIl in Aquatic Invertebrates. In
U. Varanesi (ed.). “Metabolism of Polycycic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Aquatic
Environment. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. pp. 69-9 1.
Johnson, B.H. 1978. Application of the Instantaneous Dump Dredged Material Disposal
Model to the Stamford and New Haven Harbor Material from a Scow in Long Isaland
Sound. Tech. Manuscript. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Karickhoff, S.W. 1984. Organic Pollution Sorption in Aquatic Systems. J. Hydraulic Eng.
110:707-735.
Karickhoff, S.W. and K.R. Morris. 1986. Pollutant Sorption: Relationship to bioavailability.
In K.L. Dickson. A.W. Maid, and W. Brungs (eds.). Facts and Effects of Sediment-
Sound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems. Proceedings of Sixth Pellston Workshop,
August 3, 1984. Florissant Co.
Kay, S.H. 1984. Potential for Biomagnification of Contaminants within Marine and
Freshwater Food Webs. Technical Report D-84-7, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Lake, J.L, W. Galloway, G. Hoffman, W. Nelson and K.J. Scott. 1987. Comparison of
Federal and Laboratory Bioaccumulation of Organic and Inorganic Contaminants from
Black Rock Harbor Dredged Material. Field Verification Program Technical Report
D-87-6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
Lake, J.L., N. Rubenstein, and S. Pavignono. 1986. Predicting Bioaccumulation:
Development of a Simple Partitioning Model for Use as a Tool for Regulating Ocean
Disposal of Wastes. In K.L. Kickson, A.W. Malei, and W. Brungs (eds.). “Fate and
Effects of Sediment-bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems.” Proceeding of Sixth
Peliston Workshop. 1984. Flouissant Co.
-------
Lake, James L. . 1990. Equilibrium Partitioning and Bioaccumulation of Sediment
-Associated Contaminants by Infaunal Organisms, Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, Vol. 9, pp. 1095-1106. Narragansett, RI.
Landrum, P.F. 1989. Bioavailibility and Toxicokinetics of Polycylic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Sorbed to Sediments for the Amphipod, Pontoporeia Environmental Science and
Technology. 23:588-595.
Lee, H. II, B.L. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Winsor, D.T. Specht, and R.C. Randall. 1989.
Guidance Manual: Bedded Sediment Bioacumulation Tests. ERLN, Contribution No.
Nih. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, RI.
Lewis, A.G. and W.R. Cave. 1982. The Biological Importance of Copper in Oceans and
Estuaries. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. Aberdeen University Press. Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada.
Livingston, D., 1985. Biochemical Measurements. In B.L. Bayne, i. (eds.). “The
Effects of Stress and Pollution on Marine Animals”. Praeger Special Studies, New
York, NY. pp. 81-132.
Lunz, John D. June 1986. Application of the Benthic Resources Assessment Technique
(BRAT) to the Foul Area Disposal Site. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Luoma, S.N. 1977. The Dynamics of Biologically Available Mercury in a Small Estuary.
Estuary Coastal Marine Science, 5:643-652.
Luoma, S.N. 1989. Can we determine the Biological Availability of Sediment-Bound Trace
Elements? Hydrobiol. 176:379-396.
Mackay, D. and S. Patterson. 1981. Calculating Fugacity, Environmental Science and
Technology. 15:1006-1014.
McElroy, D.E. and J.C. Means. 1988. Factors Affecting the Bioavailabiity of
Hexachiorobiphenyls to Benthic Organisms. In W.J. Adams, G.A. Chapman, W.A.
Landis (eds.). “Aquatic Toxicity & Hazard Assessment”, STM STP 971 ASTM
Philadelphia, PA. pp. 149-158.
McFarland, V.A. 1984. Activity-based Evaluation of Potential Bioaccumulation from
Sediments. In R.L. Montgomery and J.W. Leach (eds.). “Dredging and Dredged
Material Disposal, Volume I”, Proceedings of the Conference Dredging 1984,
Clearwood Beach, FL. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. pp.
461-466.
-------
McFarland, V.A. and J.W. Clarke. 1986. Tesling Bioavailability of Polychiorinated
Biphenyls from Sediments using a Two-level Approach. In R.G. Wiley, ed. USACE
Committee on Water Quality, Sixth Seminar-Proceedings, Hydrologic Erig. Research
Center, Davis, FL. pp. 220-229.
McFarland, V.A., C.H. Lutz, and F.]. Reilly. 1989. Factors Influencing Bioaccumulation of
Sediment-associated Contaminants by Aquatic Organisms; Factors Related to
Contaminants. Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Wastes EEDP-07-17.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
McFarland, V.A., C.H. Ltitz, F.S. Reilly. 1989. Factors Influencing Bioaccumulation of
Sediment-associated Contaminants by Aquatic Organisms; Factors Related to Sediment
and Water. Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Wastes EEDP-01-18. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
McFarland, V.A., C.H. Lutz. and F.J. Reilly. 1989. Factors Influencing Bioaccumulation of
Sediment-associated Contaminants by Aquatic Organisms; Factors Related to Biota.
Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Wastes EEDP-01-19. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
McFarland, V.A., C.H. Lutz, and F.]. Reilly. 1989. Factors Influencing Bioaccumulation of
Sediment-associated Contaminants by Aquatic Organisms; Glossary and Bibliography.
Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Notes, EEDP-01-20. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Massachusetts Department of Public Works. November 1990. Final Supplemental
Environmental Imapct Report. Central Artery (1-93)/Tunnel (1-90) Project. Boston,
Menzie-Cura & Associates. November 1991. Sources and Loadings of Pollutants to the
Massachusetts Bays, Task 1 of the Massachusetts Bays Program. MBP-91-O1.
Massachusetts Bays Program, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, US EPA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. January 1991. Stellwagen Bank National
Marine Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact St.atementlManagement Plan. U.S.
Department of Commerce. Washington, DC.
National Research Council. 1990. Managing Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine
Environmental Monitoring. National Academy Press.
Neff, J.W., R.S. Foster, J.F. Slowey. 1978. Availability of Sediment Absorbed Metals to
Benthos with Particular Emphasis on Deposit Feeding Infauna. Technical Report D-
78-42. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
-------
O’Connor, J.M and J.W. Rachlin. 1982. Perspectives on Metals in New York Bight
organisms: Factors Controlling Accumulation and Body Burdens. In G.F. Mayer
(ed.). “Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science and Management.
Estuarine Reserved Federation, Columbia, SC. pp. 655-673.
O’Conner, Joseph M. i. March 1987. Dynamics of Polychiorinated Biphenyls in Striped
Bass from the Hudson River. ifi. Tissue Disposition and Routes for Elimination,
Estuaries, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 68-77.
O’Donnell, J.R., B.M. Kaplan, and H.E. Allen. 1985. Bioavailabillty of these Metals in
Natural Waters. In R.D. Cardwell, R. Purdey, and R.C. Schner, (eds.). Aquatic
Toxicity and Hazard Assessment: Seventh Symposium ASTM STP 854, ASTM
Philadelphia, PA. pp. 485-501.
Palermo, Michael R. February 1988. Field Evaluations of the Quality of Effluent from
Confined Dredged Material Disposal Areas. Technical Report D-88-l. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Peddicord, R.K., V.A. McFarland. 1978. Effects of Suspended Dredged Material on Aquatic
Animals. Technical Report D-78-29., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Pruell, R.J., J.L. Rake, W.R. Davis, and J.G. Quinn. 1986. Uptake and Depuration of
Organic Contaminants by Blue Mussels, Mytilus edulis , Compared to Contaminated
Sediment. Marine Biol. 911:497-507.
Reuber, B., D. Mackay, S. Paterson, and P. Stokes. 1987. A Discussion of Chemical
Equilibria and Transport at the Sediment-Water Interface, Envir. Tox. Chem. 6:731-
739.
Rice, S.D., M.M. Babcock, D.C. Brodeusen, J.A. Gharret, and S. Korn. 1987. Uptake and
Depuration of Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Reproductively Ripe Pacific Herring and
the Subsequent Effect of Residues on Egg Hatching and Survival. In W.B. Vansberg,
A. Calabrese. F.P. Thurberg and F.J. Vernberg (eds.). “Pollution Physiology of
Estuarine Organisms” University South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. pp. 139-154.
Roesijadi, G., J.W. Anderson, and J.W. Blaylock. 1977. Uptake of Hydrocarbons from
Marine Sediments Contaminated with Prudhoe Bay Crude 0.1: Influence of Feeding
type of Test Species and Availability of Polycycic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. J. Fish.
Res. Brd. Canada. 35:608-614.
Rubenstein, N.I., E. Loves, and N. Gregory. 1988. Accumulation of PCBs, Mercury and
Cadmium by Nereis virens, Mercenaria mercenaria , and Palaemonetes pugio for
Contaminated Harbor Sediments. Aquatic Toxicology. 3:249-260.
-------
Rubenstein, N.J., W.I. Gilliam, and N.R. Gregory. 1984. Dietary Accumulation of PCBs
from a Contaminated Sediment Source by a Demesal Fish, Leiostomus xanthuras .
Aquatic Toxicol. 5:336-342.
Sasaki Associates, Inc. April 1983. Upland Dredged Material Disposal Site Analysis.
Watertown, MA.
Schneider, R. 1982. Polychiorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Cod Tissues from the Western
Baltic: Significance of Equilibrium Partitioning and Lipid Composition in the
Bioaccumulation of Lipophilic Pollutants in Gill-breathing Animals. Meeresforschung.
29:64-79.
Schoenherr, J., I. Cook, D. Carey and G. Tracey. 1992. Location survey and condition
inspection of waste containers at the Boston Lightship Dumping Ground and
surrounding area. Science Applications International Corporation, Newport and
Narragansett, RI. Draft report submitted to the EPA Narragansett Environmental
Research Laboratory, Narragansett, RI.
Science Applications International Corporation. April 1984. Dredged Material Disposal
Operations at the Boston Foul Ground. June 1982 - February 1983. Contribution #41.
Newport, RI.
Science Applications International Corporation. April 1985. Disposal Area Monitoring
System. Summary of Program Results 1981-1984. SAIC Report #SAIC-
84/6521&C46. Contribution #46. Newport, RI.
Science Applications International Corporation. November 1987. Upland Dredged Material
Disposal Sites in the New England Region. Report No. SAIC-87/7539&C65.
Newport, RI.
Snedecor, G.W. and G.C. Cochran. 1980. Statistical Methods. Iowa State University Press,
Ames, IA. Seventh ed. pp. 507-508.
Spacie, A., and J.L. Hamelink. 1982. Alternative Models for Describing the
Bioconcentration of Organics in Fish, Environ. Tricol & Chem. 1:309:320.
Spacie, A., and J.L. Hamelink. 1984. Bioaccumulation, In G.M. Rand and S. R. Petrocelli
(eds.). “Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology”, Hemisphere Pub. Co., New York,
NY. pp. 495-525.
Swartz, R.C., F.A. Cole, D.W. Schultz, and W.A. DeBen. 1986. Ecological Changes in the
Southern california Bight Near a Large Sewage Outfal: Benthic Conditions in 1980
and 1983. Marine Ecology - Progress Series. 31:1-13.
-------
Swartz, R.C., and Hibec, H. 1980. Biological Processes Affecting the Distribution of
Pollutants in Marine Sediments. Accumulation, Trophic Transfer Biodegradation and
Migration. In R.A. Baker (ed.). “Contaminants and Sediments” Vol. 2 Analysis,
Chemistry, Biology. Ann Arbor Science Publications. pp. 535-548.
Tanabe, Shinsuke . April 1988. Capacity and Mode of PCB Metabolism in Small
Cetaceans, Marine Mammal Science, 4 (2), pp. 103-124.
Tavolaro F. 1., 1982. Sediment Budget Study for Clamshell Dredging and Disposal
Activities. Tech. Manuscript. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District.
Tavolaro F. J., 1984. A Sediment Budget Study of Clamshell Dredging and Ocean Disposal
Activities in the New York Bight. Environment Geo. Water Science, Vol. 6, No. 3,
pp. 133-140.
Turekian, K.K. 1977. The Fate of Metals in the Oceans, Geochim, Cosmochim, Acta.
41:1139-1144.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Decmeber 1984. Data from
Studies of Previous Radioactive Waste Disposal in Massachusetts Bay. Office of
Radiation Programs. EPA 520/1-84-031. Washington, DC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1988. Analysis of risks from
consumption of Quincy Bay fish and shellfish. Metcalf & Eddy report to EPA.
Boston, MA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1988. Boston Harbor Wastewater
Conveyance System, Vols. I and II.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1989. Equilibrium Partitioning
Approach Method to Generating Sediment Quality Criteria. Briefing Report to the
Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). September 1989. Assessing
Human Health Risks from Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish: A Guidance
Manual. US EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1991. Health Risk from
Chemically Contaminated Seafood. Briefing Paper. Narragansett Bay Project Report
#NBP-91-62. Boston, MA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1978.
Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material into Ocean Waters,
Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989.
Guidance for Performing Tests on Dredged Material to be Disposed of in Open
Waters. Boston, MA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991.
Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal Testing Manual.
Wallace, G.T., Jr., D.L. Seibert, S. M. Holzknedrt & W. H. Thomas. 1982. The
Biochemical Fate and Toxicity of Mercury in Controlled Experiment Ecosystems.
Boston, MA.
Wiley, D.N., V.C. Capone, D.Carey and J. Fish. 1992. Location survey and condition
inspection of waste containers at the Massachusetts Bay Industrial Waste Site and
surrounding areas. International Wildlife Coalition, North Falmouth, MA.
-------
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENT LEUERS
-------
Marine Really i1’ust
(4,3 ‘. , a A.
(. 1, 1 1 1, ,. ‘ I. , l%l (4 I ,I I I II
3 1,1(3 .1 11 ‘II I.
Kenne l; J Lth.,In,o’. I a. .
M’s. Kymberlee Keckler. Engineer
Environmental Protection Agency, Region One
J.F K. Federal Building
Office U W.Q E. 1900
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Ms. Keckler.
Re Proposed Relocation of
Offshore Dredge Disposal Ares
It has come to our attention that your agency is soliciting
public consent relative to a proposal for relocating the present
dredge disposal area to a new local lot; approximately 50 miles
offshore. As a marine contractor and waterfront property owner, I
should like to offer the following consents for your consideration
First is that the proposal would have a dramatIc escalatIon
effect upon all public waterfront proJects that involve dredgIng
The coat increases, (to be detailed below), would be so enormous as
to prevent some projects from comIng to fruitIon Additionally, some
projects with specifically allocated grant limits would have to spend
so much on the dredging that all other landward improvements relative
to the project would have to be cut
The economic effects on the areas involved would be dramatic in
terms of little or no growth in each port, decreased employment In
those areas, decreased revenues to the slate and local coffers
because of this economic impact
his Kymberlee Keckler
Page 2
May 16, i990
In the private sector these extreme cost consequences would
manifest three activities. The first is thai no new private
waterfront developments involving dredging would be undertaken,
becsuee of this extreme cost. Second, existing marine waterfront
facilities, which are already permitted for maintenance dredging,
would not go forward with that activity because the increased coat
could not be passed along to its consumers The third and most
prevalent effect would be the rejuvenation of “mIdnight dumping” If
a marina operator has an exiating facility with legal dredge permits
which require offshore dumping, but he does not have the financial
resources to do it, he certainly will not abandon his investment. He
will be forced into either quietly removing the material somehow
dumping it into channels which routinely have their dredging
maintained by federal authorities, or he will periodically and
conslatantly remove the material and find onshore disposal sites
contrary to his permit.
In conclusion, I therefore feel that the net effect of your
proposed relocation of the dump ares will be to decrease growth and
increase economic decline in the public sector, coupled with, the
atrangulation of growth and an increase in illegal environmental
activity in the private sector.
In the way of substantiation end backup, I offer the following
for your consideration.
One is that the relocation for the disposal area from 12 4/- to
50 +1- miles offshore has cost ramifications far in excess of the
fact that it will take a little more time to get to the area end
beck. First end foremost is the fact that there are very few
tugboats in the New England area at present that would be capable of
towing a 3,000 cubic yard dump scow 50 miles offshore and back with
any reasonable assurance of being able to withstand unforeseen
weather conditions. In present circumstances a reaeonable and
prudent tug boat oaptein must project weathsr conditiona relative to
their possible occurance within the time frame that. It taken to mske
the trip from the dredge ares to the disposal area and back, ie. his
exposure window. Because a tug boat under tow only makes
approximately 3 knots per hour, the average trip to the disposal area
and back is around 8 to 10 houre. Certeinly the weather in this
window is somewhat confidently predictible and therefore a captain
with a certain size vessel, upon exercising some prudence, is safely
assured of making the trip.
If you relocate the dredge area to a position of approximately
SO miles offshore the window for performance is now expanded to
approximately 35 hours round trip. Because nobody can confidently
project the weather relative to a 35 hour apan, there now exists no
safe performance window for the average size tug boat currently
performing these duties
May 16. 1990
I I ,,
-------
Ms. Kymberlee Keckler
May iS, 1990
Page 3
The net direct economic impact upon the consumer would he that
this service could not only be performed by a select few individuals
or firms willing to invest over a million dollars in a tug boat for
the purpose of hauling dredge material which con only be done a
couple of times (because of environmental reasons), during the year
Firms willirg to perform such service would be extremely rare
therefore, their rates for the service would be extremely high.
Two, given that the relocation, 50 miles out, would make the
towing aspect of the trip so expensive a reasonable person would try
an increase scow size to get ae many cubic yards in the scow as
possible and therefore, minimize his per cubic yard cost There are
presently, in the New England area. approximately six certified scows
in the one to three thousand cubic yard range I am not aware of any
in excess of those volume quantities Because of the per cubic yard
increase in dumping expense those presently existent certified scows
may become obsolete and only new multi million dollar larger volume
scowa would be able to perform the work Again, IndivIduals or firms
wilting to invest that type of money into equipment which can only be
periodically used, approximately twice a year (because of
environmental constraints), would be very rare and their rates for
usage would be extremely high
The third ramification which drIves t he expense. to public and
private consumers, through the roof, would be that this increased
sized equipment. now necissitated for the performance of the work,
may not be logistically able to access the shore sIde dredge
location. By that I mean that relative to the width and draft of the
vessel, they may not be able to make it into the shallow harbor
and lor through narrow bridges to access the channels that need to be
dredged The net effect of this would be the institution of a new
methodology whereby the dredging is performed by smaller equipment
and the materials are then taken to deep water and transferred to
larger vessels for final disposition at the new relocated dredge
site. Therefore, a new ieve l of performance has been instttued, a
doubling of the astunt of equipment necessary for the performance of
the work is now in place and the increase cost from this doubling is
added to the increased costs for the oversized equipment previously
ment toned.
I ‘m absolutely convinced that the long term effect of the
proposed relocation of the disposal area to a distance of
approximately 50 miles offshore will be dramatic in Its economic
impact and will foster a renewed Incentive for circumvention of a
existing environmental laws by means of “midnIght dumping”
Best Regards.
J IaPs F DominIck
Ya,In, Iniung 1kw • tj,hi Wt, I. Wa ,, • bangs 54,,,, • Y.niha’ l.a I. I uLIr • N in a, S. •Un’.
Play 27, 1990
Ms. Kiaberlie Keckler
E.P.A. Region 1
JFK Federal Building
WOE 1900
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Ms. Kackler,
Pleaaa accept our concern on the possible closing of the
duap site that Is located just West of Stelivagen Bank. Having
worked and lived for many years on the waterfront of
Massachusetts we recoqnize the need for an affordable site for
the disposal of dredge material from saintenance dredging i i i
local harbors. This ongoing effort is necessary to maIntain
existing depth and channels in our vaterways.
The distance from shore is critical In any coat analysis in
looking at new sites. As a fisherman in the araa t do not
believe that another site wIthin 20 miles from shore will be
acceptable to the parties using or who are concerned about our
coautai resources. If that is the case, any site furthar
offshore would make many maintenance dredging projects coat
prohibItive. You must view that lasue as you appreach making
your final recommendation as a factor in making the decision.
TRH/l f
Fair Winds,
/
Capt. Tom Ilill
Operations Manager
THE YANKEE FLEET
JED/gfb
75 I • kv, •L.l,nnvl, i AIa 1 )1’) III • 1511111 111111$ P I • (111111) WI lAP 1ff. n N, ,u J.,gL ,,,,J . I AX ,‘a,i , ; ‘ I i, ,.es’,
I’ 1) IS a 101 1 1 • ,. SVr’t lP,sd I I loll, • I lISP i’ l l 7 1 1 11’ ) ’ k I ha iti. 11 11011,11 IS I•I • I AS (IllS) 291 1,’. II
-------
Review Comments on the Maesachueette Hey Disposal Site
Draft E IS
List of Preparers - CEQ regulations require the authors and
scientific backgrounds of the EIS text preparere to be
identified Since a majority ef the text is taken verbatim
from the Corps’ Site Evaluation Document, these authors should
be listed as preparers with identification of the specific
portions prepared by the Corps personnel
Page 3, Site History, paragraph 2 Lest two sentences are
misleading and we suggest the following changes The
repositioning of the pt e (buoy) may that lack of
g&rloggo& (appropriate) disposal controls earlier the
222&YtX (in the past) and repositioning As written they
contradict earlier studies in the 1970 ’s and are not in
concert with the DEIS text on p 32
Page 7, paragraph 2 The statement defining disposal of 2 8
million cubic yards at M8DS over the past ten years is
inaccurate As BED’s sits evaluation document cisariy states
the 2 8 mullen cubic yards were disposed over the 12 years
listed In the 818 table referenced in that paragraph
Clarification of the use of the IC vs 12 years in calculations
throughout the remainder of the HIS should be provided
Page 7, Paragraph 3 Regarding the proposed Boston Harbor
Pederal channel mainignance dredging generating up to 1 8
million cubic yards of material There is a proposed
improvement dredging (2 3 mcy) and numerous infrastructure
proposals that should be discussed Maintenance dredging ci
the Federal channels is not proposed for the near future as
stated.
Page ii Beferences to Sections 2 C • 5 8 • and 5 C should
be changed as appropriate to all numerical references
Page 13, Paragraph 2 The discussion ehould aieo indicate
CADS and Portland sites do not have the capacity to
accommodate the regional disposal needs
Page 33 The Source citation for the figure shouid read
‘Modified from SAIC 1997’ since it is not an exact duplication
of their figure
Page 36 The Table 3-2 footnote ‘2 refers the reader to a
discussion of mercury The footnote should be one line up
Pages 37 to 38 We have reason to believe the methods used to
collect the water chsmietry vaiuen may have over estimated
‘ I , ’. ”
CENED-QD-R
Regulatory Branch
Ms. Kymberlee heckler
US Envjronmen Protection Agency
Region I
JFK Federal Building (WQE-1900)
Boston, MA 02203—2211
Dear Ms. Keckior :
Attached are comments based on our review of the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site Draft Environmental Impact
Statement The comments represent those of both New England
Division’s Regulatory Branch and Impact Analysis Branch.
Since we were able to review earlier portions of the draft
most of our commenta are minor and are directed at clarifying
certain points. However, some of our comments reflect areas
where we feel our earlier comments on the draft were not
adequately addressed or where information or figures were not
previously available for our review,
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document.
Certainly we support the designation of this site. if you have
any questions on our comments please contact Dr. Tom Fredette of
my staff at 641—8563.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW ENOLANO 0 1 515 (0w CORPS OF Ewoisif 55
474 TRAPELO ROAD
WALTHAM MASSACHu SETI S 01254 5 1 45
17 November 1989
Enclosure
Si cerely,
E .
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Operations Division
-------
concentratlona (see Wallace et .1. 1900) The discuesion
uhould note that thee. values are worut c c ..
Pan. 38, Paragraph 3 2 I 9.7. EPA hae in..rted a .tatement
that marcury levelS above the EPA criteria have b..n recorded
in other parts of Mae.achuuett.n Ray Thu utatement ahould be
provided with a citation of th. at.udy or deleted.
Page 43. The value of 4952 ppb of PCB for the September 1985
.*mple OFF dredged material I . inaccurate Table 3 H 2 -2 In
our cite evaluation report hate the value a. 409 ppb, the ‘2’
is a footnote above the value.
Fag. 49. Tb. compariaona between sediment chemical data from
‘Broad Sound and Ma.sachu.etts Bay between 1983 and 1987’ to
site ap.oif ic data are an inaccurate interpretation of the
contaminant potentiala The comparative dincuSalona of
aediment chemiatry ehould be restricted to beam .pecifio data
or a eerie, of generalization. with regards to grain ala.
Page 47 tat. aeg ). The use of contour mapping of diecreet
datt points is misleading in many inetancus where data pointa
are not closely spaced The mapping routine aeeumes that, a
continuous linear gradient exist. between pointa when thia is
likely not to be the Ca... We r.cornznend deleting the figure.
to avoid misleading the reader
Page 50, paragraph 3.2.2 2.1 The diecuasion of total organio
carbon fails to convey to the reader the natural occurrence of
thee. levels especially in settling baum,. There aleo needs
to bs dl*cusaion of the relationa ip to grain site
Page 80, Paragraph 2. The text (and eleewbere) diucuageS how
various differences in chemical conc.ntrstiOna exi.t. Then it
is stated that the ,. difference, are not .tatl.tica lly
significant It is inaccurate to ld.ntlty a perceived
dift.r.nc. if it cannot b. statistically supported
Page 50, Paragraph 3 2 2 2 4 PAR’., though comaon. in, not
neceesarily ubiquitous in dredged material
Page 03, Paragraph 3 2 2 3. Thia uee of parametric atatiutics
for Ut... dat . is quest.ionable Non’par.m.tric tests should
have been used instead Also there Is variation in two
dimensions not ju St. on.. due to the Influence of the historic
site. This is not dincussed or analyted at all There is no
provision for •vaiuating the effect. of grain sit. or other
inf luences
Peg. 03, Paragraph S The ocatterpiota depicting the
relationship of the analytea to the dietanc. from MUDS center
are misleading There wee historic disposal of dredged
material and industrial wante outsid. of the existing site
boundary, most. diSposal baa been at a buoy which was not
located at the center of the aite, and there are variations in
sediment types in the nit..
Page 72. The discussion that concentrations continue to
decreaae outeide the alt. ignores th. fact that all strata
have stations that are both on and off dredged material At
leaut two atations in the Outside strata are likely to be on
dredged material depoetted earlier In the century. If there
I. a trend outside the site it need. to be more clearly
supported with statistical weight rather than a casual
interpretation of scatterplots.
Pege 77, continuing Paragraph. The statement ‘that there may
be a southwesterly dispersal pattern of contaminant.’ is
totally conjecture. The samples to the southwest w.re simply
taken on area. of dredged material depoaited earlier in the
century, i e Gilbert’s (1074) stations 02-e4 and 12-0 and
Poe
Page 77, Paragraph 2. It. is more likely that all three
compound. are correlated with particle surface area. Since
there is more fine-grained material in the ,ite, the
concentrations would be higher
Page 77 to 78 We etill disagree with the bl&nknt statement
that the data show the affected area to b. about 3 km from the
buoy We believe this is an artifact of the particular
analyse . and grouping of the data which ignored th. fact that
dredged material wa n disposed outside the site earlier in the
century.
Page l ’7l, First Paragraph, last sentence The summary
etatement ehould state that ‘at most onLy, 4% of th. recently
deposited material’ would be resuspended.
Page 200, Paragraph 2 The statement that PCB’. are
metabolized Is incorrect, The etatement ia true for PAIP.
Page 212. 5.2 I Economics of upland disposal is not the only
factor considered in th. alternative, analysis The potential
for adverse impacts of other disposal methods 1. also
evaluated
Page 213, 5 2 3 It should be made clear that the decision in
made by the District Engineer, with the other agencies
providing information on potential environmental impacts
EPA’. role is with advice, elevation, and veto authority
Page 218, 5 3 4 There seems to be a persistent
misunderstanding on the Selection c i a reference site
‘The
2
3
-------
purpoae of the reference nedlment Ia to eerv. a a point of
comparleon to identify potential ecological •ffecta of
chemical contaninanta in the Therefore.
(from the EPA/Corpa Implementation Manual. 1977) •Thia
referenoe aediment nuat have aedimentologleal ehareeterlatica
aimilar to the diepoaal nite and
t _p g_ bgrg in order to evaluate
the effect of the dredged material or the alto a. aeparate
from other environmental influencee. the reference alt. needO
to reflect and integrate the Irrpacta of other influencea on
the nyøtem
Page 22g. laet paragraph Thie paragraph needg to more
clearly indicate that the deecription of the monitoring plan
Ia an example of tiered monitoring that might be employed at
MBDS Final detaila at.ill have not been m.d. &nd It will
likely continue to evolve
Executive Summary
Page ix. Paragraph 2. Our commentu about a clean reference
site apply here aa well.
-------
e
DEPARTMENT OF TI lE ARMY
NEW ENGLAND DIVISION COUPS OF ENGINEERS
474 IUAPFIO IIDAD
WALTHAM MASSAC,IUS(IIS 05254 9149
31 August 1990
Comments
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
CEt IED-OD-R
Regulatory Division
Ms. Xymbsrlee Keckler
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
JFK Federal Building (WQE-1900C)
Boston, MA 02203—2211
Dear Ms. Reckler:
Attached are several comments basod on our review of the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document.
Certainly we continue support tho designation of this site and
agree that reconfiguration of tho boundaries offer several
potential advantages. If you have any questions on our comments
please contact Dr. Tom Predette of my staff at 647-8563.
Enclosure
Si( csreiy.
(‘ 1/Ü.h (h
\Wi inn F. I,awleae, P.E.
Chief, Regulatory Division
Operations Directorate
1. We agree that the zone of siting feasibility based on $lO—20
per cubic yard is a reasonable analysis tool to help define the
geographic range to examine. However, we believe it should be
emphasized that for many projeote disposal coats of $18—20 would
be prohibitive to their viability. Even within the geographic
range of harbors that have potential to use MBDS (Gloucester to
Plymouth) there are currently proposed projects for which the
economics of transportation to MBDS is unfeasible (for example
fluxbury). This point should be clearly stated in the revision.
2. We agree that reconfiguration of the boundaries offers
potential advantages. In addition to those that you listed a
shift of the site to the west will result in (1) a larger
proportion of the site existing over muddy areas, increasing the
available space for disposal of muddy materials, (2) increased
average depth of the site providing deep water protection for more
of the site, and (3) providing an opportunity to cap sediments
disposed earlier in the century that say have higher levels of
contamination.
We are aware that there has been debate over the advantages
and disadvantages of covering the barrels and containers that are
present on the bottom. As you mention, burial of these containers
may offer the advantage of decreasing the rate of any metecial
release to the environment.
3. If EPA gives any further consideration to boundary
configuration we suggest that rather than a circle, a 2 nm square
be considered. Such a square would include the area where
diepoeal has been occurring in the last few years, as well as
including additional areas where historic disposal is likely to
have occurred. The proposed circle doss include the existing
active disposal point, but include the entire deposit of
recently disposed dredged material.
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
400 RALPH PILL MARKETPLACE
22 BRIDGE STREET
CONCORD. NEW HAMPSHIRE 0S5OI 49OI
Mr. naul Kses4i
Aetirxl Segional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Ragion 1
JFK Federal asildin3
Doeton, Massachusetts 02203-221!
Doar Mr. Keough:
Thank you for the upportunity to arrent upon the Draft Eavironsentai Impact
State rent - Evriuatton of the continued tIs of the M3ecarht,setts nay Iirrdq&
Material Disposal Site.
neral (Xnnsnta
we recognize the difficult task your staff is doaitisg with in defining the
appropriate scope of the 051$ with respect to alto des iqnat ion versus site
rnanagesent iasuea. While air anienta focus on the iiapo of the evaluation,
as presented in the DEIS, we do not concur that des ignat ion aid ranagesent
oonaiderations can, or should, be separately evaluated We would concur with
separate evaluation of designation aid nonagesient only I I’ the site were truly
contained (physically. d,eidcally. aid kielrolcallyl, or if there existed a
regulatory process that prevented the dI’qx.’ual of toxic, carcinogenic or other
deleterious materials. We do not bet ieve either of the two cxsditions of true
containient or effective rnanagesent applies to the massa c husetts Bay Disposal
Site/Foul Area Disposal site (ICW/FATS) We are also aware of the
isplications of two recent ccurt decIsions regarding the separation
(segmentation) of site designation fra n di oposa i aid site rienageilent decisions
(Prie i ds of Earth V Hail, No. 58-J en P, ii It Washington, August, 1999 aid
‘l n of Huntirqten V Marsh, tie 89-6O”5. ‘tci xj,d circuit, October, 1998)
These decisions confirm ard expaizi upon many of the Issues we identified In
a ir scopnrj consents on this prcpeccd nun rtnn(vps.it i pr esa ue’,nJ less to
say, many of these significtint is’awa rrn’iln In I .’ ut.ssiderecl In tiiis NEI’A
proo .sa IIa ”rrscr. to .scslst n. i,i p-’ii ,,it hail iIrcie i i reqani , nj I iinl
designation of the site, we ncl’vrrs,’, rtwnjr,’v’IP 19.1 l,av haves at the .‘.te viny
as they affect assunptions aid wclusi’n’ of tie *1 5
Specific it*nte
The preliminary conclusion of the DETS, as presented in the P)cecutive Sumwiry,
states in part, “The designation of I rS as a disposal site for dredged
material appears to be appropriate. Intensive oceanajraphlc evaluations
performed at MBIB iixlicate that cant inued tIne of the site for dredged material
will ret have any significant adverse erwI ronrenta I irpacts. It is apparent
that material deposited at the site remains In p 1. -us, and since the area has
previously been used for dispr at of dre&;rd maI n ml, such a designation
would not degrade additional areas ol the ocean “ We are not convinced that
the data presented in the 1)115 siq rsrt ti l ls tentative conclusion Specific.
conients relative to our skepticism 1011CM
Pg. 1, Section 1.1. In the first paragraph, in the discussion of the porpoee
for the EI$, it is stated “However, it is inportant to note the n for the
proposed dumping as well as a full epectnzm of available laid-based
alternatives nist be evaluated before conan disposal has been chosen as the
preferred plan. Only when there are no practicable alternatives available,
which have less adverse environmentel impact, should ocean disposal be
permitted.” This is an aamirate statarent of law aid agency policy, but ie a
criterion that is not strenuously s plied in practice. Althci4i this issue at
first appears to relate aily to site ssnegeient, it also has leportant
implications for site designation. The MEtS/FAtS received interim
designation, in part, because ite convenient location made disposal there
nanically feasible as opposed to less rnnic disposal in a shallow water
containment facility or uplaid containment facility, or at an open—water
disposal site of f the continental shelf. ‘therefore, the site continues to be
the met econaaical ly feasible (i.e., the gjgy feasible site), even thctxjh
there are other aiternatives which would have “less adverse environsent-al
IJipact”, as required by law aid policy. Failure to consider other disposal
sites aid options in the 0515, aid the granting of final designation wiil
assure that the site rnnsins the only ecxincnically feasible disposal site.
Therefore, we view the limiting of disposal alternatives solely to the
continued usa of the MEW/FAtS as a guarantee that site managers will have no
choice except to detenaine that there are not practicable alternatives to
disposal at ME IS/PAFS. We are confident that this is met your intent,
although it will be a result of the preliminary conclusion of the 0515.
We want to be clear on this point. We are jn proposing the selection of an
eooncnicslly expensive open-water disposal alternative so that other, less
environnentelly dasaginj slternstives beaten sore feasible. West we srs
proposing is consideration of disposal options, consistent with law aid agency
polices, that are less environmentally damaging than the open-water disposal
of toxic materials in a biologically productive area such as Massachusetts
say. p
The arguments aid proposal presented above premase that open-water disposal
st MEW/FAtS has greater adverse envirormiental imtpects than would disposal at
other sites, or would other dieposal options. We elucidate that presumption
in sate of the consents that follow.
Pg. 3—7, Section 1.1.1.
in referencing Table 1—1, the OtIS ( Pg. 3-7) cautions us in interpreting the
data in the table ... “sinoe the perceived need to test material biases the
results. For exasple, materiel fran harbors considered to be non-polluted
was not tested, aid is not considered in the avenge (see Table 1-1). in
general, the tests were performed on surficial sediments in the dredging areas
considered to be scat polluted. The deeper layers, which are usually less
contaminated, generally have reoeivei iittie or no testing, a id could
represent the majority of a project’s disposed material.” We interpret these
statements to seen thst the coitmentrations of contaminants in table 1- 1 are
prcbably higher than the average concentration of these ease contaminants at
the MEtS/FArt because “cleaner” sediments were not represented in chemical
analyses of materials proposed for dredging aid disposal. However, we find
that the opposite appears to be true — that what should be a “worst-ease”
representation of contaminant conoentrations in material dumped at MEtS/PAW,
S
—2—
November 17, 1989
-------
—4—
is actually an unlerestilTata of actual site cordltlons. An an exsiTple, table
1—1 lists the weighted average [ C m crszrntration in materials at MDtE/FME as
0.22 ppn, beset on bilk aelirrent analyses ( n a n project files. Iiouever, actual
eairplirvg of disposal-brpacteci areas at MDW,’FAD3 shows a mean concentration
of 0.414 ppm of [ CUe. (pg V, £xeaitlvo Susniry)
This differenos is not raised as en inixinsistency needing oorrection, bit
rather as an axanpia of a alto management prcblw relate) to alta designation.
We believe the inconsisteity illustrates a h - talc prrtlen li i the site
management pr a - the insaurate repreaentat Eon of thanicat (ant possibly)
biological test results used to deternine the suitability of materials for
diapoea at MBW/ , a id other open-water sites. The lnaasjrste
representatice ray be unintentlonai, due to nnaiytical or saxrpllng
deficiencies, or, in care cases, may be tue Ito fraud on the part of disposal
proponents or their agents. Whatever the cause of misrepresentation, it
should give us reason to rely on site reesgerent am a reaun of preventing
adverse J pacts at disposal sites.
Pg. 7, Sect Ion 1.2. This section discusses the anticipated neal for regloral
disposal actions. The 0516 states that approximately 2.6 miLlion cub Ic yards
of dredged material has been thapxi at M&E/FNE during the previous 12 years.
Just one future project - the Federal (Itannel “trprcnerent” Project - wild
generate a volisre of dredged mater) a I ngua I to approximately 60 percent of the
Voitmie presently at M IFMS. renal ai cur oraflerige of medirents likely to
be dredged in the Federal ibannel Project • we sld expect this project to
reuira disposal of significantly contasiiiatjxi materials. Experience prevents
us fran being aimfident that the existing (although improved) sediment testing
protocol will prevent disposal of hlqhly contaminated materials first neeton
Harbor at 148W/PAW.
Over the next 50 years, it is estimated that tho MBce/FArS cxaild receive an
addItional 15 million cubic yards. in an attept to pit these voluiros of
dredged material in perspective, we calcu lated the quantity of PCBS in the 2 ,0
million cubic yards of dredged raterinl that ban pls y bees dusped at
MBtS/FAES. Using extremely conservative nssnptionn (i.e. asateption that
wilt urxleresti.snate the quantity of ICUe present *), we calculate that there are
a minisnan of 65!) lIen of [ CUe in the dredged materials pnvrsntly at MalE/ YAl E.
This conservative figure is enaigh LCD to contaminate 74,000,000 t of fish
to the 2.0 xn F action levot. less conservative assumptions regarding
dredged materials result in calculations of 1310 Jrrda of PCRs presently at
1 10W/FAte, a id the potential to contaminate 156.000,000 tern of fish to the
2.0 ppa Em action level. 01 wires, this exact scenario of fish
amtsaination is highly i mprobable. We uso it to illustrate the relative
injxirtanoe of what may at first analysis s ywar to be an insignificant arount
of [ CTh. }kx#evar, if only a fraction of that arraint of IC!) usa ino,r ,ornted
into organists using the site, it would represent a significant rstllization
and transport of a toxic materiel Iran the sits. if we caress that en
additional 3— 5 percent of disposed materiel is transported Iron the site by
physical pro eea during disposal cperstionna, a minInniaa of 20 - 33lbs of Pots
have left the site cli nic dispoeal cpersticne. kklitiornlly, every 3 years we
*Asattnptiors: - Volume disposed = 2.6 millIon cubIc yards
- m ilking factor of draiged material 1.5.
- Wt. of 1 Cu. Yd. Sal. c Wt. I on. yd. of water (=1686 lbs)
— Sediment — 50% water by weight
Mean LCD concentration = 0.414 ug/q.
can expect bottan currents sufficient to resusperd mid transport 4 portent of
surficial material front 14B18/FAW (Section 3.1.2.2). This oaild result in the
off site transport of an additional 2611re of ICUe during y “critical”
stone event.
if we aooept the predictions of future use of 140W/PAW, we can conservatively
expect (assusing dredged materials of similar quality} POD quantities at least
6 tines gteatsr than those dleanesed above. That is a nininesi of 3900 panda
of [ Cmi dtnpel in Massactusetta Day, a rainiutsi of 120-200 pounds of ECU lost
fran MOW/PAlS during disposal, end a mininim of 155 prasris of [ CBs
trsneportai frrmi MOW/YAW during oath critical store. Even considering the
rrsrepte of dilution of toxic stateriela as they leave the site, vu do not
understand your preliminary conclusion that Malt/PAlE is a “ctnfinessnt” area.
In air view it is not confined tyslcaIly or biologicaliy.
Pg. 34 aid 35, Section 3.2.1. This section rslerenoes water column sazpl ing
data (table 3—2) fran sampling events in 6/85, 9/85 aid 1/86. We rote that
the average water ooluirn concentration of 33 samples analyzed for nerany was
1.35 pet. This ex 1s the c’iterion Cbntiruaia otaicentrat ion (i.e., the
alicanable “dironic” concentration) of 0.025 ppb established for the protection
of marine species and their uses. This avenge narniry concentrstirs, exceeds
the raxinean dn’onlc standard by rote tItan 50 tL,ea. Similarly,
the “acute” exposure standard of 2.1 t nemnny was also exceeded in the
January, 1966 sampling in whith the 9 replicate samples averaged 2.4 t.
The exceeding of these two ntandanls lid bates that marina organists fran the
Malt/PAW, aid their uses, are at rink fran exjxsure to mercury. Other
contaminant levels also exc i& water quality criteria. Lbr exaaple, the
average er concentration (n 29) of 2.8 t is very near the 2.9 pt
standard for the protection of marine organists fr a n acute exposures
(criterion Meximntnn Qinoentretion). With a mean of 2.8 pqt and a standard
deviation of 1.3 flt, we assnaTe that several water column copper
concentrations inonsied In the 29 samples greatly exceeded the 2.9 t
criterion Maxisnes cancentration, and therefore placed riarine organists st the
1 1 111 5/PAW at sante risk.
Water column [ CO conoentratiorn were variable at 1 1 0W/PAW, althcamgh at least
two sesples taken in 9/85 end 1/86 indicated dissolved [ Cmi of 0.075 ppb end
0.110 pit, in excess of the 0.03 ppb dironic water quality criterion. While
these two samples y represent anomalies, pore water concentrations of Pots
are likely to be higher than water coilni concentrations, thereby engraing
important toed dnain in-fauna to potentially unaczneptabia P05 levels. In this
regard, we mote that ECU body birderen of f!attva incise taken fras stations
within the “boundaries” of the DOW/FADS appear aignificantiy greater than the
levels in Ifen*ntvs taken front outside the site boundaries. The waighted scan
lC D level in Neruitva from within the fl015/PAI2 is 0.812 p m city weight (0.151
pan eat weight) while the level fra u Net,ttys fran astaide 1IDW/FlnlE is 0.246
ppm, dry weight (0.053 ppm, wet weight). Neither value is irdicative of a
“clean” site, aid the 0.812 pan value for $elntvs within the sits is so high
as to represent a potential hazard to other czrponents of the food web of
which ilenhtvs ie a part.
This contest Ion is supported by data presented in the EElS and in scientific
literature. Tissue conoentratiora, of FCBS in marine orqsnlsra are normally
6Js 4t as great as, and typically greater than, the itS oonoentration in the
red imrents ssscciated with those organists. hvermge ii athi LCD
-------
-5-
—6—
bioa inilation factors (tissue/sedirent ) reports) for clans (btil ins et al
1980), ahrisp (‘I’etra ‘l t, 1986) aid English sole (ibid) were 5.9, 3.7, aid
3.6, respectively. A range of 5-20 was reports) as representing
bioaccuaulation factors in Atlantic croakers taken in a survey by NMFS (1987).
Si l tissue threshold of aççroxiamately 100 ugjkg in docuiTented in several
studies as resulting in significant detrirrental effects to fish reproduction
(von Westarrthagen, et. al., 1981; Pk,ncd, 1985; Spies et. al., 1985). If we
conservatively assure a bioa mu1ation factor of only 1.0, as opposed to the
range of 3 • 6 - 3.7 cite) above, sail insnt ccx ntrat ions of 100 uajkg aatld
result in significant reprrxtuctive iirpalrrrent in fish. Sediment PCB
cmnoentrationa of at least 100 ug/ig are faint within 3 Ion of the disposal
buoy (figure 3.23). Applying the logic presents) above, we can expect s t -se
fish within 3 ks of the disposal buoy to have l C D tissue conoentratlons at
least as great as the appcoxiirate “ dIcta” threshold of 100 pçt.
Although saiuisrents farther than 3 Iou fnxn the disposal buoy generally have
what appears to ho relatively low ICR levels of 40 - 50 these levels
would be potentially harmful to fish with the rare realistic bicaoctaailation
factors greater than 2.0 as oppose) to 1.0 used in the foregoing conservative
scenario.
The exact zone of influence of rreterlaln migrating freer fl /FAlE to adjacent
areas is unknown, althc*41 it is certainly nignificantly greater that the area
officially designate) within 1 Jon of the diepoaal buoy Figures 3-7 through
3-23 clearly depict contaminant concentration gradients extending ft-art rnaxiimsn
levels near the center of the 1 kn-rad ion site to at least beyord 3 km fran
the disposal buoy. although levels of spool lie oontasinanta vary in their
pattern of dispersal fran the sits, It is obvious that disposal at the site
has results) in elevate) contaminant concentrations In a eignificant portion
of nejirnents (an) presumably blots) of ilassachusetta Bay. Again, using
sediment ItS levels to illustrate air content Ion reganilrxj disposal of
contaminants fran MBIZ/FALE, we note that lCD levels of 40-50 pçt are seen at
5+ lan fran the disposal buoy (Sec 3.2 2.2.5), while Massachusetts Bay an)
Chpe i Bay “baclcgrcurd” concentrations range fran less than 0.3 t to 18
pt.
While these arguments regardirq potential “effect” levels of [ CBs in
Massadnisetta Bay fish are conjecture deduced Iran the scientific literature
and data in the OtIS, we have not seen data coil ectai in this assessment
process that prove or disprove our hypothesis that fish in the environs of
the MBW /FALS are at risk ft-can contaminants intratuord to the area during
dredged material disposal. Simi icr arguments ray apply to other contaminants,
especially Pails or other organic contaminants, not presently delineated during
sediment testing.
‘fine restrictionn prevent us fran further detailed assnonta on the OtIS. lire
to these time constraints, air technical assessments en,) aulx eguent canaents
primarily fotua on the potential npactn of ICEs on living resources of
Massachusetts Bay. Ilarover, [ ‘Nb and presentl y-unnnnitored organic
contaminants say be of equal or greater corxcrn, and should be considered in
assessients conducted in prcparatlon of the final US TO a lesser extent,
certain metals appear to presently npprnarh or excea) risk levels for marine
life aid uses of marine life
we disagree with the preliminary conclusion of the BETS that MDW/FAEs is a
containment site, aid that its continued use will not have significant adverse
environmental nrpaot, an) that it is therefore, appropriate to grant it final
designation. We believe that upon examination of the asnients you will
receive regarding final designation, yam will also conclixte that filial
designation is not appropriate, or, that lacking rare in-depth
biological/toxicological asseserents, designation is prurathre.
Ths difficult decision EPA made in attenptimg to separate site designation
issues fran site managesent issues should be rernsidare). Past site
nanagenent practices have not protected 1 iving resour of Massachusetts Bay
fran detrimental ispacta associated with the disposal of hazardous eedisenta
at the MBW/FAIE. We have no reason to believe that future site atanagesent
practices will be protective of Massachusetts Bay biota. (flwersely,
appropriate sits designation can result in the future protection of marine
resources. We believe that the expansion of the alternatives analysis in the
final E IS will contribute significantly to the protection of marine resources.
Sl.n rely yours,
k ’
Actu Supe isçn/
Us a FYigJAixJ FitlS Office
-------
LrnThTuRE Cfl
Matins, D.C., B.B. Mccain, U.W. Drmin, A.K. SparKs, aid ir 0 Itodgirn. 1980
theaicai contaminants end Biological Abnonaitities D i Central aid
Southern Pugat Sound. 11DM Te&IJ,C51 Miaroraixhan c*IPA-2 National Ck anic
aid Ataceltenc Administration, Byjldcr. 0). 295pp.
Honod, 0. 1985. T sertality of Lake Cewva diarr ($5iyQijflga alpinus )
contaminated by ICR aid WI derivat Ivan. ftil 1. flw. contain. Toxicol.
35: 351—536.
Spies, P.R., D.W. Rice, Jr., PA. Montaqna aid fl IL Ireland. 1995
Repr i ductive sucx ss, ,cernbiotic contaminants a id hepat Ic mixed-function
oxidase (Mm) activity In tj thya pqailat tons Iran San
Francisco Bay. Mar. Environ, flea 17:117-121
Tetra Tech. 1985. Commencement Bay Irearshore/Tidef lets Remedial
Investigantion, Final Report, Volune 1. EPA Report No. EPA-910/9-85-134b.
Seattle: Washington State Department of Ecology nod U.S. Esvironiiental
Protection Agency.
Thtra Thth. 1986. Develcpient of sediment quality values for Puget ScuM.
Final. Report. U.S. Army (trpo of F)qlneers, Seattle Dietrict. tuget
Sand Dredged Disposal Analymle aid Fuget Sand Estuary Prwrass. 128
pp. f appendices.
Von Westernhagen, H. ,. H.Rosenthal, V Dethlefsen, W. Ernst, U hams aid P.-D.
Hansen. 1981. Bioa mia1atInj substances a id reprcxtuctive nuames In
Baltic f lauder, Platichthve flesus Aquat. ThxtcoL P85—99.
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Natiansi Ocs.nia and Atmouphurla Administration
NATIONAL MARINE rlsI4(nIEs SERVICE
Northeast Region
Management Division
Habitat conservation aranch
One Blackburn Drive
Cloucester, MA 01930—2298
November iS, 1959
Paul C. Keough
Acting Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental protection Agency
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA.02203
Dear Mr. Keough:
The National Marina Fieheriee Service (NMFS) has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Massachusetts nay
Dredged Material Ocean DiSposai site IMUDS) designation. We
believe that this DEIS is deficient and should be redrafted and
re-released. We have previously commented to your agency and the
New England Divieion Any corps of Engineers regarding dispoesi
activities at this site. Rather than restate those issues, we
incorporate our previous consents by reference and have attached
the pertinent correspondence.
As documented in the DEIS, Massachusetts Bay is home to populations
of commercially and recreationally harvested finfish and shellfish,
such as American plaice, winter flounder, witch flounder, cod,
redfish, haddock, silver, red, and white hake, pollock, lobster,
scallop, shrimp, and Jonah and reck crabs Also present are
endangered and threatened species, ouch as sea turtles, humpback,
fin, and right whales, and protected species such as seals,
dolphins, and other toothed whales. As the conservation and
management of these fishery resources and protected species are the
primary responsibilities of ths NMFS, we ere concerned that
disposal mite(s) designated for dredged material from the
metropolitan Boaton area provide reasonable and feasibie disposal
management options for handling contaminated harbor sediments.
To date, disposal options which would protect these living
resources, and the commercial fishing industry have been, at best
limited.
The most frequently-uaed option for disposal of contaminated
sediments from the Boston area over the past 5 years has been
unconfined, and largely uncontrolled, open water disposal at the
MUDS. Since contaminated sediments disposed at MOOS have not been
isolated from marine organisms, bioaccumulation of contaminants end
trophic transfer within the marine food chain may be occurring.
The limited data collected and reported in the nETS indicate that
some benthic organisms within the dispossi site have significantly
elevated levels of polychlorinsted biphenyla and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons in their tissues. Since, am the DEIS notes, about 80%
of the fishery resources within the MUDS vicinity are demersal, we
believe that there is unacceptable potential for contaminant
transfer to commercially harvested species from direct sediment
contact and dietary uptake. In this regard, it is particularly
disturbing that the DEIS indicates that the quality of soae
sediments at the Mans is similar to sediments in Quincy Bay, an
area for which the Environmental Protection Agency has issued
warnings regarding fish consumption. Non end FDA have been
obligated to take similar actions at the MUDS. These were
described in the January 3, 1960 Federal Register. It ia
unfortunate that the ramifications of those Federal actions are not
fully discussed in the DM15. we have repeatedly expressed concern,
during the review of individual disposal permit applications and
throughout the designation process, about the adverse effects that
dieposal practices at MUDS could have on fishery resources. These
concerns continue to be ignored.
The lack of suitable, resource-protective options for contaminated
dredged material disposal has been a major source of contention
among the federal resource agencies ( m IPS , U.S. Fish and wildlife
Service, and EPA) and the Corps of Engineers during individual
permit review. Regrettably, the DM15 does not resolve this
controversy and needs to investigate alternatives. The major
conclusion of the Oats is that the status quo is the only solution.
It does not explore suitable alternatives nor does it address the
significantly eievated levels of contaminants in both surficial
sediments and organisms at MUDS. The DEIS does not identify nor
discuss any other disposal sites, despite the noted limitations of
the MUDS, the presence of other historically—used disposal sites
within the MUDS vicinity, and the identification of potential sites
by the Third Harbor Tunnel Project and the Massachusetts Office of
Coaetai Zone Management. In this respect, we believe that the DM18
fails to meet the minimum requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
In fact, we consider this designation process to be similar to that
ueed by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) in its designation of
the western Long Island Sound Disposal Site (WEdS III). In a
recant court decision, Huntinoton v. Marsh , (859 F.2d 1134, 2d cir.
1989) the Id Circuit Court affirmed the Federal District court’s
decision that the E IS for WLIS designation was inadequate under
NEPA, in part, because it failed to address alternatives to the
site. The court required the ACOE to redraft the ElS.
Specifically, the decision requires the ACOR to evaluate the
availability of alternatives to ocean disposal, including upland
disposal sites and remedial measures to reduce the need for
dredging. The EPA should accept the clear precedent established
by this caao and apply it to the alternatives invemtigatiom for the
MUDS.
2
S
-------
3
4
NHFS expected that EPA would use the designation opportunity to
seek environmentally acceptable aolutiona to the dredged material
disposal problems of the Boston area. Instead, the EPA defers
resolution of these problems to other entities. Specifically, the
DEIS suggests that the analysis of disposal alternatives should be
conducted at the individual permit review stage, and that the
ability to manage and cap contaminated sediments will be assessed
in the future, as will be the appropriateness of the reference site
for dredged material testing. We and other resource agencies have
been seeking resolution of these issues which have been unresolved
for the past 8 years. Our experience has been that the individual
permit review process does not lend itself to resolution of these
management issues. As evidence of this, the M1309 remains the
option of choice for contaminated dredged material from the Boston
area, despite indications that Massachusetts nay Is being degraded
and that the state is embarking on a multi-billion dollar effort
to clean up inner Massachusetts Bay. The BETS indicates to us that
we are justified in our concerns for harm to occur to living marine
resources from disposal practices at MDDS.
The DEIS lacks any sufficient plan or strategy to effectively
manage the MBDS. In a recent occurrence, the fishing boat “ITALTA’
hauled up four barrels of highly acidic material in the vicinity
of the MBDS. One of the barrels broke through the net and spilled
its content on the deck. At the Coast Guard hearing it was evident
that this was not an isolated incident. In fact, it seems to happen
more often than not. The BEtS only notes that the MBDS was an
industrial waste site pre - 1916. Because of the frequent
occurrence and high potential for fishermen to pick up industrial
waste a more detailed discussion is warranted In the DEIS. This
discussion should concerns the type of materials diaposed at this
site; the exposed nature of this material; the potential for
fishermen to continue to haul this material aboard their vessels;
the potential health hazards to the public; and the potential
impacts to marine resources. we suggest exploration of methods in
which suitable dredged material(s) would be uned to isolate the
industrial wastes and reduce the Public risks associated with this
area of the Bay.
The DEIS lacks a substantive discussion of the Stellwagen Bank area
becoming a National Marine Sanctuary. An you are aware, a portion
of the PIBDS is within the boundaries of the proposed Stellwagen
Bank Sanctuary. If this site becomes a marine sanctuary it is
possible that disposal activities at the MRDS will be restricted.
The DEIS must discuss this option in detail.
Finally, we have received your November 6, 1989, request for
concurrence with your determination that the MRfl designation is
not likely to adversely affect endangered npec1 n pursuant to
Section 1 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. We have not
had time to fully analyze the basis for your conclusion. The NHFS,
in response to an ACOE request for formal consultation has drafted
a biological opinion that tentatively concludes that use of the
site for the projects specified by the Corps is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
speciea under our purview. Certain conservation recommendations
are being developed in the ACOE opinion that apply to activities
at the MBDS, and should be considered in your Section 7
consultation. To expedite these conclusions, we urge you to join
the ACOE efforts and conduct a joint Section 7 consultation. To
facilitate this, please contact Doug Beach at (508) 281- 9254.
In conclusion, we find that the DEIS for this project fails to meat
the minimum requirements of the NEPA. In light of this, we believe
that the document should be redrafted and re-submitted as a BETS.
The redraft should include a thorough review of alternative
disposal options, conduct a risk assessment, address cumulative
effects of other actions within the MBDS, and investigate possible
remediation of existing MBDS conditions.
It is also important to note for the record that the public hearing
conducted on the final designation of the MHDS is open to challenge
on the issue of sufficient public access. The meeting was held on
November 1, 1989, at the Transportation Building in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, at 7:00 p.m. The parking lot adjacent to the
facility was chained prior to 7:00 p.m. The front doors to the
Transportation Building were closed and locked at 6:30 p.m. No
signs were posted in the lobby directing attendees to another
entrance, or to the appropriate floor and room number. Anyone
arriving after 6:30 p.m. would have had to know about rear
entrances to the building and parking 1 t in order to find his or
her way to the public meeting.
Attachments
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Bigford
Branch Chief
-------
Olonel Edward Hamanid
Division Digineer
11.5. Army Cbrps of thgineers
l a n a Digland D ivisiOn
424 Trapelo Read
Wa ltham, MA 02254
£ - t.j...,tu . aU4 j iI .t S Ic,I i_
f •tloi •t Oc,.nlc end airnu.pbsrir AdmIniatratian
Narionea ,aaqirat IISiqQ(5 S LAV 7CI
Mr. Michael Deland
Regional Mjninistrator
U.S. Divironrental Protection Agency
Region I
J.F.K. Building
Boston, MA 8213?
ar l i z. Deiand:
PAM tI,ta&t Rej son
14 Elm Street
Gloucester. MA 0l9i0-3 99
The National Marine Fisheries service (FICS) bears responsibility for the
conservation and management of our natio&s living marine resources. A
portion of these legislative mandates is aririressed by our cx,-golng oceanic
research activities. F or the past several years, as part or that effort, the
p 0*5 and several coastal states have teen investigating the potential for and
the effects of bloaccturulation of polych lorinated biphenyls IP(ts), petroleum-
based hydrocarbons (PFP ), and other anthropogenically derived compounds in
fish and other organisms. Many of these suietances are persistent in the
environment, have been ahc’m to bioaccumn)ate, and can produce toxic or
sublethal adverse effects on living organisms. Therefore, we request your
active srivolvsrrent in the review of any act ions that vxiid introduce such
contaminants into the ran. We refer especially to your responsibilities
under the Marine protection. Research, and Sanctuaries Act with regard to the
ocean disposal of conteminated dredged material at the Boston Ptail Area
Disposal Site (PAI ).
The Pat’s is concerned that current dredged material disposal prectices
ild endanger the health and edibility of valuable cxnerciel and
recreational fish and shellfish species. The purpose of this letter is to
express and dacirent air concerns and suggest ways to reduce risks to living
marine resources, their habitats, and the industries and people that depend on
them for food or livelihood. We specifically address several points of
contention, including the capping issue at the PADS, and elicit your support
in a cooperative effort to solve problems associated with ocean disposal of
contaminated dredged materials from t ue Boston metropolitan area.
Qsitasin.ant anairns
Preliminary analysis of available research data indicates that although
no public health enngvncy presently exists there is a serious cause for
concern regarding the levels of certain contaminants in several fish stocks.
Striped bass ilbrcne saxatilis ) have been banned free the marketplace in New
York end New äFiifliecause of concern for elevated levels of PCms. Bluefish
iRxraatcxi’us saltatria ) contain detectable amounts of s in edible tissues.
These species are twe of our nation’s premier recreational fish in terma of
directed effort and social value. Rubinstein et al. 11994) demonstrated that
contaminated sediments can serve as a significant source of P(Bs for uptake
and tropJiic transfer in marine ecosystems. They found that fish feeding on
polychaetes from contaminated sediments accumulated more than twice the PCt
body Ixirden of fish exposed to oontaminated sediments tot fed unoonteminated
polychaetes. Results indicated that fish isolated from direct itaci with
i -Iaden sediments accuirijiated significantly less iKts than fish having
direct contact with the sediment.
Degraded aquatic envirawents have been linked with the increased
incidence of tumors, lesions, fin and shell erosion, and other pathological
conditions in demersal fish si-ad shellfish. Muc h of the earlier literature
describing pollution—associated diseases of fish and shellfish was summarized
by Lirs lernarim 41979). The results of several recent st4ies illustrate the
probable relationship between contaminated sediments and fish pathologies.
For example, Malins et el. (1984) reported an increased incidence of
pathological conditions in Puget Sound fish inhabiting degraded
environments. They found a positive correlation between sediment polynuclear
srcxeatic hydrocarbca-i (PAll) levels and liver neoplasms in English sole
( Parccl lçy vetulus) . Estrella (1984) related higher prevalenoes of gill
blackening and shell erosion in the American lobster ( irarus americanus ) with
polluted coastal environments, specifically Boston Barter and Buzzards Bay.
Ptirthelazc (l985a) found a higher prevalence of hspatic lesions, including
carcinoma, in Boston Harbor winter flourder ( Pseudopleuronectes snericanus)
than in winter flounder from unpolluted east coast environments.
T c recent studies raise serious sosrns about the effect that disposal
of contaminated dredged material at the FAtS may have on the aquatic
environment and living marine resources. The Scientic Ajplicaticwia
International (brporation ‘ 5 (SA1C) Benthic Resource Assessment ‘redinique
analysis conducted at the FAtS indicated that the disposal site may be as
attractive feeding ground, particularly for juvenile fish. Boebsi (1994)
ocaiducted a ccqnebensive survey of toxic organic pollutant distributions in
the sediments and blots of Massachusetts Bay, Boston Harbor, and Cape aid
Bay. He found that Boston Barter was a very heavily polluted area and that
Massachusetts Bay, fran the Ste llvagen Bank area iandward, contained
significantly elevated sediment levels of PCBs and PAHa, wtiith may be
increasing over tine. ra crncentrations in northern Massachusetts Bay
sediments were, on the average, lover then those in Boston Barter by a factor
of four. The major esoeptiom to this generalization i4e station *-4, isl-alch
was located in the vicinity of the FADS. Sedicrerit PC ioentratiai levels at
station l-W—6 were similar to those at Boston Barter stations, indeed, station
W—6 actually hal the highest average l value of all stations in
2
r/P03174 :SM
(S
w
-------
3
Massachusetts Bay. Similarly, PM levels at station P83-6 were higher than
those at other stations in Massachusetts Bay. Boehn (1984) attributed these
elevated levels of P s and PADS at station P83-6 to the proximity of the FADS.
All of the aforementioned studies clearly on.strate the need to
effectively isolate dredged sediments contaminated with s. PAils. arid metals
so as to minimize adverse effects on living marine resources.
The Capping Issue
As you ks ?, the F varonwental Protection Agency ( A), Region I. is
developing en ! vironnental Inpact Statement to assess the final designation
of the Foul Area Disposal Site as a dredged material disposal area. As a
cooperating agency, the CX)E. via their Disposal Area li nitoring System program
(D J ), has synthesized the existing scientific literature and conducted
basic physical, chemical, and biological studies for assessing the suitability
of the FADS. As you may also know, staff fran the PSITS ’s Pbrtheast Region and
the D’A’s Narragansett Laboratory have met over the last several ronths with
staff from EPA ’s Region I, the U)E ’s New D gland Division, and the major DNr
contractor. SAle, to discuss study methods, results, deficiencies, and
possible ways to fill data gaps. The rost recent such meeting was held on
June 9, 1986 in Narragansett, ode Island.
Q e question that requires additional study and that the PSIFS believes
affects the suitability of the FADS for disposal of (xwit.a,ninated sediments 15
whether ntamInated sediments can be effectively capped at this site. This
Issue was discussed at the June 9 meetIng but the did not consider it to
be a major question affecting the site designation process. We disagree. The
pirpose of capping operations is to effectively sequester contaminants, such
as heavy metals, l s, PANs, and other petroleum hydrocarbxis (PIts) that have
been found to be toxic at low levels and that may bioaccuzrulate In marine
organisms. These contaminants are often present at elevated levels in
sediments to be dredged fran the Boston metropolitan area. An effective.
clean material cap placed over contaminated dredged ruler ials could prevent
benthic organisms that rework the sediments and that may be consumed by fish
t ran coming into contact with these contaminants, thereby reducing the
potential for bioacctmulaticn and Introduction of these substances into marine
food webs. Capping operations have been sua.’essful in Isolating contaminated
sediments in the New York Bight (O’Gennor et ml. 1983) p at the Portland. Maine
Disposal Site, arid at other shallow water sites. Th our ks aaledge, no
successful capping operation has been aocerpliched at depths similar to those
at the FADS (approximately 300 feet).
At the June 9 meeting, COE representatives made several statenents
regarding capping at the FADS; namely, (1) dredged material to be disposed at
the FADS is relatively clean because only material that passes the federal
ocean dunping criteria can be dIsposed; (2) successful capping should be
possible at the FADS; (3) the capping issue is a ‘management’ issue, not a
site designation’ issue: and (4) the CXL will investigate capping at the FADS
pending the availability of sufficient tire, roney, arid suitable projects. We
discuss each of these four statements below in light of the preceding
discussion and the realities of the site designation process, as we understand
then.
1. Boston Area Sediment Quality . It seems unrealistic frcxr past
experience, anticipated projects, and the reported contamination of sediments
of Boston Harbor and its environs to assime that the FADS will be used only
for clean materials. Upland disposal sites for dredged material, particularly
for contaminated sediments with high percentages of silt and clay, are
virtually non-existent in coastal New E3gland. Several dredging projocts in
the Boston area, totalling approximately 400,008 cubic yards of P( -, PAll—,
and metal—contaminated sediments, are currently on hold’ pending the
determination of an adequate disposal site. We also understand that the COE
is currently in the planning stages of a large navigation project for Boston
Harbor. It is probable that at least sose of these latter dredged materials
will be contaminated, and that the FADS will be the preferred disposal site.
Several dredging projects over the past few years that the )E determined
were acceptable for ocean disposal at the FAtS consisted of sediments that had
elevated levels of heavy metals, P(Bs, and P ) . In sa cases, the sediments
failed the bioassay test; others showed a potential for significant
bioaocunnjlation of s, PW , or metals. Sons of these projects were
permitted under the preswiption that capping could be achieved at the FN .
In other cases, the level of bioacc mn.lat ion was determined to be
insignificant, despite the fact that many studies indicate that the 10-day
bioaccunulaticn test is indicative only of the bloavailability of
contaminants, and that 10-day body burdens should not be considered as
endpoints (Fowler et al. 1978, P leese et ml. 1980, kibinstein et ml. 1903).
2. Success of Capping . The continues to cite successful operations
in shallower waters as evidence that capping Is possible at the PADS, although
the 1983 attenpt to cap contaminated Boston Barber sediments at this site
resulted in no observable mound formation. The contends that capping is
feasible at the PADS and that past failures were due to pcor disposal
management. The P1 S is willing to a pt that operational errors may have
been the cause of past capping failures. ver, we believe that this
hypothesis requires verification, and that the ‘Blue Circle Atlantic’ arid
‘General Electric’ projects (discussed below) should be that verification.
The results of the attenpt(c) to cap these projects will form the basis for
our review of the capping option at the PN:S, and viii affect our
cemsideraticxi of the FADS as an acx eptab1e ocean disposal mite.
i — recant permit applications, Blue Circle Atlantic (Public Ibtics lb.
21—85—814) and General Electric rp. (Public Ibtice Pb. 24-86—331), for
dredging of contaminated sediments end disposal at the FADS are currently
pending CUE decision. Of particular concern to the PIQS are the elevated
levels of s arid PAils. ‘The P1 S does not believe that these materials are
suitable for ocean disposal unless they could be effectively isolated fran the
biote. flowever, sines no upland disposal ite are available, and since the
CUE contends that capping may be possible at the PADS, we have not objected to
ocean disposal at the FADS provided that these projects are capped with an
adequate volume of clean sedimant.
The P) S believes that these tto projecta represent an excellent
opportunity to teat the feasibility of capping at the FADS, applicant permit
xxiplianoe, and deepwater monitoring by the f J team. The ‘e contractor,
SAIC, should have the capability to usriitor and aseesa the ss zs a -
capping attempt. Appropriate baseline information should be gathered and the
-------
S
6
actual disposal should be stringently oantrolled. Fbilo’-up mDnitortn sriculd
be conducted to ascertain the overall aucoess of the asthablogy, the areal
extent of the disposal round, the depth aid area of the cap, and the stability
of the cap over tine relative to both biotic and abiotic (actors.
3. Management vs Site Designation . The COt site designation staff has
stated that capping is a management question, whose resolution is not
essential to the disjxsal site designation process. b disagree. The ability
to isolate contaminated sediments in a subaqueous envircnrent is critical to
site designation because of the polluted nature of truth of the dredged
material that will tie disposed at the designated site. The lack of suitable
and/or available upland disposal sites aid other alternatives to openwater
disposal clearly indtcates the need (or the capping option to be fully
explored and resolved na’. me ainditicxi of the sedinents at the tans, the
apparent use of the PADS by juvenile fish, the inability of our present
testing rretho&logy to clearly define arptable or unacceptable sediment
contaminant loadings, and the need to maintain safe navigability of our ports
aid harbors all dictate that we develop methodologies for dealing with
polluted sediments.
4. Agency Priorities and Involverent . Tine, money, and suitable
projects ss.ist be cransitted nrs , prior to site designation, or the dredging of
isportant rrsjor harbors containing even snierately contaminated sediments
wild be severely constrained. The feasibility of capping at the FADS should
be explored as s i as possible. preferably try using materials frcns the Blue
Circle Atlantic and General Electric projects.
A serious drawback of the site designation process to date is that the
iPA staff involved have not Included any of the individuals who review permit
applications for dredged material disposal. b believe that the experience of
those individuals mast familiar with the types of materials and projects that
have been proçxeed for disposal at the PADS i.aald add to the pr ss
inneasurably. In gion IT of the SPA, the permit review staff is the contact
point regarding ocean disposal matters. My staff and I believe that sin lar
utilization of the EPA permit review staff in Etgion I ild be highly
desirable. By y of this letter, 1 am also suggesting similar involvement
by the U.S. Fish aid Wildlife Servioe’a (11€) permit review staff.
Pits itorandatifl
In strsnrary, the liPS reocsrserids that the EPA aid the at seriously
reconsider the capping issue at the PADS. ecificaily, we re nrerd the
fol lowing;
1) The Blue Circle Atlantic aid General Electric dredging
projects should be used to teat the feasibility of capping
at the PADS.
2) Because of the lack of reasonable alternatives to
q)erwater disposal, the at, EPA, flG, aid tiffS should icrk
together to develop a ninagirront stratew for future
projects aid an adequate .siitoring strategy for the FADS,
should that site be identified as the appropriate disposal
sit., for this area of Bew rglaM.
3) The [ PA permit review staff should be included in the FADS
designation review process. Their expertise has not been
utilized to date, and their counsel weuld add immeasurably
to the process.
We believe that these concerns merit your serious isideration. We are
concerned that the FAZS may contribute significantly to the degraded condition
of Massachusetts Bay, and that the potential exists for significant adverse
effects on living marine resources. Better management could minimize the
risks associated with ocean disposal of dredged material at the tA OS.
Therefore, I suggest that appropriate staff from each agency meet in the near
future to resolve these issues.
For further coordination regarding this ratter, please contact Susan
P lio at fl ’S 840—1323 or ctxnsrercial 548—5123 ext. 323.
Sincerely,
&i nadi Jon C. Eitt ers
Richard Ii. Schaefer
Acting Bogional Director
cc: F/uEIfl4 - Bruce Higgins, ceug Beach, Gins Nantzaris, ibm Bigford
Ff 11 51042 — Mike l.udwig
F/ 1 1 5R744 — Stan Gerski
FJNIt1 — ,jSin Boceiman, Bob Plurchelano, Jack Pearce
Dick Pastore, U’A Boston
Deug Thcxmpsai, SPA-l P, Boston
£4 (te lne t, EPA-W ’, Boston
Bill Lawless, at, Waltham
Jim Bajek, at, Waltham
Ken Care, PIG, thncrrd
Nancy Hansen, P 56, Ojicord
Gerry Peach, EPA Narragansett
tI rm Pubinstein, EPA Narragansett
Bob tbrtai, SAW, Newport
Jim O’Oxinell, P cEll
nlui&ig,’ n4sllo. 1/l4186:849—l323iamss
Bevised 7/2 f86mBDIigginar837—93Slibeh
-------
RU R
Bach,.., P.D., W. Steinhauer, and 3. 8r ri. 1984. 9anic pollutant
biogeochernistry studies in the northeast U.S. r irine envIrcfu ent. Batelle
New Thglarid Marine Research Lab. I’lnaI Report, O tract. lb. NA-83-FA-C-
88822 to NO A, P 1 8 ’S, Highlands, N J.
F tre1le. 8.?. 1984. Black gill and shell diaease in merIcan lohater
( lb . .arus ax.ericanus ) as indicators of pollution in Massachusetts Bay and
Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. Mass. Div. Marine Fisheries, Sandwich, Ptk.
EWler, S.W., G.G. Polikarpov, D.L. Elder, P. Parsi and 3.8. Valleneuve. 1978.
Iblychiorinated Biphenyls: eccunulation from contaminated sedirrPntS and
water by the polychaete Nerds diversicolor . Mar. 8101., 48.383-389.
Maims, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Rican, S. than, M.S. Ptyers, J.T.Landahl,
P.C. prohaska, A.J. Fr1ect ian, L.D. lthcides, D.C. Burrca, W.D. Cronlund,
and H.O. Ib gins. 1984. themlcal pollutants in sediments and diseases of
bottom-dwelling fish in Puget Sourxl, Washington. Thvircr.. Sd. Technol.,
18. 785—113.
Pi L.eese, D.W., C.D. Retcalie, and D.S. Pezzack. 1988. uptake of Pths from
sediment by Nereis virens and Crangon septenspinaca . Arch. E)wirori.
itam. Baxioni., 9.597—518.
Murchelano, R.A. 1985a. qizootic carcinoma in the winter flounder,
Pseudcçleuronectes aner icanus • Sd CiICC, 228. 581- 589.
Murctielano, R.A. 1989. Fish as sentinels of environmental health. Q .astal
Zone 1995 O)nference, Baltir.ore, H).
O’Ow.nor, J.N. and S.C. O’ inor. 1983. rvaluat Ion of the 1988 capping
sperations at the experimental i4 d D.m .p Site. New York Bight apex.
Technical Report D-63-3, US Army Cb pG of i) .g lneers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksbirg, PtS.
tnstein, N.1., E. Lores, and N. R. egxy. 1983. mme,Lation of s,
teroury, and cadisiu . by Nereis virens, Nerceriaria aerceriaria , and
Palaei.cnetes from wntainlnated harlor sediments. Technical Report
b-$3--4, US Arty Qrpe of Digineers Waterways taper iment Station,
Vicksbarg, I .
It,binstein, NI., ii. ?. Gilliam and N.R. Gregory. 1984. Dietary aacunsilation
of i(Bs from a xmtaisinated sediment swine by a demersal fish species
( Leiastori3s zanthurus) . Technical Report D-9I-6, US Arry orpe of
igineers Materways Eç .erlnent Station, Vickabuig. P .
$tnderr.ann, C.J. 1979. Pollution-associated diseases arid atrioraalitiea of
fish and shellfish, a review. Fish. Bull., 76(4)s117—749.
-------
DEC 221986
OCPARTMENT
. ‘ / National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINI CISH(R(S SCQv C(
Northeast Region
14 Elm Street
Gloucester. hA 01930-3199
F/HER? 4. SM/MI
Colonel Thomas A. Rhen
Division Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, hA 02254
Dear CoL Rhen:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed your letter of
October 17, 1986 that addressed NMFS ’s stated concerns relative to the ongoing
Foul Area Disposal Site (FADS) designation process and the capping’ issue.
Several events have transpired that have heightened the concerns raised In our
July 24, 1986 letter. We would like to take this opportunity to clarify our
concerns, respond to your October Il letter, and note the most recent events
regarding the FADS.
The NMFS continues to believe that unconfined open water disposal at the FADS
of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petroleum-based hydrocarbons (PHC5), and
other anthropogenically derived compounds that have been shown to be toxic,
non-biodegradable, and that bioaccumulate In living organisms presents an
unacceptable risk to the valuable fishery resources that inhabit Massachusetts
Bay. In our opinion, the current sediment testing requirements and procedures
utilized by the New England Division are not adequate to assess the
suitability of dredged material containing such substances for ocean disposal.
Until capping is proven to be a implementable technology at the FADS or until
sediment evaluation procedures end criteria are modified to provide meaningful
results, we must recomend the cessation of all disposal activities where
elevated levels of halogenated hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon complexes are
identified In the sediment.
We, collectively, continue to miss opportunities to determine if capping
contaminated dredged material is an implementable technology at the FADS.
Without this verification, the NHFS is continually forced to recomend extreme
caution for all disposal actions where halogenated hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon
complexes have been identified in the sediment. Ibis position is based on the
scientific literature, which documents the toxicity and btoaccunujlatinn
potential of these contaminants in the marine environment, and on the ocean
disposal research that has been conducted by and for your agency.
Your letter cites time and costs as the two major reasons for delaying
implementation of a verifiable capping study. However, it was our intention
that the capping study be incorporated Into the ongoing DAIIOS survey program.
and that the disposal oF the Blue Circle Atlantic and General Electric —..,
.
2
projects be timed to coincide with these planned surveys. The upcoming OAI4OS
survey already includes the necessary components of an initial capping survey
(see enclosed work order and hINTS’s coer ent letter), but it is too late to be
useful in this regard because several months have passed since disposal. Your
staff has informed us that another survey is also planned following disposal
of the so-called ‘cap sediment. However, without the disposal data from the
original projects, this follow-up survey will provide little insight as to
whether capping Is an implementable technology at the FADS. The timing
necessary to make these two DAIIOS surveys successful relative to the capping
question has passed, and it remains unclear to us why this was allowed to
happen.
The contention that there was ‘no legitimate reason to hold up the Blue Circle
Atlantic and General Electric projects . . . because they were determined
acceptable for ocean disposal based on the bloassay/bioaccumulation test
results . . .‘ lies at the heart of our disagreement over dredged material
disposal practices at the FADS. We disagree with this statement for two
reasons.
First, the hINTS believes that it is essential to the health of living marIne
resources and the general public to verify and implement management techniques
that will reduce the risks associated with ocean disposal of contaminated
dredged material whenever possible. Testing the feasibility of capping these
two projects, both containing elevated levels of PCBs and PHCs, was what we
considered a legitimate reason to delay dredging these projects. In our
opinion, the health and edibility of fishery resources, consumed by the
general public and providing a livelihood for many individuals, should have
been given greater weight than the inconvenience posed to two private
corporations from postponing dredging for five months. Our concerns relative
to the ocean disposal of these two projects were made clear in our July 24,
1986 letter and our individual project letters to the Regulatory Branch Chief
(Hay 21, 1986 and June 9, 1986).
Secondly, bioassay/bioaccumulatlon results alone seem to be the deciding
factor for determining the acceptability of dredged material for ocean
disposal. We believe that this type of decision-making process is inadequate
for several reasons, and that it is contrary to the guidance outlined in the
1911 implementation manual. The implementation manual, ‘Ecological (valuation
of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material Into Ocean Waters,’ authored jointly
by the COt and EPA, states,
‘This manual provides technical guidance to the fullest extent
practical on implementation of the criteria. Yet technical
evaluations can provide only part of the input to the decision-
making process. Many of the criteria do not concern subjects
amenable to quantitative evaluation. In such cases objective,
qualitative decisions must be made. Indeed, the decision on
granting of a permit is ultimately subjective.’
It is clear that b loassay/bioaccumulation testing was intended to be part of
the decision process, but not the sole criterion for decision raking.
Overemphasis on applicant-generated sediment teat results in the decision-
making process is a serious matter of concern, particularly when the sediments
-------
3
4
contain PCBs, PHCs, or other synthetic organics known to be toxic at low
levels and to accumulate in living organisms.
A recent Waterways Experiment Station (W(S) report (Mcfarland et al 1986)
outlines the problems associated with current sediment testing protocol for
PCBs. PCBs are a group of 209 different possible configurations of
chlorinated biphenyl compounds that differ in the number and position of
chlorine atoms. Some of these are of little biological consequence, whereas
others are extremely toxic and persistent in the environment. The WES study
indicates that current sediment testing procedures are not only inadequate for
estimating sediment PCB levels, but also do not Indicate the biological
significance of any PCBs present. These testing procedures rely on the
comparison of sediment PCBs with the various commercially produced Aroclor
standards. The WES report notes, PCBs that entered the environment as
identifiable Aroclor mixtures are altered by these physical, chemical, and
biological processes and cannot be properly identified by comparison with
Aroclor analytical standards.’ Mcfarland et ii. (1986) further note that it
is ‘erroneous and misleading’ to continue to attempt to characterize PC8s from
environmental samples, i.e., water, sediments, and organisms, using Aroclor
standards.
Your letter refers to the fact that the DMIOS FADS site investigations have
not shown any sediment or benthos degradation outside the designated disposal
site. This corm,ent implies that environmental degradation from disposal
activities is limited to the designated disposal area, which we would agree is
an acceptable situation. Our concern is that this is not the case, and that
the FADS is a source of contaminants to Massachusetts Bay food webs. The
Boehe (1984) study indicated that PCB and PA}I levels in sediments from a
sampling station located in proximity to the FADS were much higher than other
stations in Massachusetts Bay. Chemical analyses of the FADS surface
sediments, conducted under the DM105 program, indicated that the FADS
sediments were higher in heavy metals than other northern disposal sites (SAIC
1985). Since these contaminated sediments are not being isolated from the
biota, and since the diseosal area, according to DM405 investigations,
supports populations of Stage I’ benthic communities, which are a major food
source’ for juvenile fish, it is likely that contaminants are remobilized and
bloaccwflulated into benthic organisms and fish. The fact that Juvenile fish
feed at the FADS is of particular concern since many synthetic organic
compounds are toxic at low levels, and because the bioaccumulation and toxic
response process for many of these contaminants appears to be additive. This
situation affects not only these Juvenile fish, which apparently are being
exposed to contaminants at an early life stage, but also the larger
commercially-sought Individuals that prey on Juveniles. Although contaminated
sediments disposed it the FADS ray not be physically moved Into areas outside
of the site, contaminants remobilized and bloaccumulated into the flesh of
Juvenile fish can be.
Your letter further states that benthie tissue analyses conducted both in and
outside the disposal area have not shown ‘any significant problems associated
with contaminant uptake.’ It is our understanding that a within-FADS sample
of benthic organisms large enough to conduct PCB anslyse has not been
obtained. Similarly, we have seen no data to support the statement that
contaminants in the ‘Stage I ’ benthic organisms at the FADS site are ‘low.’
The IflIFS considers the incorporation of toxic, non.biodegradable synthetic
organics into fishery resources to be a ‘significant problem’ facing the the
Nation’s fisheries. We note that ‘low’ levels of many contaminants can
produce lethal and sublethal effects in fishery resources. Additionally, we
must consider the additive effects of bioaccumulation of these substances over
time.
in summary, the NMFS wishes to reaffirm our dissatisfaction with the present
dredged material disposal procedures at the FADS. In our opinion, the
disposal of contaminated dredged material, as currently conducted, presents an
unacceptable risk to the fishery resources that inhabit or frequent
Hassachusetta Bay. The contaminated nature of the sediments of Boston Harbor
and Its environs, the inability of the current sediment testing procedures to
assess the ecological significance of sediments proposed for ocean disposal,
and the potential for significant adverse effects on fishery resources from
unconfined aquatic disposal of contaminated sediments, makes testing the
feasibility of capping at the FADS a critical part of the site designation
process. Without clear evidence that capping can work, and without our
collective commitment to use capping routinely at a continuously monitored
site, we must object to the unconfined aquatic disposal of dredged sediments
containing elevated levels of halogenated hydrocarbons or other potentially
toxic synthetic organic compounds.
in view of the significance of the problems outlined in this and our July 24,
1986 letter, and the site designation schedule, which calls for a decision on
the FADS by October 1988, it seems appropriate for us to meet to discuss these
issues, and to define methods to resolve them expeditiously. We would be glad
to provide the approp4ate forum. For further coordination regarding this
issue, please contact me or my Management Division Chief, Mr. David Crestin,
at (611) 281-3600.
Enclosures
Sincerely,
y q - q. \LL+’
Richard H. Schaefer
Acting Regional Director
-------
REFERENCES
Boehin. P.O.. W. Steinhauer, and J. Brown. 1984. Organic Pollutant
Blogeochelnistrl Studies in the Northeast U.S. Marine Environment.
Batelle New England Marine Research Lab Final Report. Contract. No. NA-
83-FA-C-00022 to NOAA, WIFS . Highlands. NJ.
Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers Technical Correnittee on
Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material. 1917. (cological Evaluation of
Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material into Ocean Waters; Implementation
Manual for Section 103 of Public Law 92-532 (Marine Protection, Research.
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972). Environmental Effects Laboratory, US
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vlcksburg, MS.
McFarland, V. A., Clarke, J. U.., and Gibson, A. B. 1986. •Changing Concepts
and Improved Methods for (valuating the Importance of PCBs as Dredged
Sediment Contaminants, Miscellaneous Paper 0-86-5, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Science Applications International Corporation. 1984. Interim Report on
Environmental Information in Support of Site Designation Documents for
the Foul Area Disposal Site, Contract No. OACW33-85-D-0008 to US Army
Corps of Engineers, Waltham, MA.
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Natloasi Cosmic sad Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Management Division
Habitat Conservation Branch
Sandy Hook Marine Lob
Highlands, NJ 07732
April 5, 1909
tie. Gwen S. Rota, Chief
Environmental Evaluation Section
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
J F.K Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203-2211
Dear lie. Ruts
We have reviewed the preliminary scope, provided in your
January 26, 1999 letter, for the Environmental Impact Statement
(E IS) on the Foul Aree Dredged Material Disposal Site (FADS) in
Massachusetts Bay. This letter identities those issues that we
believe require in-depth analysis, end replaces our letter dated
March 19, 1999.
Ae you know, we have worked with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) end the Corps of Engineers ( [ GE) since
1995 to design endangered epacies surveye at FADS, end have
reviewed relevant draft technical documents As staff end budget
limitations ellbw, we will continue to provide assistance
regarding living marine resources end hebitats The [ DC recently
provided several of the contractor’s dreft reports to review,
partially in eupport of the Endangered Species Act consultation
requirements. We wilt provide you with e copy of our comments on
these documents when we have reviewed them.
The proposed £15 should assess the fete and effects of pest
disposal activities at FADS on Messechu aetta Bay biote end
habitats. The asaesement should thoroughly characterize the
diepoeed materials am they relate to the transport and
resuspension processes active at FADS, me me to provide an
estimate or the total contaminant loading and area aftectad by
past disposal activities. Also, this analysis should provide the
basis for assessing the risk to commercially harvested resources,
endangered species, end public health from continued use of the
FADS. Similarly, reasonable projections of future disposal
activities and their likely environmental effects should be
developed.
Thm £19 should enalyza the availability, efficiency, end
environmental effects of alternatives to ocean diepoaal at FADS,
end discuss the varioum mitigation methodologies available for
each disposal option, including deep water capping at FADS. A
detailed management end monitoring plen should be developed prior
to designation of FAD5 or any other site.
3
Cheoter 2. Alternatives : It appears thet the only
alternetives being considered are the proposed action, i.e.,
designation of FADS, and no action. The £15 ehould provide a
complete analysis of the availability end environmentel
consequences of alternative dredged material dimposel mites end
methods.
Chapter 2,C.i,e.2. Location in relation to breeding.
soawnino. nurseru. • • : This is en essentlel section for which
we have seen no information to data. Emphasim should be placed
on commercially valuable species (e.g., tobeter, flounders),
important forage species (e.g., sand lence), sensitive life
stegee, end habitat requirements.
Cheoter 2,C,l.a.9. T i me en4 quantities gf wastes . . A
complete characterization of the dredged mmterial that has been
dumped et the site to date ia a critical component of assessing
FADS. This section ehould contain detailed information on the
quantity of sediment disposed annually, the disposed materiel’s
phyeicel cherecterimticm (% volatile aolida, grain size),
conteeinsnt levels (PCBe, PAHe, mercury, cedmium), and the
bioaveilability of sediment contaminents as indicated through
sediment testing. The sediment quality parameters should be
related to the quantity data. The enalysis should assess the
potential uptake of disposed contaminants by the organisms living
in and near FADS, and relate this cumulativa bioaccumuletion
process to effacta to commercially harvested fishery resources.
Predictions on the quantity end quality of sediments likely to be
disposed within the next 10 years, end their environmental
effects, should also be developed.
Chaoter 3, Af fected Enysronment : The FADS ia located in a
semi-enclosed system comprised of Meesechueette and Cape Cod
Boys, bounded by the coaet and Stel lwagen Bank. This entire
system should be considered the effected environment, not just
the immediate FADS vicinity. The E15 should charecterizs other
actions that affect this environment, such as the Boston Harbor
weatewater effluents, ao as to assess cumulative impacts to the
Bay ecosystem.
Chaoter 9. Env lronsental Conseouences : The environmental
effects sections should discuss the affects of the specific
materiale disposed, end should focus on significant ineuea such
as contaminant release and bioeccumuletion. The draft reports we
have reviewed have done neither.
“C.
SPECIFIC CDMMENTS DH SCDPE
t Ue offer the following comments end recommendations en the
£19 outline provided with your Jenuery 26, 1999 letter.
-------
For example, the Environmental Consequences Section of
Science Applications International Corporation’s (SAIC) Physical
Oceanography Report states that one should assume that disposed
fine silt particles remaining in suspension aFter disposal sill
be dispersed beyond the disposal site margins. The Report
further euggests that this dispersal is insignificant, but
dispersal offsite ia discussed only in terms ef a single disposal
event end suspended sediment load. The more biologically
significant issues of pereistent conteminant inputs end the
cumulative effects of many disposel events are not discussed.
For this observation to be meaningful, the physical oceanography
date ehould be related to the types end quantity of disposed
sediments, so ma to predict the total area effected by dispersed
sediments and the potential contaminant uptake by organisms
within the affected zones.
Similarly, although the SAIC Technical Report provides site-
specific deta on water quality, sediment chemistry, end
contaminant levels in residont biota for a period of 2 years,
there has bean no attempt to relate these observations to tho
disposed wastes or the disposal events that occurred between
sampling dates. All of the date should be synthesized into one
cohesive enalysia so that we can assess the environmental
consequences of disposal activitias at the FADS
Chanter 9. 0*. Fishing Induetru This section should
include any effects on the quelity of the harvest, e.g
incraesed contaminant levels or pethologiee in fish end
shellfish, effects on the public perception of the edibility and
safety of consuming fish products, and the direct loss of fishing
grounds or habitats
Chaoter _ B. Ilarisossent Considerations The development of e
mite-specific management and monitoring plan for the FADS is
critical for two reasons First, the ability to manage disposel,
both spatially and temporally, is essential to minimizing adverse
effecte on organisms from disposal of contaminated sediments.
This concern is heightened at the FAIlS by the proxieity of
harvestable fishery resources Second, the msnagament of
disposal at FADS has been an area of controversy between tha
Federal resource agencies and the COE tor several years. This
controveray should be resolved, if at all possible, by the EPA
during this E15 process.
for further coordination regarding this matter, please
contact Susan hello at (617) 598-5123 For coordination relative
to endangered spades, please contact Tracey Mckenzie at (‘401)
782-3200.
Sincerely,
tanley U Onraki
Assistant Branch Chief
-------
I UNflED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
t PJatIosiI O .anIa .nd Atmesph•rie AdmInIsEratlom
4’ NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Habitat Connervatlon Branch
Sandy Hcolc Marine Laboratory
Highlands, NJ 07732
August 9, 1988
Mr. William Lawless 1 Chief
Regulatory Branch
New England Division
Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254—9149
Dear Hr. Lawless:
We appreciate the opportunity to review the SAW Physical
Oceanography and Technical reports prepared for the Foul Area
Disposal Site (PADS) site designation process In Massachusetts
Bay. As you know, we are especially concerned that dredged
material may degrade the aquatic environment and adversely affect
the organiems that live there. A copy of this letter has been
sent to the Environmental Protection Agency to aid then in the
development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
PADS.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The FADS is in a low-energy environment, but, unlike most dredged
material disposal sites in the Northeast, it is in relatively
deep water (90 meters). The greater water depth at FADS may
encourage contaminated sediment dispersal into the water column
during disposal, and preclude a successful capping program.
Since the FADS is within Massachusetts Bay, where there are fish
and shellfish populations, marine mammals, and endangered
species, it is esoontial that dredged materiel disposal at I’ADS
be managed to confine any adverse environmental impacts to within
the authorized disposal site.
We understand that these reports are only part of tile FADS
documentation. However, it is aesential that they provide a more
comprehensive synthesis and analysis of sample results, end that
they focus on significant issues. Tables and figures indicating
the date, volume disposed, and specific location of disposal
events since 1982 are needed to properly interpret the data.
We are particularly troubled by the reinterpretation and omission
of data and related discussions in the revised Physical
Oceanography Report. This diminishes the credibility of the
document.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Physical Oceanography Report
Section 11.1.1., pg. 92: The discussion regarding fine silt
particleB remaining in suspension following disposal focuses only
on suspended sediment load. However, it ignores the more
significant issue of contaminants, such as PAHe and PCBs, likely
to be associated with fine-grained sediments. The fate of
sediment-associated contaminants that remain in the water column
and are dispersed off-site merits discussion.
Section 11.1.2, pp 94—99z This section emphasIzes the necessity
of tight navigation control during disposal for proper site
management. We agree that It is “reasonable to expect that a
taut-wired buoy will be deployed” and that “restriction of the
disposal operation to a 50 meter radius is possible.” However,
tight disposal control at the FADS seems to have been a rarity,
not the norm, despite the reported presence of a Corps inspector
at each dumping. Information presented in DAMOS reports
indicates that only the 1983 SUGAR ISLAND disposal project
conformed to the strict management standards in that 90% of the
disposal occurred within 50 meters of the buoy. Disposal
operations from November 1985 to .lanuary 1987, 2 to 4 years after
the successful SUGAR ISLAND operation, occurred as far as 300
meterS from the disposal buoy (Bajek et al. 1987). More
restrictive disposal positioning must be aasured if containment
and mitigation of disposal impacts are to be possible.
Pg. 95, last pare,: The conclusions in this paragraph are
different than the conclusions drawn in the earlier version of
this name report based, presumably, on the same data. The
earlier report indicated that, primarily due to water depth “even
small amounts of material will cover the same bottom area as
larger volumes. Consequently it would take essentially the same
amount of material to effectively cap 10,000 of contaminated
material as 100,000 us 3 . . . .“ This conclusion questions the
ability to routinely manage contaminated material disposal at the
FADS (if the capping issue were resolved), since large volumes of
clean material for capping are not readily available.
The revised version of the same paragraph concludes that improved
navigation control could reduce the bottom area covered by
disposal operations, and completely sidesteps the above-mentioned
volume issue. Further, no data are provided to support the
contention that tighter controls would lead to a smaller disposal
impact area than the “DGD Buoy” 500-rn radius mound.
Pg. 96, para. 1: The alternate approach for dealing with
contaminated sediments outlined here, I.e., mixing end dilution
of clean and contaminated sediments, poet—disposal monitoring.
followed by capping if unacceptable levels of bloaceumulation are
discovered later, appears unrealistic, costly, and does not
provide for adequate protection of marine resources. This
-------
approach would not effectively sequester contaminants from blots,
and would only seek to cap contaminated sediments after it was
too late. We note that the Hew York Corps District’s 1983
environmental impact statement that assessed dredged material
disposal alternatives concluded that the mixing approach to
disposal was infeasible.
Why was the lest paragraph in the original version of this
section, which discussed the lack of any significant substrate
consolidation at FADS, deleted? Since the Section title is
Mound Formation/Substrate Consolidation,” it seems an
appropriate topic to be discussed here. liars importantly,
substrate consolidation, or the lack of it, has a bearing on in-
place volume estimates at the disposal site. If substrate
consolidation is minimal at FADS, Bajek et a L’s (1987) estimate
of in—place volume, which assumed 22% consolidation, appears
unreasonable. The conclusion that there was consensus between
the estimated disposal volume and the volume detected through the
RE IIOTS survey may be unjustified. This raisee concerns that
there may be a serious offeite lose of dredged materials.
Technical Report
The results of the sediment, water, and body burden analyses
should be discussed with some historical perspective. For
example, levels of mercury, cadmium, and PAM levels in shrimp at
the Mud Reference Site were all siqnlficsntly higher in January
than in Septesbot 1985. What guantitlea and typos of materiala
were disposed between these two sampling dates, and could they
heve affected the data?
It is unclear why all stations and parameters were not esnpled on
all sampling dates. For example, why were sediment PAH levels
eempled only at the Mud Reference Site in June 1985 and not at
other etations or during other sample dates? The lack of other
sample points severely limits our ability to sake comparisons
between tine periods and areas.
Section II C.2, pg. 57: We agree that additional investigation
of PCBs in Ifegfltya in and around the FADS is necessary since 2 of
the llephtve body burden samples showed levels of 121 and 519 ppb
of Aroclor 1254. However, we strongly disagree with the
conclusicn on pg. 61 that these levels are insignificant since
they are well below the Food and Drug Administration’s 2.0 ppm
guidelines for edible fish and shellfish. The scientific
literature indicates that the major source of Pt8 accumulation in
natural populatione of fishes is diet, and that PCBs accumulate
rapidly to high tissue concentrations tH OM/FDA /EPA 1987).
Section III A. ), pg. 104: The FADS BRAT discussion concludes,
based on a single season and limited fish ssr’ples, that disposal
activities have altered the benthic community, and that this
alteration roprecents a trophic value enhancement for resident
fishes, particularly juveniles. If this were true, disposal of
contaminated material at FADS would create the undesirable
situation where fish are attracted to, or spend more time in,
areas where sediment end benthos have higher contaminant levels
then surrounding areas. This “trophic value enhancement” cannot
be viewed as a benefit in light of the inability to sequaeter
contaminated sediments at the FADS, as well as the migratory
nature of most consumable resources round at the FADS. If
increased contact end feeding at PADS increases the probability
that sediment—associated contaminente will accumulate in finfieh,
it will be necessary to cease disposal at the FADS.
in summary, many of the questions regarding the fate and effects
of contaminated sediments disposed at the PADS remain unanswered.
The data indicates that elevated levels of contaminants ore
present in the sediments and some resident benthic biota at the
FADS. Cur concerns regarding the effects and trophic transfer of
these contaminants, the fate of contaminants dispersed of feita
during disposal, and our ability to effectively manage disposal
at FADS remain unresolved. We recommend that the noted deletions
and modificetions of the Physical Oceanography Report be
seriously reconsidered, and that the implications of continued
dieposal of contaminated dredged material disposal at the FADS be
fully explored. For further coordination, please contact Susan
Hello at (508) 548—5123.
Sincerely,
Stanley 94. Goraki
Assistant Branch Chief’
cf: EPA — Boston, Gwen Ruts, Ed Reiner
FWS - Concord, Ken Carr
MA C I I I - Judy Pedermen
MA VHF - Leigh Bridges
F/HER745 - McKen zie
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Bajek, 3.3., R.W. Morton, 3.0. Germano, and P.3. Fredette. 1987.
Dredged Material Behavior at a Deep Water. Open Ocean Disposal
Site. Texas A & N 20th Annual Dredging 5eminer, September 1997,
Toronto, Canada.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Food and Drug
Administration, and Environmental Protection AgenCy. 1987.
Report on 1984-1986 Federal Survey of PCBa in Atlantic Coast
Bluefish. Interpretative Report. March 1987.
Now York District Corps of Engineers. 1983. Disposal of Dredged
Material for the Port of New York and New Jerney. Final Els.
March 1983.
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
N tIonsI Ocssnlc and Atnaospheilc Administration
W.Sh.DglOn DC 20230
0U.cs 01 0• C1 .I Scisniol
November 15, 1989
Ha. Ann ROdney
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
J.P.Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203-2211
Dear Ma. Rodney:
Enclosed are comments to your Draft Snvironmentol Impact
Statement Evaluation of the Continued Use of the Massachusetts
Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site.
We hope our comments will asniat you. Thank you for giving us an
opportunity to review the document.
Enclosured
Sincerely,
David Cottingham
Director
Ecology and Environmental
Coneervatlon Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE
‘ k l l )J) National Ocasnic .nd Atino.plssrlc AdndnlatratIen
NATIONAl. OCEAN SERVICE
ornc, OE CHARTING AND GEODETIC SERVICES
ROCOVILLE MARYLAND 50552
NOV I 3 1989
MEMORANDUM FORs David Cottingham
Ecology and Environmental Conserve ion Oftice
Office of the Chief Scient __ . V( .
FROM: ( Rear Admiral Wesley V. Hull, NOAA
Director, Charting and Geodetic Services
SUBJECT: DEIS 8910.11 — Evaluation of the Continued Use
of the Massachusetts Bay Dredged Material
Disposal Site
The sub)ect statement hae been reviewed within the areas of
Charting and Geodetic Services’ (C&GS) responsibility and
expertise. Since safety of navigation is one of C&GS’ primary
concerns, this proposal was examined with that in mind and any
other impact this activity may have on C&GS interests.
The disposal site is located in deep water and does not appear to
pose a threat to surface navigation. Furthermore, it Ia already
shown on NOS nautical chart 13267 and requires no further
charting action.
however, C&GS feels obligated to note that the previous
industrial Waste site referred to in Section 1.1.1, “Site
History” of the main report, also is identified as a ‘FOUL AREA
EXPLOSIVES’ on NOS chart 13267. The omission of any reference to
explosives in the site history section of the report is somewhat
puzzling and C&GS wonders whether it was intentional. C&GS
realizes that dumping in this area has been almost continuous
since the l940’s and perhaps the explosive area therefore was no
longer considered to be of significance.
Should there be any need for further information about this
response, please contact Mr. Erich Frey, Mapping and Charting
Branch, N/CG22x2, WSCI, room 804, Nautical Charting Division,
NOAA, Rockville, Maryland 20852, telephone 301—443—8742.
CC:
N/CGIx24 - Baugh
N/CG I7 — Spencer
N/c022x2 — Frey
S Ycjrs SI ,,IIuIalIng AII,cr ,C4 S l ,ogR ss a lilt 1 1011
-------
UNITID STATUS DIPSITMINT OP tOMMUNOS
Salseal DiesMa eel Alnoeph..ls flmlriJnntIse
N&TJONt(. M&WN PiBMifl hla IteviCi
Northeast Region
Management Division
Habitat Conssrvation Branch
One Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930—2290
November 15, 1909
vaul U. Keoufl
Acting fleqional Adminietrator
u. a. Bnvlrcr a enta1 protection Agency
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Mr. )Ceoughi
The Kational Marine fj.herieu service lUMPS) has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Massachusetts Day
Dredged Materia l Ocean Dispofll site (MOPS) designation, we
believe that this DUO is deficient and should be redrafted end
rs—r.3.eased. We have previously conented to your agency and tne
Maw England Division Army Corps of Engineers regarding disposal
activities at this cite. Rather than restate these issues, we
incorpor.te our previous comments by reference and have attached
the pertinent correspondence.
As dooumentsd in the DEIS, Massachusetts Oay is hone tO populations
of commercially and rsoreatianally harvssted tint ish and shellfish,
such as American plaice, winter flounder, witch flounder, cod,
radfish, haddock, silver, red, and white hake, pcllock, lobster,
scallop, shrimp, and Jonah and rook crabs. Also pressnt are
endangersd and threatened species, such ae ass turtles, humpback,
fin, and right whales, and protected spscies such as seals,
dolphins, and other toothed whales. he tha conservation and
nenagement of these fishery resouross and protected species are the
primary responsibilities of the UMFa, ic are concerned that
disposal site(s) designated for dredged materiel from the
metropolitan Boston area provide reasonable and feasible dieposal
management options for handling contaminated harbor esdiritente.
To date, disposal options which would protect theee living
resources, and the commarcial fishing industry have baen, at best
limited.
The meet frequently—used option for disposal of contaminated
sediments from the Doston area over the pest 0 years has been
unconfined, and largely uncontrolled, open water disposal at the
NBDS, since contaminated sediments disposed at n oon have not been
Se dated from marine organisms, bioaooumulation of contaminants and
trcphio transfer vtthin the marina food chain may be occurring.
The limited data collected and reported in the rtxs indicate that
acme benthic orqaniome within the disposal eita have significantly
2
elevated levels of pOlyohlorinated biphenyle and polyarotatio
hydrocarbons in their tissues. Since, as the DEZO notes, about 00*
of the fishery resourosa within the HOPS vicinity ars demereal, we
believe thet there is unaooeptable potential for contaminant
trsnefer to commercially harvested species from direct sedirient
oontaot and dietary uptake. In this regard, it ie particularly
disturbing that the PETS indicates that the quality of eons
sediaente at the MOPS is similar to esdiments in Quinoy Bay, an
area for which the Environmental Protection kgenoy has iseued
warnings regarding fish consumption. NOfl and FDA have been
obligated to take similar actions at the RBDS. These were
described in the Januery 3, 1900 federal Register. It is
unfortunate that the ramificatione of those Federal actions are not
fully discussed in the 05 10. 4 ’s have repeatedly expressed concern,
during the review of individual disposal permit applications and
throughout the designation process, about the adverse effects that
disposal practices at MOOS oould have on fishery resources. These
concerns continue to be ignored.
The lack of suitable, raaource-proteotiys options for contaminated
dredged material dieposal has been a major source of contention
among the federal reeouroe aqenciee (NMPS, u.s. fish and Wildlife
servioe, and EPA) and the Corps of Ungineeru during individual
permit review. Regrettably, the O s lo does not resolve this
controversy and needs to inve.tigate alternatives. The major
conclusion of the OtIS is that the statue quo is the only solution.
It does not explore euiteble alternatives nor does it addrese the
significantly elevated levels of conteminante in both surficial
sediments and organisms at KIDS. The DEfl does not identify nor
discuss any other diaposal sites, despite the noted limitations of
the NODS, the presence of other hiatorically—ueed disposal cites
within the 14505 Vicinity, and the identification of potential cites
by the Third Harbor Tunnel Project and the Maeaachueatta Office of
Coastal Zone Management, in this respect, we believe that the Ot IS
fails to meet the minimum requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
In fact, we ooneider title designation proceas to be einilar to that
used by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACDE) in ite designation of
the Weatarn Long Island Sound Diepcsal Site (WLXS XII). In a
recent court decision, Muntinatonv. Marsh , (869 F.2d 1134, 2d Cir.
1969) the 2d Circuit Court affirmed the Federal District Court’e
decision that the US for P145 dsaignation vae inadaquate under
NEPA, in part, bscauee it failed to address alternatives to the
site. The Court required the DCC! to redraft the FIB.
Specifically, the decision requires the ACCE to evaluate the
availability of alternatives to ocean disposal, including upland
diepoeel sItes and remedial measures to reduce the need for
dredging. The EPA should accept the clear precodent established
by this case and apply it to the alternatives investigation for the
MOOS.
-------
3
IMPS expected that SPA would ace the designation opportunity to
seek environmentally acceptable solutions to the dredged material
disposal problems of the Boston area. Instead the EPA defers
resolution of these problems to other entities. epsoifically, the
0110 suggests that the snelysis of disposal alternatives should be
conducted at the individual permit review stags, end that the
allay to manage and cap aontaminatsd sediments will be accessed
in the future, as will be the appropriateness of the reference site
for dredged material testing. We and other resource agencies have
bean seeking resolution of these issues which have been unre.olvsd
for the past 0 years. our experience ha. bean that the individual
permit review process doss not Lend itself to resolution of these
management issues. A. evidence of this, the MUDS remains ths
option of choice for contaminated dredged material from the Boston
ares, despite indications that Massschueetts flay is being degraded
end that the state is embarking on a multi-billion dollar effort
to clean up inner Massachusetts Day. The DOT S indicate, to us that
we are justified in cur concerns for barn to occur to living marine
resources from diepoeal practice. at MUD S.
The DEIB lacks sny sufficient plan or strategy to sfteotivety
manage the 1 4808. Zn a recent occurrsnos, the fishing boat “ITALIA”
teuled up four barrels of highly acidic material, in the vicinity
of the $538. One of the barrels broke through the net and spilled
its oontent on the deck. At the Coast Guard hearing it was evident
that this was not an isolated incident. In feot, it seems to happen
more often than not. The DOtS only notes that the 14909 wee an
industrial, waste site pre — 1974. Because of the frequent
ocourrenos end high potential for fishermen to pick up industrial
waste a more detailed discussion is warranted in the Dm18. This
discussion should concerns the type of esterials disposed at this
sitsi the exposed nature of this materials the potential for
fiahsrsen to continue tO haul this material aboard their vessels p
the potential health hazards to the pubiicj and the potential
impacts to marine resources. We suggest sxploration of methods in
which suitable dredged material(s) would be used to isolats the
industriel wastes and reduce the public ricks associated with this
area of the Bay.
The DOtS lacks a substantive discussion of the Stsl lwaqen Bank area
becoming a National Marina sanctuery *s you are aware, a portion
of the 1 49DB is within the boundaries of the proposed Steliwagen
Usnk Danotusry. If this site becorse a nerine sanctuary it is
possible that disposal activities at the NBDO will be restriotsd.
The DM18 must disouse this option in detail.
Finally, we have received your November 6, 1999, roquest for
oonourrence with your determination that the MUDS dosignation is
not likely to adversely affoot andangsred speoies pursuant to
Seotion 7 of the Ondangered Species hot, as amended. We have not
had time to fully analyse the basis for your conclusion. The WMFS,
in response to an ACOB rsquest for formal consultation has drafted
4
a biological opinion that tentatively concludes that use of the
site for the projects specified by the Corps is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species under our purview. csrtain conservation reoommendations
are being developed In the A003 opinion that apply to aotivitiea
at the $838, and should be considered in your seotion 7
consultation. To expedite these conclusions, we urge you to join
the ACOM efforts and conduct a joint Beotion 7 consultation. To
facilitate this, please contact Doug Seach at (BOB) 281— 9254.
In conclusion, we find that the DOtS for this project fails to meet
the minimum requirements of the NOVAS in light of this, we believe
that the document should be redraftsd and ru—submitted as s DOZE.
The redraft should include a thorough review of alternative
diapossl options, conduct a risk sssesseent, address cumulative
effects of other actions within the HID !, and investigate possible
remadiation of existing 1 4 808 conditions.
It is also important to note for ths record that the public hearing
conducted on the final designation of the MUDS is open to challenge
on the Lesue of sufficient public macass. The Beating was held on
Novsmber 1, 1009, at the Transportation Building in Cambridge,
Maesaohusetts, at 7 100 p.m. The parking lot adjacent to the
facility was chained prior to 7 *00 p.m. me front doors to the
Transportation Building were closed and looked at 6 130 p.m. No
signs were posted in the lobby directing attendese to enother
entrance, or to the appropriate floor end room number. Anyone
arriving after 6 )30 p.m. would have fled to know about rear
entrances to the building and parking lot in order to find his or
hsr way to the public meeting.
Attachments
Sinosre ly,
Thomas 2. aiqtord
Sranoh Chief
-------
I. General NEPA Comments
At chapter 1.1, Purpose (p. 1), EPA states “the purpose of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DETS”) is to present infot--
nation which will be used to determine whether to Continue use of
the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (“MBDS”), formerly the Foul
Area Disposal Site, for ocean disposal of dredged mnterial.” In
the same paragraph, EPA states that Section (l)(d)(2) of a 1974 EPA
policy statement regarding environmental impact statements spec !—
Lien that EtC’s must be prepared in connection with ocean disposal
site designations under the Henna protection, Research 1 end
Sanctuaries Act (“MPRSA”).
Later, at chapter 1.2 Need for Action (p. 7), the DEIS notes
that: “final designation of the MBDS as a permanent Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Cite (“ODMOS”) would provide e site of suitable
size to accommodate the regional disposal needs of areas from
Gloucester to Plymouth, Massachusetts and other areas where use of
the site is economically feasible and environmentally acceptable.”
From theee statements, it is unclear whether EPA is proposing
to evaluate the continued use of the Massachusetts Day Disposal
site am an interim dredged materiai disposal site (as document
titles imply), or is proposing to designate NODS a permanent ocsan
disposal site, pursuant to section 102(c) of NPRSA and Ocean
Dumping Regulations at 40 CPR section 228.5.
The proposed action should be clearly identified in this
section of the decunent. Otherwiee, correct inference of EPA’s
intended action is difficult. Additionally, the document should
indicate whether an environmental impact statement was prepared
when EPA granted interim site designation status for NODS (or Foul
Area Disposal Sits) in 1977. If so, reference in the present
document to such impact statement would be useful to the reviewing
public.
chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Pronosed Action , at page
11, does not discuss alternatives to the designation of MBDS as s
permanent disposal site. EPA makes clear that proposed individual
disposal events suet undergo an analysis of location and method
alternatives prior to receiving permit approval. Regarding the
designation of NODS itself, however, EPA statea that Ocean Dumping
Regulations at 40 CFR Section 228.5(e) require the agency to, when-
ever feasible, designate mites that have bean historically used.
Therefore, the DEIS document purports to examine the “feasibility”
of continued use of the NODS: it doss not examine alternatives to
this continued use. Moreover, EPA states: “Only if this atudy
shows that the existing site is not suitable for continued use will
other sites in the area be investigated for potential designation.”
(p. 12). This statement clearly contradicts NEPA regulations at
40 c m sections 1502.1 and 1502.14, which requires in particular
that the DEIS “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all
—2—
reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which ware eliminated
from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having
been eliminated.”
Recommendations . NO&A recommends that EPA prepare a supple-
mental draft ehvironaentai impact statement which fully considers
and discusses alternatives to the proposed action.
Among the alternatives, the supplemental nEts should consider
establishing boundaries for a dredged material disposal site that
coincide with the previously-used “industrial waste” disposal site,
located one nautical mile west of the currently—proposed MBDS. The
currant DEIS document does not discuss the reasons for moving the
disposal site marker “A” buoy, which was present from August 1963
through January 29, 1975. EPA should consider the feasibility of
future consolidation of disposed materials at one site, rather than
prolonging the expansion of the area over which these materials are
disposed. consolidation may provide benefits in terms of “capping”
the previous industrial waste disposal site, and may also avoid the
possible direct conflict with nationsl marine sanctuary boundaries
which will likely be established within the next year.
II. Re lationship of the Massachusetts Da y Disnosal Site Proiecs
to the National Marine Sanctuary Proqran (Title I I I. Marine
Protection. Remaarch and sanctuaries Act of 19721
The following section discusses the relationship between
Titles II I and I of the Marine Protection, Resssrch, and
sanctuaries Act of 1972, as smsnded.
A. Authority . Title III establishes the National Marine
Sanctuary Program (NMSP), whose mission is “to Identify, designate
and manage areas of the marins environment of special national
significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological,
historical, research, aducatiomal, or esthetic qualities.” (15 cPa
section 922.1(s)). To achieve this mission, the goals of National
Marine sanctuaries are to:
I) provide enhanced resource protection through com-
prehensive and coordinated conservation and manage-
ment that complements existing regulatory authorities:
2) support, promote, and coordinate scientific research
on, and monitoring of, site-specific marine resources
3) enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation
and wise use of the marine environment; and
4) facilitate multiple uses, to the extant compatible
with the primary objective of resource protection.
-------
43810 Federal Register / Vol 53, No. 209 I Friday. October 28, 1938 / Rulun and Regulations
—5-
A primary factor evaluated during consideration of sanctuary
boundaries ie adequate protection of the system’s resources.
Within the context of ensuring the corprehensive and coordinated
conservation and management referenced above, Title I II (Section
304(c)) and implementing regulations (iS CFR Section 922.11)
authorize the Secretary of Commerce to regulate, consistent with
the purposes for which the sanctuary was designated, the exercise
of leases, permits, licenses, or rights of access or subsistence
use in existence at the time of the Sanctuary’s designation.
Further, Title II I allows the Secretary to assess civil penalties
for violations of Sanctuary regulations, including prohibitory
regulations.
MOM may also designate, as part of a Sanctuary, “buffer
zones” surrounding especially sensitive areas, to further ensure
system protection. With reference to the proposed MBOS, and in
anticipation of the congressionally-ssndated NEPA process for the
Ste llwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, ISOAA recommends that the
boundaries of the two projects not overlap, and that a “buffer
zone” between sites be established, in the event that dredged
material disposal activities continue at NODS.
MOM also notes the use of “reference sedinent” by EPA and the
Corps of Engineers for comparison with test sediment. The refer-
once site ourrentiy used for testing (as well as sites “A” and “C”,
noted in Figure 5-2, p. 220), occurs within the study area for the
proposed sanctuary. If final sanctuary boundaries encospasa these
areas, then sediment removal activities say also be subject to
regulation or prohibition under Title I I I of NPRSA.
Attachments
dealgastlos, In the Federal Poglatar th u
notice clxii include the text of the h oyt
lmplemreiing regulation, and ahall sin.
edotan the pubtic of the avaitebtttty of
the final macelement plan end the neat
Eta
(b) The draigneiten and ,-eguletton,
shell became fleet aed tale effect after
the clear eta cevtew pealed of forty flee
( cxi day, of conilnueaa aeaatoe ci
Coegnona, computed las ecrardanca wtth
secttna loe(bfle) of the Act, begientng
on the date of pablireilco ef the Federal
Register entice to paregeaph (a) c i ‘hi,
section itolrna
(1) The deeignattoa or eay of tin Ir ma
a dtespprored by anscimeni of a 10101
revelation of dteeppreval consIstent
stilt accUse 304(bj(3( of the Act, or
(2 ) in the case of a national marine
auncrusry thai Is iocsted partially or
entheiy within the aoaword boundary of
say state, the Governor (s) of the
affected etaia(e) cortiffa, to the
Secretery that tha designation or any of
tie itt-teal, unacceptable, in which cssa
the de,ignstieo ee tire unaccaptebla teens
shall not tabs eifeci to the eras of tire
aanctaery lying within the seeward
boundary at the state (s)
Ic) lithe Secretary determines th et the
ecilona in paragraph IbI of this section
effect the eanctuery dnaignsttas tea
senser that sanctuary gosla end
eblaclirea cannot be fulfilled, the
Secretary say withdraw the entire
designation LI the Secretary does cal
withdrew the desIgnation, only theae
terse of the dneiganilon eel
dieepproved under paragraph (bill) af
this tectien ee net ceti,fled andre
paragraph (b}(2) ef title section ‘hail
tale effect
un ix Cee,di ,eiian ,ettit ataie,.
(a) TIre Secretary that) consult end
coaperaie with effected etatea
thraughoat the astlanal serioe
aaectaerydeetgnsuen pence,, in
esoilcater the Secreisty eheil
(I) Consult whir the releusot elate
omelets prier to eclectic 5 coy eileen the
551. as en Active Candidete paeaoaet to
• 922 30, eapectally concerning the
reletianahtp of any site lo state waiem
end the cenetatancy of the proposed
dealgoatlon with a federally approved
eiate coastal rove senagrwenl program
Fat-the parpeaee ole coseteteacy
raniew by eiatea stil, a federally
approred coe,ial coca senegerneoi
progroma, designailan ala estieeet
marine aanctaen,, it droned to bee
Federal acitvitje which, if directly
affecting the aiaio’a coastal zone, meal
lee coderiahes in a earner conaisiont to
the man lsam extent practicable with
the epprovcdaiate coastal cone iirograa
as proolded by erc lfun tO7(cJ(l) ci the
Coastal Zose Menagcsena Act of a s i a The orfeinat SEt. nsa heerd on the then
ea amended, end implementing axiattog Msztna Reaesrch. Peaiectien. end
regsltiiona at 15 CWR Peol 930. Sabperi Senctoarie, Act which preeldad thet
C usiioaal mealne eanciuaeiee could be
i ll Ensure that retavani state sgenciee deaiwestedfarthttreeoaerveirw..
mcreerinnst ecoioØcal oeesthartcvelusa it
era ccnsulitd paler to holding any public conaitied at iweety sine (29) marten oti,e
beet-toga purvuent to 1922.31(i 1f2) wia high aaiuesl re.oaeva value, ideetitlad
(3) ProvIde the Gaeemer en end receetermded fee inctastan en the S a
opportunity to certify the desIgnatIon or by regions) resource uvalueil,n teems In
any 0(11, terse se unacceptable ee accordance with the Nattanel Munae
specified in 9 922.34(b)12) Sanctuary Progema e e,ieaiaa and oasis and
then exietrat rite ldeatliiceitee end retecuon
Subteen D—lmplementaitare After auntie es FR term, May Is. t 83) The
Dee.gnaloa Marine Oanctoede, Amendment, af coos
(Pub t.. Na Qe—4oaj emnadad the Ace to add
jan48 cha let-eL sddltlarest qouilfle,—hiaiaririt eeesarch or
(a) The Secroteey aha B Implement ihe edacailan—wittch suet elan he ron,t,irrrd
management plon. end applicable whao setecteg eeeciaary elite
regutatlona, tncluding carrying out Mess of aeitaeelly s lgretitreet research
acruetilanca and anforceseni actIvitIes. ard adoeaiimret qustlitee wee , crneid,eed in
end conductIng each reaesech end aarabllehLag the eetgieel 521.. Theaa qualities
education ee era naceeeary anti em tnl,ernoi It, sum pneeesaing eip,tflcaae
eaeseeasiiea. rec,eatiaael, acelugical, yr
eeeeenahle to carry eat the poapoeoe esthetIc vsiue Therefare, edd,iimel sreue of
end pe lidee of the Act. aig,aiflcane ee,aarnh and edacaiteeei nalana
(Ia, Coneleteot with the eaociteary will eel be scanalderml as thi , tine, eecayi
manegenreerl plan, the Secroieay thoU , padded In I 92221 of the meclaitane
deveiup and implement e elte epeclilc Site, paeeeeaing eeiioaetiy sigaiticens
cunringeercy and emergency-raaponae hisladeeJeeaac,c ea were net epectftxaity
plan dealgard to proieci the asncroary eaneidered when seiabOsbiog the erigiast
reesarces The plan shell contain alert xci. There Irene htata,lcet tile, art the SEi.
procedure, and action, lobe taken in The eoiettnguci. sew aced, to he amended
the event efsn enrtrgraay coat en a to edd mae at the msrtae seetwnweni
ahlpwreclt or en oil .FIU peeeesste hi,Iaricsi qustitlee uf special
nstion,l atoniflcanct Thu, the ocsleelng cite
(c i Where eaoenllot to prevent tdentlilcsilen and selecitae ceitreta heve
immediate, eerloae and Ineeersibie bnaameeded to tncaryorete mare epecitic
dantoge to etectusey reeocrcea, cettede to Idsntlfy end eeirct areas el the
acilattiea lacloding those not Liiltd in msrtneenrtraseentposoesstvgwatortcat
the deeignatlon sey be regulaird within qaeblm ef epecisi seOmel etgalilcenae
the limits at the Act on an emergency “ 4 c5tie tdeeitfic,ti,,t and Satecijee Otte,ta
hasla fee an iniesbo pealed sat to eecesd
ann hundred end twenty (120) days, The fatlawina ctiarls ‘are vontnd into faa :
daring which time am appropriate cetegnelee (I) Natural msne,ca values 121
bateau uaejhlstnetcet resauaee natuns, 131
amendment rf the terse of the
deelgnatIon shall he caught by th 5 pommciiat scttstty tatpsclc sad e)
meeagemeni aouceees The cattsrle under
Secretary aech aetegeey reflect oaec.ae, elgatticeat te
(d) Every flea years, or sooner, the the Nartanet Mirth, aeecnaay Program end
Sacretery shell evaluate the sabaueottve are designed so ensue, ehst sites
progrees toward implooeenung the recemmendsd iv NOAA larva
senagement plan end the gosls ole canslderqiiott hens btglteataeelmaeaece sad
deeigaeeed eanclcaey. eejrect ally the human resource nato ,,
eftactteeoena of site specific In setsetteg ali ce lee the Sal. NOAA eiae
eeestdom the eatsvt tafonasitee en the site is
seaegnsooe techniques anellshle, ealathrj sod petenitat sultrily
193241 Eafeaaam.aI peacsaiceee. tmpacia end management macems tea
prearnlrd in srctleaa 01 sari it’. bet nw
The canseitdetad civil praeedare KOAAs sslsduen ef altec far the sat, ooty
nrgnlatleos, set forth slip CFR Past 904 the fiat at seversi determixagacs befa,e
ehsli apply to all enforcement metleea sancioa,y siroigosilen eeaabsuquvni
under the Act eelrcueo oi the his noes qaslitied far
Appendix a to Pen —ita5aesl Mee’os ssrctoeey 51 510 5
Saaolusey Pragtma Bite ideatllicattae and At the Sea. sisgr NOAA s pdurn lacy, is
geiaotlea ceetsets tier Mache Axon with an lbs aite, aetwal moeoraa and hamon an n
Qualities ar Spadal t-dsltaeuj tttstadeai reea’nna natuss The pmaeeaa at
such high values I, e eeqaisiie ar “mioiwam
Ssvbpeand mquteament far flORA, feather
The Sits aneiaorloo Usi 1931.) wee camiderettan stare the Me,tne Paoteartan,
ssi.hllshsd in tax l toe FR nyag, Auguat 4, Research, and Senctuasiss Act emphssiesa
rues) 0a1 5 sitse Ca the acLmsy be ths proieciton sod management ef asoizss
aanslde,e by the Suaaetsrp foraobssqo,at ewes which em af spactel ostionsl
renew as Acii,s Candidaiss” far signliicaeca heed an tIre attn a cannr,railon,
drstgnstie, rec,a,iloasi ecological historical, en,se,clr
-------
educutlensi or esthetic qualities Oihsr me’s
spsciitc titan art (attend i de NOA.As
decision whither to stied sails so on Attics
Ceodtdras (see Subpart Ce? lie repraletionsi
To detreneles lien ins possess..
h letnitcel nine , ni epeclei osilonel
s lpolitcuece and ulhrnel.u mist, lbs
Ssrtctu.ry destpnstlnn seendsids eprctfled i to
Ssctioc, 3W ol Its Act. onrOsie delicittens sod
criteria irs included in this .ppertdita (use
U1( ion useth srsirsttn hose potential sites
tar ilstttrg oaths PSI. In ontoedeecr with
I 512-Old the regniuttens
1 Natural Resource Vetoes
& Stthrepinrei Retrenuentelion
The ores under caeaideestlon Is
repeonrosattvr nI the htrgergeephtn suhre 3 ien
in which iils incited
Examp/e. This criterion would rpalp loan
ores coninthltnj speclee ssosniblepes which
see ospecictip chsencterlsltn tithe Oregonian
subregion tithe BrItIsh Cnlnrnhlno engIne
Another rcenepte would hi instil
concainiry spectra snormhlepro which or.
especIally chstsclotleiic of the floridian Or
Ainrrtcun Alisolin Anttlioen subregIon ol the
West todian en gine
o CommunIty Reprrtenietiort
Ow area coder cnoslderaUrn is eigniltcuuni
innelailon to thu ecntrglcsl crenmunttleo
which in (rood within the opoctflrd hobtist
type or wlibte the btnaengnsphth restart or
subrnglon(r e one srrsnnuecsle. crencountitro
as nseemhtsgesol species poptdstinne within
• pne.crthsd sws or hehitat)
Ecnmpiet (time wide spectrum rI morltre
hahttets let the Chsnnnl teleade Irtatlouct
M.etne Sanctusey Is Cotilonruus crusted by
scceneuaerd bottow nl lsl. netted bottom
srihalssteo end 5 rodcsiinn In wirer depth
(nw island ahornitnes to deep cooelal beaten
suppuet e vanity of ecologIcal renernuntlios
(21 Cocci nnel.gruee bed noit bnttnnr. end
opec hap hshtcat se es. in th. Key tasgn
NuttoralidartnsSunclnorp sspprrts variety
ii eoolngicui ooorwueLitrs asterleted wtih
the real Floride reel trail
it Stulopiost Ptnduntlritp
fire ens wider croeldureilen is sigmi f lceni
in enlntton in Its irerioi pdmury end /re
secondary production.
Ecoçnptrs it) Knit Suneha at the edynol
the cool mental shell .11 Corpus Clrrtatl.
Trone Iecheracieetoed by mI mic local
apwettirrg. hIgh pnlwsey prnducttnisp. cod
encopetnosi Itch production
(2) In the C ’s /s Ron 1 National Marine
Sanntueep moult production mep he
tnepoursd eutcrrpplngs ii ttmnstnn.rochs
map sire. to entrap coreoerne. and rteculele
detours snd plenhino nshtch pennides energy
sources (or cml tnee,lebrateo. whIch In torn
sopport marIne iiuheriee md aes etullre
(31 In theCtrsoeei itlnrrtle Idolised Marine
Sanclosty. the cold we ten al the Csliiumis
e m m a flowing aeoih meet the wino wile cc
of the Caii(rrrnls Counter Cwnmut (irwteg
north to crisis opwsiltnge ci cold euttlent
etch oilers that eehsruca he blulogicel
peodenttullp ci Iho ens
Note O tto eoeeipln also mes h Cetienlnn
IF
(4) in moop csees coral toils are ml uoip
eneegotlcotly sriI sustaining ire Ihrp
product locallp ennogh fund to support the
cnenrrnurlip). hri trip ste elan epncilcsttp
organised to entrap hosed. on t t recycle
r stoists omitted (nero the aorrnnrrding
witew lie prndrcle that are twpnrtrd end
0000ernedi
o Stnttc ChorsciselSpeciet Papnecintahtnn
The sos under consideroitno Is cI specie)
inlereil beaus. it scppoets
(t) Eculugluelip lfnriiedapecles
I ll Items? tally impoelool epectes or
l I Llolrcno speries essnetant 000 or
htoloplcel sseerrhis ss
E.caterpln Iii lids criterion ovoid epp lp to
marine huhttee ones upon which ecolngicetip
betted sprctee(rg airraetereed endengered
rete. depleted endemic. or porlptrrrsi
spaded so dependent duntetg eliot peel it
their lives
(2 1 ThIs criterion would app lp tomaeine
Oeaau nuci.hrtcg upnciso which nuntotboto In
a slgrrtllcont nap to tho waleesrinno eli
epecifled ecosystem bond In the wgtucue
euhrsgtnuu sorb at the Cborncrel lei.nde
MertneSaocloeey. wtriclt supports nr c niths
mud narled sesemhtspes rt meelne wentcnste
sod soahtrds In the wrrld
I ll The watets ulPoint Lrbns Cslllortnlt
supports etdquu sssemhlege ol help eec
urchin shaloot. sod are ellen
to) Suhrnortne cannons supponl unusual
hlelnglrnlcuwtountites of ooh ernie
crrculocasnre end Itoh end are known it
‘pnrhlo nlllsgeo”
(5) OtIs cdierioo would usa epp lp to wide
ssndp bottom ensawhlnh ewcherartrnuesd
by low praducilolty hit onlquo opectes
ccncposlttnn. such us certain cress oIl central
Teuss
It. Species Mutralertaoce
Tha anne tinder rcaeldeeettoe Is important
to lilt history ecilnltles iouludleg rprnt.t
leedltrg. cnucrshrp hnedterg htrthtnglnnesery
rratthgloinrrein md oi 5 ratiuo ares a
Euornplrr ( I I The warens oil Point Seyes
ard the Psns llno islaoda proolde deep and
shellaw wslee(erding cress lore wide
vseletyolmsnins orgeotserre Including
aeeblmds. marine werrtrnelb and merine
fisherIes The Fsrallue blends suppers the
iseges l seshlrd ennlsdes iut the contiguous
United Stilts end sri used. clung with the
aerslrtleod hy Cait(rmnda ceo hoes hsuhor
cede, sod elephuni teal, be hsultogocl end
popping puspuaes Wheleo Including oeoerst
erdoegend apecles md porpoIse pses
Ilreoup)t ths succtueep on am ’s. 1 mtpsrtrrs
(21 The m um around crmtsto )tswsitsn
islerads en lnrpneseor wtnteelo( htstlring/
nursery end pmeheps corurtslrtp/breedlcg
ereee lee endeogend whuiee
(3( Splop loheter nntgruttre we Iss eli
Floeids see Important toe the oll their
movement ol this specIes
(5) The mouth 01 the Misulsslppt Steer is en
ircrpreisnr tenon uhoimp once mietertung
ground
F Ecosystem Steuccurr lllebitsi Freirutee
The ins tender eunslderelton is
chsrscteelesd hp eperlal eheotrul physicaL
end /ne eoulnltcut hshtrat les Ions
E.cnrplre (i i The Oneida Mtddte Ceorede
ne the Cut1 @1 hlenlco nonitneots l shell
represent en unusual 1 rnln irai bnennetiere—e
etch .nddinene reel comrnunlrine
ill Irenslitol l cores occucoohew two
ditteemnr meetce eystuws cunnemge—uuch Se
am unestellmerine upsrew rutterisceestreill
step. lurree la ore soCi hnernmolhsed bottom
ncotcnee or cold wsrnejwsew wsrme ncrrrnel
0000ergeare none tiueeo areas nlntcing
n lren hucs urdqee physical nod ecological
nheesnteelettcu hIgh production. end species
di.sruIty/pnpuieIlnn denell lse whIch on
elm, geostee thse In orsce tlsrrtslrrg them Poe
seomple a bsnetlion enact. loetned nese
Cope tislinres when cold rsnrtheee waters at
the s.ebtsdnrCrrnnenl mi s with wurnr watar
eddlue ob theColl Seresw/flneida Grace d
end tea rictus eoetheen and southern
sprntee ml. end no solar with specIes
endemic ro the ores
Nuts —This eoewplr alto mccli Cnuronlon
IC
(2 1 P.usmsrninreei coastal arise ui Mule.—
with unique hap heads aid soc k-p euaule
uenled sabsheleedettaed (cow glacial
rnsrsriete sornoslne sob I(uedclrsruntrr end
numerous oflahoen Irloodn—.aw mulched by
low anees In the wnnid In habitat piles aed
epeclsa dJuewtry
VI l lrrwrn uce//ltnurrico/Resnetrce Yaks,
& Pishery itsanerrcrsobReceseilnnei
inrpceisea
The sne weden ouoildeestlno cenlsinu Itoh
end ehotilish epecire specks geenpo (my.
uruepper firwopee cmnsplee). on flshtny hebilels
uhlrh see iwpeeesunt Ir the emnnstiuesl
fishing trdonteylcemmuuitp and Ion which
conseroulton and wsnsgeorsd sri in the
pchlir lnerenst
S Fmsheryllesuurces ebComsncrclel
iueporrsacs
The rena under cueuldsrstleeconlelnmi flub
sod e lrett lets specks spectergeunpa leg.
enapper grouper cnwplerl ee Ilehcryhebtiets
which en lwpnr lent en tho cootnorutal
flohtttg induetoy sad Ire which cenoervatlno
end meesgmmeot am In the public ineens l.
C Ecoln(lcui(Isthsuckr000ncae 51
Irnpnesunce lee llrcreiltneel Acliniltee Oihw
Then fishIng
Tire uric andun cunstderatinnconlsire
sserpttnnel sraiwul resources and lesions
whIch. hrnanue ol their Impoeteece to netnue
welchtog end other neucnntumpdne
eenmnattenal ecUniiiet aniteon human
upprec lsline crndemlsndteg. aed ee)nywent
ni onus
Enemy/ma (i) cocky aborsiines ehallew
eeeeohnee warers. end (rleesldol pools in the
Channel leluode and Cdl of the Farellcnes
Pdeilueal Men lnc Saoclasr?eo bone rich and
esr?ed plani sod enimaillie which etlract
muop penons Iniemuled In photography end
nelnn cindy
(2) The peomlnenl lopogrsphp aenond the
Chunnoi Ic ? redo end Gill ol the Pars llonee
hisilunel M mmc Snnclunr?es piueides
nutilsoding ocrert niulos
121 The speceecrder spot sed gnome neal
cccl (none lion le the tons lisp idsllrnel
MarIon Seoctnery etluecre SCUDA end
sanrhellng enihunissis (mum oil r ‘ the
world
(u) The euetems oil Mast Ituwail, in
pupulen (or brmrpbsck wbsle wsiclstng.
U ReeOsnch Opporlrseetry
Tho ores under cnnsldershion pronldrs
rtmcepiionat nppuettnrsrlea Inn rnueaecPr In
wortnu ecteece and mnaonrmce menupemeot
Example. II I The Grey a Reel Neilwnsl
Marion Sunctuoty eerves ale trsltinal
iehneatuty on control area 1w neearcle In lice
hollow ecoingy
(2) The Key t augs idsilonol Mmmc
Sanclunry I . sorenehis lo000ite research
eclivtttcs for oneop ceesces, irectodiurg the
drnrnieyo(nnouurone anallstdc, she pros
hIstory of ec(rrrtillc eoacsuntrs and education In
the inc the oowpeilbttiry with siwilor
eeseanrh rUbrIc in adlaueal John Perrwnbowp
Stale Paah and Qisueyee Nstionsl Perk cud
tha pnnurolry of the stIr enact. pwnpe. In
sddictcri. the Catyafors fled Lighthouse
prouIdee a unique neeurch bite (row whIch
In leunnh smudies ennccntug the eaeniuary
een?ronmtot
(3/ The Channel Isluisde Nalinnal Medne
Ssncluuuy ellen e epudslopporturnJ7 to
cnsndlreete eescenlt with the Qierrsuel islands
Fdallneei Path. Such coutdioeiiun wi/I
cnnMhole toe belier ectrnsDc unders lmeding
n( the mc m i ene(cunrneol and Is mere
efleclln monugnmenl by snuweuteg
quenliorro inches those nieled Ia
denelopmeri end eec olmamurre nonuices.
E lnIerpntiroOpportwd y
The sna node: cnmnoldwatien pmwosdeo an
ennoilnrl oppreiwdip to lntcrpnl the
weed, 5 . sod rnleiiooehipe niepsugal mactutu
eosnureus in o n im Is enhance grreeeoi
undorolerrniiag eppesclsiuon, sod w(ae o le of
the marine enrircnment
Ecarnpln (5)Thmorrgha eurietyod
lnlueprstive media. tocindi,tg squarts
d lspleys aemnalerj cud. show, end
(leenhotlum hod (tune a visitor In tIre Sly
Lorgo Nelinnsl Msetou Sanciltery 5. eopouad
isa nrlety olmaelue sod cosalei
ecusynleme Including opes ocean. Irlunglng
comm reels, pelcit reels. monpuses, once hip.
red bernice loleede
(2( lire Oetemrei islands ltoilun.j Merlne
Saieetnraey pronldea in euceplienal
opperlucelty 10 lnleepnl madnu and (psuler
rcoapslnne beetunee thmocgbtherrseofnnrtono
inlerpnttne bounds no” lrchniqcen that go
beyond leedlUonal edrucalieisal luau such as
hrcchrrnu teed p.mnphisl.
F Historical, Culhrmel. ArcheologIca l or
Peleoeinlogke)Siwmflaan
Thu ore. cormdeeenrnslderguiee rentuine (on
Ia likely Ii cnnieln) hIstorical reeerr005 of
epnciel eseilenel elgerliiceorrs.
Dsiloidroo
Ths lenin bleeon?caJ ae defloud in
P22.i(c) mcmii possessing hJstueucal,
cal tenet. esclhenlcglcul nr polenainlugical
elgeiflceeeco, tnc(udiurgnltre.noucnwe.
disirlclo and obleclo slgoiflcaniip asseelstud
with o. empneeeolnltne *1 eanltse people,
cullun, cndhuwsoactiriueasumdeoeoua
Thu htnm I e esed In the broad ‘enee In er Ie,
to hnth prelnialonic end hi der-Ic pn’temde. en
the snthropclpglcel concept elcslture. med In
the penceoses eneote pianos and ch(ecls
related In the hrtmen pool The phesea
‘specisi nstienal sigot(tnancn In thn conical
at hlsinelcol cries denoime lhooe onus wIth
htoenelnui nsincs oP unIque cubed
slgntflesacs and enhsch see tllusteaiice niche
ns bmtr o wsritt,ne heelroee
Cr? lemta bee edmngflcadon sod Soleceinc
The cite lden(flmtotjon Sterla In he noed
by the Matte. Itlainesusi it’snroece Itoalaailors
Tests Ia mneshr (is nconnaeendutitee en die
Semsisry and (be cs(ien?c is heneed by the
Srcnslsey len eelecilen ci eeoemeseaded slits
for incisuies on the Snare the sewn.
Tsqnelily Ion neuowsaocdutlno is the
Scaeluuy and far celia/an tm iIeiing on the
Sabececee ole miles blsleelcsl nahsee, a
n hts mrutbene epnnlal nullenaJ elgentflcurtce
wllhtsthemeenlrngsei berth belew In
purugeuphu (I) eed(ll and mest the
prccueumelnueequiremnuce tee tumnim In
pungnaph (lLlo dcieteebnbrsg whethn e clii
bns spcusal ratIonal eigsiflcecrca, th. sites
ennalethogee en the hiulotteal eeocrsmnes
•insdy eopreneoied to the Pdoileosl Monies
Senetneuy Psogruoc Hang. aPr.11 ‘lea he
ccnoidensd.
(Ii flelnnnluoi/a,e of SrIpmfflnsnneu The
I dstltinnl Hislesic landmark lN}UJ Piogesm
(trtiQ t flPsmtfltiLedsninjslendbp the
IPrpsehnestol the lnler(sz (stases ellrnhieo
on (ncupeelheo of eecrpuenul na me to ba
nsnl)onas cobol. il Is the FsdnieJ means 01
weighieg thu nauocui slgrti5cunce of
hlnlcrieujresorrrcec, Poepeellss denlgnsledoe
PIMP. thalaeeouealnedy ileiednrs the
National lisitup eitllsteehe rana ate
eslomnticeblp Paled there, in eddilieo to
sddbug bielmical smits to ths Naseuul Perk
Syslenc P11-il, deaignotlon Is e prereqotetle for
dclnnoinlttg tim eligthiltly of hlsinrtcul
emuoumnee for noro lnartun en Ihe Wenid
Hoe?tngs LI 5L
Coontetest with the MsnLoe Rnseaads.
i°nrccajne. sod Iunctoaetne Ann dbsocetne thet
the msnagmmeat sbeyscisi msnuns trees
cornepiertsoesnlstiseeugctslnsy snthnriltee so
the culeat pmscdcsble. thm offsets len
oerninmiinn ate Hill. nheti be cued as the
limit lIsp he eosiusllngthe hlsisricuj. mrittmr•i,
cncheoipgicul or pnleenlclog?cal sigeniflcnmnrrs
elm marlet reepnpcs (Set Tsblo I ) Plies of
oallcnal algodlicsncedeoioneineledby their
drclgooilme as NI ne, or cocgidorcd In
ceeuollnUue with the Department c lthe
Intentoserdoihar apprnpelele antlmoutles so
meeting the NEt. esOteric, shell be hurthse
evolsaled Icr reccmjntedeflun (en eoiecllors
sad eealuetlse, boo eddilino do the 902, In
arduno, wIth psesgrspba (2) end IlS
below Silos mslhla lbs btnledlctiun ni the
Uotted Stceea which banu Ieiennmntlorsai
sIgnificance as deieewbosd by the cnulesis for
eomisrasirre In the Wertd Ileetluge (J.t chug
eleabe eeslaaied (SreTsbln 2).
(1) Dalauanttnciiurue pJReprmreuiaujre
Dreuelbrrt,cn—lo addJiloo ha hnnhrg octane)
ei.gOlIhnOOcr sells, In ceder to be
eecamarendcd or selected, rural oompieomnot
cr000i.tbule I c the desind snugs aol
hlaioslcab eeunvcus of the Pistioorcl Merine
Esnotreny Pcopsn Couuinirst with the
Pcugrew 5 edtsten end guela eel lurch In
I 022-s cI tha eegcrlaitnne, altec rocnmrneraded
an talented bee historical qrtalllloo west be
IIiaetraljne tithe cohen o msutiiore hertiuge
and etpmeeonlallee of the netlon 5 noel
etgnrldicnes hloeeetcal wmeine reeoorces
(I ) Addri/otntt? Ihnsramnengjc
Ilrqorremenor—bn add/hurt in hanng speolsl
celienel niitnt(tcence Ia qonliby (or
eeculrnreeedeilon esdaeinntton lnrnddimirnsm to
she Spi. cnordinetrd and enwprelreealoo
coneervatlen seed waulegemernt ri the nile
inciodierg ls)reanrawe peotectlc u n (b)
ecienlilic nsesclt and monticrlny and (c)
publIc uduatlon most he nee.,aucy In node
so deulne neuintnro firemen end (e lan pnrblle
hernefil Irsun the sites roncunnes Doaigrnetios
ole silt soc Nudcoal Marine Sunctuntymsul
else cnnmplunnenl existing regulstnoy
enthouttlea end Iiepecce the prnlcctbee erd
prosnrncleo uS the ellen eestarcos.
AdditIona l Faders in (lIe idenelltoeitne aid
Selectiee
SIP Pblenhlalutici/sbnj lrrrpocIr
Many msdurs onto arm esbjecs Iobnmce
ass, come c? which bring sdnenr preuowee
In bier no the natural nemoncee Wbnee
spplicebte, Initial edsultllarien el polcnminl
nacetoc nsumtcnsmy man Includes . ewnonumy
ol sulstirmg and puireilel humee ccUmttlas in
the cc 515 °c ae well en cpneuirnieary
ee.ossweul aienvtronnteni,l imnpocic, To the
ext rum ouch lufoemstlan Is enstiable, NDAA’e
ealecline oluitis (en the SIts. oIl considor
impscta of bmnuas ncilvtliee en ths core’s
nsrcroj reecraco end human s ee values, me
wail en the Impact. eb cite selectIon en
bwosn cull ritiea ulmnsdp eehingpleoe wtthba
th. slit
It ’ ManopemwtQm,n n.,
A Relsllunsbip IoOthmvnng,nmu
WbIle owns nsuctuunt,n may he desIgned
Is pmlect nesoarrues nut norrenily mnorgsd
by ether eeteUngpmneJems(e the I/E S
MONITOR on the ornelneolal shell cli Nneth
Cunolice). erase enonouneeds lleec innolned
000peregoe wIth acme other Pederit. Stars,
local agency or nrgsnlnstlcnn.. The eblllly of
eubsltreg regrulatney reretheetaac, to pniecs the
colon of the moe anti the conoibrilue of the
MelirosI Men?ne Pancismey Peogeonn I c thcl
cnislisrg orancgenrtnt efluns orny be on
Inrporuaol faciur In ealectbetg sanctuary
ceodidstn. Dependireg on the location, the
eoeeurus, and theonlaorrg eysiem, notsual
modes sasclusey deolgamoeiec cnnld elthn
complemunl ths elutco gs a by Riling epeotfie
flips or fames nmaeagomnne embreble nmne
fnegmnnered syaseen to help conesiteals sued
cinengtbre dinerse. bul nisled efforts. Al
dlitmeeei sires NOAA may monk to
nemnpIemsr,s other progrerns’ difortu such es
natlnnei catmuuctns weessuk nsemors, oalinnuj
pmrlms, wttdlt(e n(ngrs or n lare proeenvea,
amnmng ethers. Thsre meg irs ioutsnruos where
NOAX 5 primary ooelr?bngon is pro lncllon el
specIal mnntmw ness will belue (be town of
eehsoeed puhbc ewureeras thmmrgh
(rterpmeLee and research pnngteest
S. Msntogemont ole Ccoocnnsdne Unit
Optirnuna sloe ole msrtrne eancincry ii an -
bane Is be cenmuidend In poieutlal esnohieny
cite. The misc en mi m i ale m.slne
senclnney aitneid tea ceheolne censernatien
Federal Regleler / Vol 51. No 209 / ! cldey.2clohee 28, 1958 1 luc Ite end Rcgtmlellnntn 43811
43812 Fedornl Register / Vol 83. No 209 / i’ridoy. Ocbeboe 28, 3958 / Rarlee and Rogrllasjona
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 209 I Friday. October 28. 1988 I Rules and Regulations 43813
stilt assenuble to elTecilvi management given
flied end stiff COti5tfltht5 of the otanegifli
entIties.
Accessibility
Sine. national merine ancluariee at. to be
eesdlly avoilabte foe public use, when us. is
compatible with the ssnoiusiy’e goals and
ab ).ctivas. coa .idsrattott should be given to
factors which limit orenhanc. public eccens
toe p.rticslat site.
El. Surneilianca and Enfotcement
Anoihet issue lobe considered when
evaluating a potential sanctuary all. Is thu
degree to which the area tends itself to
adequate enforcement and surveillance and
the c.p.biiitieo of responsible a$anti (eg.
U.S. Coast Cuard, stile lew enforcement
divisions. Or the like). This depends on the
location. its size, and the types of resources
Involved. Consideration 1. .1.0 glum to: (1)
Elegy., of surn.tllsnce/ettforcemanl presence
seeded Ip the area—tlghl. madiuxp. or beevy
(2) sclmdal..-eosstlne. prescribed. or caseby-
case bails: sod (31 logiatica-’-v.saals. sbcraft.
psesonnal. equipment, and budgetary
o.qulremenLt.
F. Economic Contidetetlone
The designation of a satlon.l marine
sanctuary may have economic effects at both
local and nsuonat lanaI.. Prior lathe
davetopsrenl ala m.nagsnsont plen for a
porticular ella which describes the ned end
aclivitlas which may take place within.
eancteery. isis difficult is calculat. fully the
economic impact of sanctuery designation. It
is also difficult 10 d.i.mrlns, it the SE I . siege.
be economic benefits of tine sanctuary to
society a. s whole based on such
cenaiderstione as public use, sod ousearcb
and tiateipreilve vetoes which will also be
fully described tat a menagement plan.
Sanctuary deotgvslion may. in some ceaeo.
enheracs ecosnotic value by enaurirrg long.
tenon protection for commercially signifIcant
renourcas, such as coottttercial or recitations1
flair stock,. vital habitats, and resources
which generate tourIsm. Conversely, a
designeted marine sanctuary may have
negatint economic Imports If manegennent
regulations unduly restrict commercial
act lviii,,.
Tithe esient feasible, a decision to (include
a propooed site on the SEL will take mu
cunuiderstiorr the economic clients of
anractuary desIgnation. As cunsideration of a
p.,itculae alt. progtesaes ttuough the
d.stgsailon process, more iolnrn,stinrn miii he
developed and onalyxtd corucernin Ihe
economic effects of sancruray deaignsiiun
Table 1.—National Historic Landmarks
Prograto Sutaction Cnltarta ii . CI’R e5.4)
Specific Criteria of National Stgeiflcsrnce;
The quetity of national significance is
ascribed to dint,tcts. aitos. buitdlngu.
atnicturee and objects that possess
enceptiottil value on quality In illustrating or
loterpiauing tha heritage of the tJrsited Stales
Lv history. architecture, archeology.
engineering sod cutiuru soil th.t ponseaaa
high degree of integrity of tocaiion, design.
setting. materials. workmanship, feeling and
association, and.
( II That are atsociated with averts inst
have made a aignificant contribution to. and
at. identified with. or tires outstandingly
repeeaenl. ths broad national patterns of
United Slates history and from which an
understanding and spytecturiun of rico.,
patterns maybe getned. or
(2) Thai are associated ii’nporianity with
the lives of persons us tionaliy significant In
tire history of the United States. or
131 That reptetent some great idea or ideal
of the Pu,tenlcan people or
(4) That embody Ire distinguishing
chaxacteristice of an architectural iypa
spnctmatn.ocepttoestiv valuable fee a atuily
of a period, style or ntetlred of construction et
thet rupee sent a significant. distinctIve and
eoceptionsl entity whose components me)
tack i,ndi ldual distinction: or
(5) That are composed of Integral pane of
tha environment not sufficiently aignlfi cant
by reason of historical aseociation or atlietic
merit to martini individual ,oCogrnlt5Os but
eott.ciinely compose an entity of enceptiosnal
historical or atitatic stgrxlflcenc .. or
ostnisndtngiy corntnonretu.ate or itlcat,ate a
wey of life or culture. or
(ljThal have yielded or stay ba likely to
yield Information of major scientific
Importance by receding new cultures, or by
shedding light upon periods of occupation
once large areas of the United Static Such
sties are those which have yielded. or which
may reasonably be expected to yield. dat.
effectIng theories. concepta and idens ba
melon degtee
Ordinarily. cemeter es. birthplaces. grsnes
of hieiortcat Il.griree. peopetitas owned by
religious in,liiuiiens or sued for teltgtoua
ptupooes. structures that bane been rrroned
from their original locutions. r,cvnetnacted
historic buildings end ptepertlen tlrst tans
achieved atgntttcsrnca soittiia the paat 50
years are not vtig.tcle for drsign.tion Curb
propenicen however. unit qualify 51 t)iep fall
within (he frcilonirrg calelories
(it A rnt.gtoua p.upe.i, drrl.tng ira pn.msny
national sign titans from art Jittevrsrat or
artistic dl snn,i,iin nit ’ .‘.u,rai
lii A t ’ ’ t ”a’o arenr. rare .e ”nore.i h. . .. lit
original lv....., but ..‘ r5r 5 ’ ”r ’ 5’
stgo itlcsnip,rerar.int.usar. t
merit rwtr.eas,nrar,nn .rbp..s nOaa
mere nfirrn.rnr,drnt.e.p. ran 5 r I5n
riat,nrshisi,. ,ae.$ttioassre..t.un
connequ.n iii no
131 A else eta bn.td.r I a. err... ruse
longeeatarr hog but th, peruse cc sores
as .nciated o.tth Ill, eluans. eeriest
importance itt sic, rations bet s r y sod the
association consequential 00
(4) A bititnpi.ane Irene 00 ho, audi.. a i a
historical 1i 10 ,. ot tuav,vendrot erati,,rral
slgnif’icanco and no ether apprepriuts site
buitdctrg or structure directiy associated nncth
the productiue iife ot thai person r .1.1,01
mi A cemetery that dennes its pnimsry
notions t alur.ii’.vance fio ’ as ’s 5 it persnrna
of inanstrr,derst iie ,pu,Ianir.or f,nrv an
enceptionaity distinctive design or Irons en
eocepiioeaiiy significant event: or
ff1 A reconnirucled building or ensemble of
buitdtoge of eoteaordtnary national
significance when accurately executed In a
suitable environment sod presented in a
digolficd mscnnr as part of a restoration
waster plan. aod mckee no other buildings or
structures with the same association have
survived. or
iii A property ptiioetiiy comsnesnonatiee In
irrtenill design, age. tradition, or symbolic
u.tve has inverted it r.iih Its own national
trinturical signitflcsnce, or
itt A proparty achieving national
.igrii’i cance within the past 50 years liii Is of
euuranrdinary national importance.
Table 2.—.Critnrhe for lzsclusioe of Cultural
Peoparlias us th. World heritage lint
(I ) A monument. group of buildings or site
which Save been nominated for inclrinion on
the World Heritage List will be considered to
be uf outstanding universal value foe the
punpoaea of the World Heritage Convention
when the World Heritage Coetjnittee finds
that it meet. one or mole of the following
criteris and tire test of authenticity. Each
property nomlosied should therefore:
(ij Rspresernt s wrique artistic achievement.
a masterpiece of the creative genIus; or
(Ii) Hive enerted great influence, over a
span oh tints or wilhmn a cultural and of she
wvutd. on developments In architecture.
monumental aria or tomnplannlrtg emil
lonitscuping. or
(iii) Peas a unique or it ams eutcepltonsl
leaiirrnirrty 05 civilitutlon which irs.
dinuppiared. or
(iu) lIe eta outstanding example cia type of
structure which Illunts.lea a eigniflcont siege
in blelory or
frI Be an outalavding example ole
traditional humsin settlement which Is
enpresenistive sic culture and which hss
becornnr vulnerable wrdee the Impact of
Itreneetibir change; or
(vi) Re directly or lsngibiy nesociated with
e ,nnis or totilt ideas or brtirfs of outstanding
,u,.l.dt tat s.g,.tcancr. (The Cuenoittine
considered thst this cnitetion should J:il:iy
t,r,iuetnn its the list emily in exceptional
or in coniontlon wIth other
criteria) end
tin additives the property must meet the teat
n O . ‘limit, ‘n in design remarenluis.
or soiling
ill the i..ut....ing siiditiimrrst foctomn will tie
kr 5 it in nun 4 by time Committee lii decriling on
lie eligibility cia tvltu irsl property for
tentoetos on she lint
(it lire data of preservation of the properly
sheuld be enstuated teistinely. tir.st it. It
should be compared tvIth that of other
property ot the esme i$pe dailvg from the
same perIod, both Inside and outside the
couvtrya borders. and
(ii) Normitnm.iinns of immovable property
which Is ii l 1 to become movable will vol be
cnnsidrre,5
IIR Doe. sb-247I3 I’stnd 50 27-oe; i:4S em)
aititso cong 15,5w-N
l ’ s
.N /z
,; ,
.sua -
/co : -
5 155
S it .‘
‘ 0 ’ vt 40
toe ‘5’
ri O
sit’
to,
is,
to,
‘ -it’
\ .. 3o.,
. i . °
tji v -. 35
O0. .‘ - , , j,J / A
.,JJ,.. : m ur, 1 /
/6 bf /
‘ 75
“‘“it
en
: / \
o.i ‘\ 57
. boa , 6 ii ,\ ma1
1. ‘mi
ton
‘,. it.,
7, ‘
\. ‘
,/ ‘r’
$5
v5
‘vr” ,,
o 0 5O St ‘.: • 31 b2\
pS I
2:2
-------
A ECEIIf FD- FPA UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OE COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
AID’ 1 t . \ / NAYIOiIAL OCtAl’ SORVICE
M VII I) I? U .• - , orriCt 01 0(1 AN ADD (DASIAL RISOURCI MSNAGEU(UI
S..h,., .. DC 1 0 1 1 %
WWP WQB El ,,,o ’. .i I
115. Kyinberlee Keckler PUG I .1 igm
U.S. EPA, Region I
WQE—l900C
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
RE, Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Designation of Dredged Material Disposal
Site in Massachusetts Bays Alternative Site
Screening (July 1990)
Dear Ms. Kecklers
The Marine and Estuarine Management Division (MEND), within the
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, has reviewed the
above—referenced document, with particular regard to the proposed
action’s effects on the designation end management of the pro-
posed Steliwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS), also
located i n Massachusetts flay.
As you are aware, the initially-proposed 14505 overlapped slightly
with the study area for the proposed Steliwagen Bank National
Marine Sanctuary. MEMO commented in November 1959 that EPA
should consider alternative sites for the proposed MOOS,
including the alternative of moving the proposed NODS one
nautical mile to the vest, to coincide with the previously-used
industrial waste disposal site.
The advantages of this particular alternative Include the defacto
“capping” of previously—disposed industrial materials with
dredged materials, thereby possibly reducing potential “drift” or
uptake by living resources; and the elimination of disposal
activities from within the boundaries of a National Marine
Sanctuary. MEMO is pleased to learn of EPA’s revised preferred
boundary alternative (as discussed on page 34), which would place
the designated 1150 5 over the previously-used industrial waste
disposal site (and immediately outside the study area for the
proposed National Marine Sanctuary).
Despite EPA’s stated belief (at page 19) that continued dredged
material disposal at the currently-existing 11805 would not
“significantly adversely affect” Steliwagen Bank resources, there
is no question that dredged material disposal does cause some
adverse effects to the iimaediate environment, including living
resources. EPA’s document notes (page 1]) that “adverse effects
associated with dredged material disposal include the alteration
of bottom substrate resulting in a modification of benthic
community structure or diverse benthic faunal assemblages.”
Indeed, EPA’s determination has been to eliminate certain areas
from its Zone of Siting Feasibility (ZSF) because of the
“potential danger of adversely affecting” sensitive areas by
disposing of dredged material. (p. 13)
Existing regulatory authorities affecting ocean disposal
activities in Massachusetts Bay are largely focused on single
activities or resources. Regulations implementing a National
Marine sanctuary are designed to provide, in coordination with
existing regulations, protection and management to an ocean
system which has been recognized as nationally significant.
Designation of Steliwagen Bank would provide a comprehensive
management program accommodating multiple uses, consistent with
the overall objective of resource protection. Within this
context, Sanctuary management includes the authority (pursuant to
Title III ) to regulate the exercise of any valid “lease, permit,
license, or right” consistent with the purposes for which the
Sanctuary was designated.
Soecific Notes
Table 2 (p. 14) fails to note the presence in the Gulf of Maine
of harbor seals and gray seals. Additionally, orca whales should
probably also be included in this listing.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Supplemental
Draft Environmental Inspect Statement.
cc: Tom Blgford
Brad Barr
Sincerely,
t
Susan E. Durden
Regional Manager
Atlantic/Great Lakes Region
-------
3 r 4 toinmonwea&Z 9e 4 ui acAecoeil4
t ’e€a6ve t4tke / S r’rnlflnirn/,vI
100 ‘Canine p
. sjes, ,Zsiarhtiet6 02202
Ms Ann Rodney
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
I F Kennedy Building
Boston, MA 02203-2211
Dear Ms Rodney:
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office (MCLM) tins reviewed the Draft
environmental Impact Statement (DPJS) on’ l3vaiuitiun of the Continued Use of the
Massachusetts Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site’S (MIIDS) flit following
comments constitute our review of this docu ment
MCZM’s major concerns relate to the following issues ( I) there is no analysis of
alternatives to the continued use of the MUDS; (2) there is no viable plan for
disposal of contaminated materials, which is particularly troublesome in light of (3)
the demonstrated elevated levels of PAl -Is and PCBs in area sediments, including
samples taken from reference areas and elevated levels of these compounds iii the
tIssues of organisms taken from the area; and (4) there does not appear to he a firm
plan for monitoring the site.
Before proceeding to detailed comments, MCZM would like to point out that it is of
utmost Importance to recognize the window of opportunity that is iiow before us.
Completton of the E IS will presumably lead to a Funal Site DesignatIon by EPA A
basic question to tie answered is whether or not the continued use of the MUDS is
acceptable or whether an alternate site should he identified It must be kept in nnntt
that Steh lwagen flunk is one of the region’s most productive ocean resources It
supports an extremely valuable recreational and commercial fishery und provides food
and haven for an abundance of marine life The continued tice of the MUDS will, as
we believe your DEIS demonstrates, place udditional .snd cumulative stresses on
Stel lwagen Bank’s resources This is tinacceptahle It is Imperative that alternative
sites be investigated If another site can be identified th ai has the same
characteristics of the MUDS but is located well away from Stel lwagen Bank, then use
of that site should he pursued MCZM clearly recrigiiires the riced to properly
manage dredged material, but we also recogiiize time riced to proiect Stel lwagen Bank
I PURPOSE AND NEED
An estimation of the amount of material originating from the towns listed in Table I-
3 should be Included In order to establish the need for a regional disposal site.
Areas that were last dredged prior to 1976 may contribute amounts of material in
addition to those anticipated in the DEIS.
The economic analysis used to determine the feasibility of the use of the MBDS by
the towns listed in Table 1-3 should be presented Towns as far south as Dusbuey
and Plymouth have argued that the MBDS Is not within an economically reasonahle
distance for their needs Details of the economic analysis should be provided.
The origin of the numbers included in Table I-I should be added to the table,
Similarly, the statement on p 3 referring to “recent testing practices have revealed
should include the source of these data
2 ALTERNATIVES
The DEIS considers only the continued use of the disposal site. MCZM feels
strongly that additional alternatives should be considered in detail, including the no-
action alternative of not designating the site. It is not sufficient to state that this
analysts should be done In connection with the permItting process, as it is unlikely
that other ocean (or other) sites could or even would be evaluated in a timely
manner at the time the disposal site is needed. Given the demonstration in the DEIS
that levels of PAIl and PCB are elevated in sediments and tissue of indigenous
orgaiiisnis, it is particularly important to identIfy alternatives for the disposal of
contaminated sediments. It Is also critical to establish agreed-upon numerical
standards for contaminant levels in sediments Lack of such standards makes it
difficult to standardize the permitting and site management process.
The last paragraph of Section 2.2 (p. 13) states that the MCZM ‘is currently
investigating the feasibility of establishing a dredged material containment island in
Boston Harbor” This statement is in error The Massachusetts Department of Public
Works Is proposing the use of Spectacle island as e receptacle for both excavated and
dredged material,
S
COSaTAL ZONC
MA Ii soe uer lt
November 9, 1989
Ms. Rodney Page 2
We believe the two objectives are compatible and obtainable. Therefore, we strongly
urge your office to expand its view on this matter and provide a revised Draft IMS
that fully explores alternative sites.
Our detailed comments on the Draft E IS are presented below.
-------
November 9, 1989
Ms. Ann Rodney
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
J F. Kennedy Building
Boston, MA 02203-2211
Dear Ms Rodney:
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office (MCZM) has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on” Evaluation of the Continued Use of the
Massachusetts Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site (MUDS) The following
comments constitute our review of this document
MCZM’s major concerns relate to the following issues (1) there is no analysis of
alternatives to the continued use of the MBDS; (2) there Is no viable plan for
disposal of contaminated materials, which is particularly troublesome In light of (3)
the demonstrated elevated levels of PAH5 and PCfls in area sediments, Including
samples taken from reference areas and elevated levels of these compounds in the
tissues of organisms taken from the area, and (4) there does not appear to be a firm
plan for monitoring the site.
Before proceeding to detailed comments, MCZM would like to point out that it is of
utmost importance to recognize the window of opportunity that is now before us
Completion of the EIS will presumably lead to a Final Site Designation by EPA A
basic question to be answered Is whether or not the continued use of the MBDS is
acceptable or whether an alternate site should be identified It must be kept in mind
that Stellwagen Dank is one of the region’s most productive ocean resources. It
supports an extremely valuable recreational and commercial fishery and provides food
and haven for on abundance of marine life The continued use of the MUDS will, as
we believe your DEIS demonstrates, place additional and cumulative stresses oii
Stellwagen Bank’s resources This is unacceptable Ii is imperative that alternative
sites be investigated. If another site cart he identified that has the same
characteristics of the MBDS but I located well away From Sleliwagen Dank, then use
of that site should be pursued MCZM clearly reculgni7es the need to property
manage dredged material, but we also recognire the need in prutect Steliwagen flank
We believe the two objectives are compatible and obtainable. Therefore, we strongly
urge your office to expand its view on this matter and provide a revised Draft EIS
that fully explores alternative sites.
Our detailed comments on the Draft DIS are presented below
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
An estimation of the amount of material originating from the towns listed in Table 1.
3 should be included in order to establish the need for a regional disposal site.
Areas that were last dredged prior to 1976 may contribute amounts of material In
addition to those anticipated in the DEIS.
The economic analysis used to determine the feasibility of the use of the MBDS by
the towns listed in Table 1-3 should be presented Towns as far south as Duxbury
and Plymouth have argued that the MBDS is not within an economically reasonable
distance for their needs. Details of the economic analysis should be provided.
The origin of the numbers included in Table 1-1 should be added to the table.
Similarly, the statement on p. 3 referring to “recent testing practices have revealed.,.”
should include the source of these data
2. ALTERNATIVES
The DEIS considers only the continued use of the disposal site. MCZM feels
strongly that additional alternatives should be considered In detail, including the no—
action alternative of not designating the site. It is not sufficient to state that this
analysis should be done in connection with the permitting process, as it is unlikely
that other ocean (or other) sites could or even would be evaluated in a timely
manner at the time the disposal site is needed. Given the demonstration in the DEIS
that levels of PAIl and PCB arc elevated in sediments and tissue of Indigenous
organisms, it Is particularly important to identify alternatives for the disposal of
contaminated sediments. It is also critical to establish agreed-upon numerical
standards for contaminant levels In sediments. lack of such standards makes it
difficult to standardize the permitting and site management process.
The last paragraph of SectIon 2.2 (p. 13) states that the MCZM “is currently
investigating the feasibility of establishing a dredged material containment island in
Boston harbor.” This statement is in error. The Massachusetts Department of Public
Works Is proposing the use of Spectacle Island as a receptacle for both excavated and
dredged material
COASTAL rONE
MAN AO C N C N T
i’ 2 e i ”’om9nonwea/ô ôf zcAa4#’ i4
c caa t’c t L / i , ,,1, ’.,nnzr, ,fat
100 grn ’,r , , // r,t
,A je 7 rL,t,/, 0 202
Ms Rodney
Page 2
-------
Ms Rodney
Page 3 Ms Rodney
Page 4
The live general and 11 specific criteria for evaluation of dredged material disposal
sites are listed on pages 13.14. However, there should also be a dIscussion of how
designation of the MBDS meets (or does not meet) these criteria
3. AFFECrED ENVIRONMENT
The first paragraph of this section (p. 16) describes the origin of information used to
provide the description of the affected environment The test does not clearly identify
the agency (EPA or COE) that performed the “extensive site evaluation studies’ that
were conducted after identification of data gaps (para 1. lines 11.14). This point
should be clarified here as well as In several places throughout the text where the
origin of data or opinion is not referenced For example, the last paragraph on p 26
refers to side.scan sonar studies conducted on October 17 and 18. 1985, but does not
say who conducted the study. Another example is on page 144, where It is not clear
who conducted the interviews with fishermen in 1985
In general, greater use could be made of the extensive information contained in the
Massac) usetLs Water Resources Authority’s Secondary Treatment Facility Treatment
Plan,
The section on physical characteristics is poorly written In particular, the results of
the various studies on oceanographic currents should be synthesized rather than
summarized. The fresh water input of the Merrimack River Is significant and should
be discussed in more detail.
‘The DEIS bnefly alluded to the proposed designation of Steliwagen Bank as a
National Marine Sanctuary. However, the discussion of the potential impact of the
designation and use of MBDS is woefully inadequate in addressing the potential
conflicts between the designation and use of the disposal site and the sanctuary Part
of the ongoing NOAA review of this sanctuary nomination Involves a determination of
the adequacy and appropriateness of the so-called “study area boundary.” Given that
a portion of the disposal site is within the Stellwagen Basin, and therefore part of
Stellwagen Bank’s biological, chemical, geological, and physical environment, it is
clearly possible that some portion of MUDS will fall within the final designated
sanctuary boundary This may pose significant limitations on the use of MUDS Such
limitations should bc thoroughly discussed and analyzed in the rinal EIS
The demonstration of elevated levels of PCB and PAIl in areas outside the disposal
area raises concerns about the use of the MBI)S for contamin.ited sediments The
statement on p 61 that levels of PCBs “detected off dredged material in the vicinity
of MDS are comparable to levels identified - in other studies is not correct The
levels reported by Gilbert (1976) (cited on pigc 61 of ilic 1 )1:15) appear to be at
least ten times higher iti fl tile cxc i. rc 1 iuuu lcd iii I ,iltlc 5 6 iii ihc DEIS.
Section 3.23 (Biotic Residues) discusses body burdens of several contaminants, and
demonstrates that levels of PCBs and PAils are elevated in the tissues of several of
the species tested. MCZM’s major concern with this analysis is that the appropriate
species have not been tested. Tissues of the small benthic Invertebrates that form the
primary food item of the commercial fish species (cod, flounder and plaice) caught in
the vicinity should be measured, as should the fish species themselves. The species
chosen for testing ( Nephtys. Astarte ) may be larger and therefore easier to collect
than the small polychaetes and oligochaetes that comprise 90 percent of Itie infauna
at the MBDS, but the results of these analyses, while cause for concern, do not
directly address the Issue of transfer through the food chain
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
MCZM concurs with EPA’s conclusion on page 201 that contaminated sediment
disposed of at MUDS may cause or contribute to adverse effects on demersal and
benthic organisms, including toxicity, reduced reproductive potential, and pathological
alterations in susceptible resident species Further evaluation of the potential impacts
to human health must be made through analysis of species consumed by humans,
Given these shared concerns, It is imperative that contaminated sediments not be
disposed of at the MBDS.
Section 4.4 (Effects on Human Use) is incomplete without an analysis and discussion
of the potential effects on human health resulting from ingestion of fish caught in that
area Given the statement that the MEDS area is a productive fishIng area, this
concern must be addressed.
5 SITE MANAGEMENT
The water quality certificate mentioned in paragraph I of Section 5 23 (page 213) is
issued by Massachusetts’ Department of Environmental Protection, not the Coastal
Zone Management Office
Additional information on EPA’s concerns with the use of established reference sites
(cited on page 219) should be included and discussed If EPA has some concerns
with the existing reference sites, the use of reference site data as contained In the
DEIS may not be appropriate. MCZM would agree that sites farther away from the
MUDS, matched in grain size attributes, but with lower contaminant levels than
presented for the existing reference sites, would provide better control data for
monitoring the MBDS.
EPA currently considers the MBDS to be an Impact Category Ii site (pp. 221-222).
However, data presented in the DEIS suggests that biota and sediments within the
site exhibit levels of PAH, PCB and some metals that are above normal ambient
levels This characteristic would suggest that the MBDS Is an Impact Category I site
-------
Ms Rodney
Page 5 Ms Rodney
Page 6
Section 5.4.3: What are the volumes and types of sediments that EPA would consider
as necessitating monitoring the MUDS at a frequency of greater than once per year?
The species selected for body burden studies should include dominant infsuna selected
as prey by fish and fish species consumed by humans
Section 5.4.4: The discussion of monitoring at MUDS, while Interesting and
appropriate In terms of the theory presented, is not definitive in terms of the
monitoring that will be done at the site. Many technIques are discussed as
possibilities, but the program that is proposed for the site is not ctearly laid out. The
Final 1315 should clearly slate exactly what monitoring is planned aad will be carried
out.
Section 5.4 5: What are the newly developed testing procedures for bioaccumulation
that will be implemented? The plan for future monitoring would be more effective If
presented in an earlier section, perhaps as part of the specific monitoring plan for
MUDS, rather than In a section titled “Brief history
Section 5.4.7: MCZM is particularly concerned about the disposal of contaminated
material. Seasonal restrictions on the disposal of such material may not be sufficient
to prevent environmental degradation Capping may not be Feasible if sufficient
amounts of clean material are not available at the time they are needed, as has
occurred in the past. In fact, capping may not be feasible at all in the MUDS This
operation has not been carried out at MBDS and as stated by EPA In the DEIS, may
in fact not be a feasibie management option. As part of the requested analysis of
alternatives, pcater effort must be made to identify disposal options for contaminated
material. Use of the MUDS for disposal of clean material may be supported by
MCZM, hut we cannot support the use of the site for disposal of contaminated
material.
6. Editorial Comments
Throughout the test, the noun “data” is used in the singular, when it fact it is a plural
form nf “datum”
What are the units in Tahte 3-6 (p. 43)?
in section 3.2.2.2.5 (page 61), the text discussion on rctis should be consistent in
terms of the units used. In one paragraph, ppm are used, whereas pph are used in
the next paragraph.
Page 101: Paranois should be Paraonis .
Page t24: Section 334, paragraph 2 refers to “two species” of turtles In the Gulf of
Maine. whereas five species are listed in Table 3-32. (The table Is correct.)
In Table 3-32 and pp 143-144, “Ridleys” should be “ridley”
Page 218. Section 5.3.4, paragraph 2: It is unlikely that sediment can simulate
organism response.
Several citations in the text are not included in the list of references. For example,
CoI l, 1988 (p. 148) and MMS, 1983 (p. 149) are not given In the references.
Conversely, at least one reference (Ciar lce and Gibsbn, 1987) was listed twice.
MCZM would like to remind the EPA of their obligation to file a Federal
Consistency Determination with our office. This Determination is necessary in order
to initiate a format Federal Consistency review. We believe that the designation and
use of the MUDS directly affects the Massachusetts coastal zone and we look forward
to performing this review for the Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, we
expect to perform Federal Consistency Reviews for permits issued for use of the site.
For additional information regarding the Federal Consistency review process, contact
Ms. Jane Atford, MZCM Project Review Coordinator.
Sincerely,
2
Jeffrey R. Benoit
Director
Jki3/NJM/njm
cc: Gordon Beckett, tJSFWSfConcord
Chris Mantraris, NOAA/NMFS
Sherrard Foster, NOAA/MEMD
Page 96- Either the reported detection limits for POts (02 to 04 ppm), or the
reported data are Incorrect
-------
materials deemed unsuitable for ocean disposal. The Marina
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act 9WRBA) specifically
prohibits the ocean disposal of materials which • ay
unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare 1 or
amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems and
economic potentialities... The definition of what is suitable
for ocean disposal needs to be specifically addressed with respect
to the MUDS.
Historically in this region federal agencies, environmental groups
and the Commonwealth have disagreed with the interpretation of
testing date (specifically, bioassay and bioacaumulation tests) and
the suitability of project-specific dredged materials for ocean
disposal. The recently adopted Mew England protocols have not bean
applied to a sufficient number of projects to be able to make
comparisons. However, preliminary data iron comparison testing of
sedimsnts using the “Green Book” (Environ ntal Protection Agency
(EPA) and U.S. Arty Corps of Engineers (kcOE) protocols, 1971 and
the new (EPA Region I and 14ev England Division (RED) /COE) protocols
suggest that seditents deemed “ciean” under the 1977 protocols are
failing under the new (EPA/NED) protocols (II. Rubinetsin, pars.
comm.). If, as projected, the new testing protocols are more
sensitive, it is expected that a significant amount of dredged
materiel will not be suitable for ooean disposal.
The MCZN continues to oppose capping at the MUDS as a “management
alternative” for contaminated dredged materials. Similarly, based
on the results of the Pilot Project in 1 1ev Bedford, borrow pits or
confined aquatic disposal sites do not appear to be viable
management options either. Therefore, the document should address
upland or nearshote alternatives more definitively, especially for
“contaminated” or sediments.
the recommendation is to have a definitive management and
monitoring chapter that is specific to the site selected, e.g., the
MUDS. What is applicable in 60 feet of water is not necessarily
applicable in 300 feat of water and data from other areas and
projects should be interpreted appropriately in that context.
The following comments are specific to the document.
1. There were no naps in the DSEIS with bathymetric contours.
This is a handicap for comparing areas/sites.
2. p. 11 It is stated that travel to an off shelf site would be
economically unfeasible, but no data or calculations are given
to support that atatenent.
3. the paragraph on upland sites Ignores the work by Sasaki,
1903, Upland Dredued Material Disnosal Sites prepared for
nczn; the alternative sites identified by the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority and the Massachusetts Department of
Public Works. The SDEIS dismisses upland sites in a
paragraph, yet both MWRA and MDPW are required to review each
52€ tonimonwea i /A ?Ja cA e
, &ecct&uo t” 9 ronmen4d4(uvI ‘:
100 mIn4e ,9fns 22 ‘°fl
COASTAL ZONE t ’1&a4ZChtht 2D 0t202 L
MANAOEMENT I •
-
August 15, 1990
Ms. Julie Belaga
Regional Administrator
EPA Region I
J IM Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Ms. Belaga:
This latter comments on the Sunolemantal Draft Environmental Impact
Statement SDEISt for the Desinnation of Dredoed Materiel Disposal
Site in Massachusetts Bay: Alternative Site Screeninc , dated July
1990. It Is the opinion of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management (MCZM) Offics that the 50015 does not adequately address
several major issues relating to the designation process. MCZM’e
concerns relate to the following issues: (1) the alternatives
analysis is superficial, particularly with rsgard to sites that can
accept materials unsuitable for ocean disposal, (2) there is no
sits specific monitoring plan, (3) there is no long term management
plan, and (4) there is no documentation to ehifting the sits to
include all or part of the industrial site (although this may be
appropriate and beneficial).
This supplement wee prepared because the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) did not adequately analyze alternative sites as is
required of the Environmantsl Protection Agency (EPA) under the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Although the
document augments the analysis of alternative sites, it does not
distinguish between a specific sits, the Massachusetts Bay Disposal
Sits (MUDS) formerly known as the Foul Area Disposal Site (PM)S)
and generalized areas such as (Northern Massachusetts Bay (11MB),
Murray Basin (MB) and Southern Massachusetts Day (3MB). This in
equivalent to comparing orsnges to a basket of fruit and while
there are similarities, there is a need to compare oranges to
oranges. Therefore, the MCZM office reccmnanda that a revised
Supplemental Draft be prepared that addresses the following
comments.
The MCZH Office has stated that the MBDS sppears to be a suitable
diepcsal site for clean dredged materials. There is a need fcr EPA
to clearly define “clean” and to identify sites that can accept
-------
3
parcel relative to the 404(b) (1) criteria, state regulations
regarding upland and nesrahore disposal. All agenoiea should
address these issues at the name level of scrutiny and the
08818’s cursory dismissal of upland sites is inappropriate.
Upland alternatives should be practicable, I.e., those areas
that can accept salt-laden dredged sateriale and sediments
with contaminant levels unsuitable for ocean disposal. There
may be differences in contaminant levels between what is
acceptable for landfills under solid waste regulations end
ocean disposal which should be taken into account.
4. p.13. The TRIGOX, 1974 reference ie not listed in the
References.
5. p.19. The reference to “evaluation o the armeting reference
site” implies that concerns expr s ed by several agencies
regarding the suitability of materiel from the currently used
reference area is subject to further evaluation, but no
details are given. A specific plan for identifying clean
reference sites needs to be identified.
6. Section 4. The alternative site selection was poorly done.
The document failed to distinguish between comparison of a
specific site, the Mansachusetta Bay Disposal Site (MBDB) and
general areas, Murray Basin (MB), No thern Massachusetts Bay
(MMD) and Southern Massachusetts Bay (8MB). Within each of
the general areas specific sites need to be identified based
on appropriate physical oceanographic features, e.g.,
depressions and other depositional characteristics.
7. p.27. pare. 3. The reference to the 8MB alternative site as
a spawning area for commercially important fish species and an
area where whales are sighted is true for NMB, the MEDS and
possibly MB. Therefore it is not appropriate to use this
criteria when applied to the general alternative sites,
although it is appropriate on a speoitio site by site basis.
8. p.28. para. 3. How can one compare resuspension data from
118DB to all of 8MB without referencing the data used in the
latter area? The questions of how much material is
resuspended during storms and where it is transported need to
be addressed on a site specific basis.
9. p.29. Whet references support th. last sentence of paragraph
and the first sentence of paragraph 5? In general there is
not a good discussion of the resuspension/transport data, the
quality of the data and the breadth. An analysis of existing
data relative to sites would be helpful, but at a minimum the
primary references are needed for the reader to draw her/his
own conclusions.
4
10. p. 30. Some of the discussion regarding disposal at the
Murray Basin site appear to be applicable to the MBDS, e.g.
buoyancy of particles, dispersion over a broad area etc. What
are the differences in velocity between MB and 11MB and 8MB (or
MBDB and specific sites in MB and 8MB). Is the MB depth 200—
300 or 300 a?
11. p. 30. The Boston Lightship and the industrial aite should be
identified on maps (recognising that the industrial site is
adjacent to 11808).
12. MCZM disagrees that data support capping at the MBDS,
therefore, this should not be a management option for
materials unsuitable for ocean disposal at this site.
13. p.30—31. The last sentence of page lo that carries over to p.
31 is confusing.
14. pp. 31-32. The section on other user group impacts is
confusing and compares site specific information (MBDB) with
general areas (MB, MMD, and 8MB). The discussion about
deposition in Murray Basin is contradictory in terms of
impact, contamination, etc. Recent newspaper articles dispute
the claim that the 11808 and industrial site in not fished.
15. p.34 There was no documentation for the last paragraph which
states that EPA is proposing to designate the area of the
industrial waste site, ... as the final boundary of the MBD8).
Although there appear to be several justifiable reasons for
thin decision, it may not be en •nvironmentally sound
approach. The sediments in the industrial site are soft and
the dredged materials (particularly olay—like clumps) may sink
and displace the soft sediments causing resuspension and
failing to achieve the goal of capping the area. The
technical feasibility of capping the industrial site should be
carefully documented before making this recommendation.
In general, the alternatives screening is an improvement over the
0818, but there needs to be an effort to address the critical issue
facing dredging and disposal of dredged material from urban
harbors. The contaminant levels in urban harbors in northern
Massachusetts are among the most contaminated in the U.S. (see
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Statue and Trends
Benthic Surveillance Program, 1984—86 and subsequent documents).
Both the new (EPA Region I and New England Division of the Army
Corps of Engineers) protocols include tests that are more
sensitive. This will likely increase the volume of sedimonto not
suitable for ocean disposal. The designation process, because it
inoludea an alternative analysis, is an opportunity to
comprehensively address disposal issues. MCZM has long been a
proponent of identifying a suitable disposal site for
“contaminated” dredged material and welcomes the opportunity to
-------
S
work with EPA to develop a long tern strategy for solving this
coaplex problen.
XCZM would like to remind the EPA of their obligation to file a
Federal Consistency Determination with our office. This
Determination is necessary in order to initiate a formal Federal
Consistency review. We assert that the designation of the MBDS or
any other disposal site directly affects the Massachusetts coastal
zone and we look forward to performing this review for the M IS.
There will be a public comment period in conjunction with the
review and we fully anticipate that all environmental groups and
other agencies concerns will be adequately addressed befor. release
of the MIS. XCZM is willing to review the draft final MIS document
for EPA in order to work out differences tn advance. In addition,
we expect to perform Federal Consistency Reviews for permits issued
for use of the site. For additional information regarding the
Federal Consistency review process, contact Jay McRay, MCZN Project
Review Coordinator.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
e fre R. Benoit
Director
3D z JP: jp
-------
Mr. Paul Keough
Acting Regional Administrator
€nvironmentel protection Agency
Rccm 2203
John P. Kennedy Bldg.
Boston. W 02202
Dear Mr. Keouah!
The Division has reviewed the “Draft Environmantel lepact StateTent
for the Continued Use of the Maegachachusetts Bay Dredge Materiel Disposal
Site” and we have several carn ents.
Although the alternetive of prohibiting further disposal at the MW)S
is probably not oracticat , a discussion of the alternative of closing the
MBDS should be incorporated in the final US. Further, saie estliTtates of
future use in terse of enewits of materials should be in the report, since
mat nubile disposal orolects are ioiown well in advance.
It Is noted that ‘s a i d PA i l’s have been found in abnormally high
levels in tissues of saTe invertebrates in the MB( . It therefore should
follow that studies on fish taken in the foul area should be pertorred to
ascertain the levels of contaminants in various tissues and organs.
The Division has been under the impression that camercial fishing was
legally orohibited In the l.WS, however, we have been unable to verify any
legal closure to cannercial fishing. In view of the aissunt of fish Landed
and reported landed fran thern rneral area of the MBDS. positive steps
should be taken in future nansgenent of the area to ensure the public
health is protected. Incidents like the recent case involving a fishing
vesseL netting toxic waste drums can only he avoided by capping the dispo-
sal site or by an “enforced ban” on ccrnarcial fishing in the area.
There is no mention in the report of significant short disiping that
has occurred historically on materials scheduled for the MBDS. Future
managanvnt mist Include rositive steps by the U.S. Army Corps to have
inspectors aboard each disoosal trio to the site. Without “active Inspec-
tion” short dimping will continue to occur.
—2— Msvsisber fl, 1989
Finally, the continued use of the 11835 as marine disposal area will
undoubtedly conflict with the oroposed Stellwagen Bank marine sanctuary
desicmation. The final 515 should deal with this setter in qreater detail.
Sincerely yours,
‘- 7
W. Leig’h Bridges
Assistant Director
141,8 :ms
S
Piiiu G Coins
OiflcTvM
ffAe, tonuno,uaea/& 1Sacl taa
9A M a 2 ? ‘ £AeFJ&
2saea$ 0 a1an iaeZMxa 0/ce tt&Lflp
100
oakn 2 .4&uacAa&etZi# 0fl02
Wovether 10, 1989
Mr. Paul Xeouqh
-------
I da • Ann Rodney
U.S. EPA
—l900c
JFK Federal Bldg
Boston, tS 02203
I kE: Draft Enviromiental Inpact Statenent for
The Massachusetts Day Dredged Material
Ocean Disposal Site Designation
Dear Ms. Rodney:
We are attaching wrtrents on the Draft Env lronnental inpact Statcient of
the Evaluation of the Continued Use of the Massachusetts Bay Dredged Material
Disposal Site. Since we only received a copy of this docurent on October 26,
1989 the assents were prepared within the t lire constraints specified by EPA
and only foass on a few points. They by no reans cons icier all our concerns
about this draft.
We also view the developrent or this Draft F.nvirornental lnpact
Statement as an esoelient opportunity for EPA to review the toxic effect on
fish and subsequently on hisnan health resulting frcn contaminants in the
Industrial Waste Foul Area and the Dredged Material Ots i p Site.
* look forward to seeing the revised F.nvi ronrenta 1 inpact Statement
If you have any questions concerning this material, do not hesitate to
contact se at 617—727—2670.
Sizy re y,
ftja44 ’ 4L. t
El lz ateth Anne Elourque,jPh.d.
Environmental Policy Coordinator
These ccainents of the Department of Public Health, Division of Food and Drugs
focus on several points but net all points of concern with the Draft
Environnental Inpact Statement (DEIS) on the Evaluation of the Continued Use
of the Massachusetts Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site (tWS).
1. ALThC*X23 ThE 0515 Afl2C*iI S ThAT ‘i1 MsDS IS A PRCCLCTIVE FISIIIIC AREA,
1 1 1K IXC1**Nr ecES t UE CXNIAIN A tUSK ASSESSZtN2 FOR HtfllN ctSISIXtTIC*.I OF
FISH.
‘Based on fisheries landing data
Itt’S and Efl€ as well as
Interviews with local fisharman, a
viable asniercial fishery appears
to exist in the vicinity of E )S”.
p. 113
“ttFS Cceeroial catch statistics
fra n the vicinity of tEDS
indicates that the ares is a
productive fishery resource.
Average finfish and shellfish
yields for 1902—1984 fran the M.rS
“10 minute square” which includes
the tEDS was 6,316,000 kg.
Although this 10 minute square
represents <3% of the 1 14 ’S
statistical area (514) which
includes Cape Cod Bay,
Massachusetts Bay and Stellwsgen
Bank, it a unted for
approximately 11% of total
landings for the area in 1984”.
p.1 14
“Target species of sport fisherman
near t’EDS Include cod, cusk,
haddock, mackerel, bluefish and
bluefin tuna. Wolfish, flounder
and polluck are also caught”.
p.11 1.
for bicieccusulation is clearly stated:
“No information is available
concerning the bioaocumulation of
contaninants in fish at E.EDS.
However, potential for detectable
bioacaimulation at tEDS is probably
greatest for relatively resident
denersal species such as witch
flounder and those species feeding
on benthic species. Persistent
organic contaminants, auth as P AM,
are a bloaccumulation concern”.
p.199.
I
Michael S OubOJe
Oaonnoe
Philip C Jshsttan
secretaty
Deborah Ptoa,row 511th, M D
comm lsslorm
S ’ Co ,nnwmisea///t- ,gi 44 aJutac 4 i,
t2ecaites 2 e €31’. J4 WUZfl .9 8 e#nieM
!?A/ 0 dn€ / /‘PA & . ta/i4
(‘A ‘.iJ O s
..frfl#d(l’fl (51 . (Jii(( (( j ((
( I d , if)
905 .nn/i , . ‘f ,ref
,_/afliaa.(t IYY(,fi( ,-/ (ad OP flO
FF120
Nov ter 13, 1989
yet the potential
cc: Nancy itidley, Director, Division of Food and Dnxjs
Richard Waakiewlcz, Assiatant Director, Division of Food and Drugs
1
-------
it appears that sedirrent
contamination at tWS may
(depending upon bioavailabllity)
cause or contribute to adverse
effects on denersal and benthic
organimas. These effects include
toxicity, reduced reproductive
potential and pathological
alterations in susceptible resident
species”. p. 201
This lack of attention to possible seafood contamination appears to he a
different approach than EPA’ a previous concern with this inportant source of
risk to conswrera. In addition, this possible seafood contamination Is a
reflection of the overall degradation to the marine envirorrrent.
2. ThE DEIS CEAPLY SU S ThAT ThE SThI}flIT AT I’16 115) 5 15 CtNFNIINAIID
The sirbient sediment at I’FDS has been altered and
“Statistical analysis revealed
significantly elevated levels of
copper, lead, zinc, chraidurn, PM
and PCB within the 11305 boundary”.
p. 18 ?
“Orgasic chemical data fran P4)05
indicates elevated concentrations
at the disposal area on dredged
material... Oil and grease levels
tere low (<0.5%) bit statIstically
elevated at the disposal ares in
wtpariaon with the reference
sedhremt and unispacted areas
within the site’. Executive Sisnrvnry
p.v.
3. ThE DEIS CLEARLY S}17,JS ThAT TIE EPA MaEINE WA1IR QJALITY CUTIBIA WIPE
VIOLATED NU42 XJS TD€S WI?C TO DRW IlfltWiL DI SPOSZIL AT P4)05
The 0515 reported svdeling for dredged material disposed in 1982 and n*rerous
violations are predicted.
“l\ssizning the worst case scenario of
10 percent uneettable solids, EPA
predicted that WJ for acute effects
(CC) would be exceeded for cnq r,
lead, mercury, nickel, zinc and
arsenic while chronic criteria would
be exceeded for c ver, lead,
mercury, nickel and PC) (arbient
levels of mercury already exceed
this criterion) . .. .These areas of
exceedanon would normally he
contained In the site, but may
2
surpass the hoiuvLi’ y of PI’l”.
dependirsq on t ol e, wi,wli aid
location of disposal ev en ’” p 191
Further, as measured in 1986 the levels of mercury at the 1.205 exceeded the
chronic EPA Marine P7 and the quantified levels of coppar approximated the
chronLc EPA Marine C.
4 • ThE BEES AVItfl’TS TO JUSTIFY J¾DVIBSE YECFS PS ¶t?4iC4 JWy, OCtlJRJ)G DURIU3
DISPOSAL, YET AQeOIISD S A POTENTIAL IFOkEASE IN 116 RA’IE OF DISPOSAL
“Water quality inpacts are teiporary
and limited to the period
irniediately following the disposal
event. A few exceedances of acute
and chronic water quality nay o ir
for a limited duration over
generally a small area within 1205
during disposals”. p.188
limited % exceedances will
occur after a disposal event. These
exceedances will be for short
durations. Because of the limited
exposure time and the notility of
the orgamisins, it is unlikely that
dispossi operations will cause any
significant adverse effects to
pelagic fin fish”, p. 204
At the sane tine there is a possibility of increased disposal at the 1.205.
“The disposal of dredged material at
t WS is anticipated to continue at
the present rate or potentially
increase with the advent of major
construction activities proposed for
the greater Boston metropolitan
area”. p. 186
5. TIE DEIS ATIEFPTS I I) MINIMIZE ThE (LV1’fl’UNATICU nmm ThE 1205 BY
STATIN3 ThAT IT WILL NOT PF1WF 1115 MaSSN 1USE7lTS BAY OR ThE Gill OF MaINE
“In summary, all exceedances of WX
will be confined to the diposal area
and are not expected to have a
significant effect on the water
quality of Massachusetts Bay”. p.186
‘Phytoneuston will be exposed to
elevated concentrations of organic
and inorganic contaminants which may
be toxic or have sublethal effects.
Disposal activity could have
dramatic local effects on
phytoneuston, bit will not have a
3
-------
significant effect on Massachusetts
Bay phytoneuston populations”. p 191
“Even in the event that all eggs and
larvae exposed to moderate
concentrations of suspended
sedisents are killed, ocean disposal
at IWS would not have significant
iirpact on the marine resources of
the Qilf of Msine”. p. 195
6. litE tEXJNUMIES OF TItE IWS OVEPLAP TIlE IICLSIDNU ES OF ‘TIlE STELU4N }l
WATICnAL MaRINE SAIC IUARY PICPOSAL
lbs overlap of the 1WS with the Steliwagen Dank National Marine Sanctuary
Proposal is not addressed in the DEIS. Yet the basis to designate the
Stel lwagen Bank a National Marine Sanctuary is clear:
“For generations, Stel iwagen Bank
has provided abundant ccsnnorciai
fisheries, supporting local and
regional econrrnJ.ea. t’bre tecantly,
the Bank’s inportance as loedtng
and nursery areas to endangered
cetaceans has attracted thn,,qands
of people and supported a growing
“whalewatch” industry ... Crithined
with the site’s acceaniblity,
Stellwagen Bank draws mUtter’s of
direct and indirect users of ftc
resources annually.” US Deport. of
Ccnrerce, Oct. 1989.
Further, certain activities are affected by the Sanctuary designation.
‘Where certain resources ate not
adequately protected by e,ilstinj
legislation, the Saiwlirary may
ixrposo restriction” or
prohibitions on harmful
activities. Exist irrq, pl.risw’ri or
potential activit Ira I i , Ii,”
Steliwagen Bank area £P ,l fry 1*’
subject to regulatiuui In, I ,. lo
sandlgravel mining; dirctivd vuil
disposal Decisions zeqauting
proposed regulations will be nude
during deveicprent of the draft
envi rowrental Ispact
staterent/manageacnt plan rkxia nt
for the Steliwagon flank profx)al.”
US Depart of Ccasorrr’, On 1999
7. tI) ALTh2SIATIVE DISPOSAL SUE WAS JSIOEREP
The USES clearly atates the requirenent to review other alternative disposal
sites before ocean disposal Ia chosen.
“However, it Ia inportant to note
the need for the proposed ckzsping
as well en a full spectrum of
available land-based alternatives
must be evaluated before ocean
diposal has been chosen as the
preferred plan. only when there
is not practical alternatives
available which may have less
adverse environsental impact
should ocean disposal be
permitted”. p.1
Yet no alternative site was considered in the BESS for disposal of ciredjed
material.
In summary, the DEIS attanpte to minimize the contamination already present
as well as the adverse environmental and public health effects of disposal at
the teøs. One of EPA’ a functions is to prevent environsentel contamination
including contamination of seafood, let EPA is proposing to end sore
contaminants to the feDS which is part of and adjacent to urban erbayrrents
which rank on top of the national list of contaminated urban esrbaynents.
The DEIS is presently inccsplete and does not acklress the potential health
risks of human consr.srption of fish harvested fran the I’ODS. Overall, the OtIS
does net protect conarmer health.
U.S. Department of Ccaeerce, National Oceanic and Atsosptieric AcMtinistration,
(October 1989) Responses to Sate Cannon Questions About the Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary Proposal.
4
5
-------
New
England
Aquarium
r,v,r’ in.,
flnt,., e.,..i%we, 02’m rfl
‘i’’’ “‘ ‘‘° llomi’i’iini i I. I ‘.1 I ’ S
P keough
Draft [ IS, Mass, flay Dredged Material Disposal Site
Page two
at all, strict limitations would have to be placed on the toxicity of spoils
if the quality of the Bay and the populations it supports are to be protected.
Paul eouoli
Act mo Administrator
(I S Environmental Prutect ion Aqency. lleoion I
JF lederaf fluildino, Poem ?2ri3
Boston, tin O??’i3
RE ’ The Draft Environmental Impart Statement nn tlic’ fpntiniipii
Use of the Massachusetts flay Dreiiqeil Material Disposal Site
Dear Mr. Keough,
The New Enoland Aquarium has reviewed the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement fDElSl for the proposed coot inuatio’. of use of the Mass-
aciiusetts flay Dredged Material Disposal Site iii’ tfrant the Environmental
Protection floency IEPA I for presentation o r information on environmental and
resource issues surrounding this proposition. However, we find ii,ere are
significant gaps In information and unresolved problems within the DEIS that
must be addressed
lack of Alternatives
There is a noticeable lack of alternatives to the continued rise of
the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (t1fl051 in the DEIS It is surprising
that the EPA has not entertained alternative sites or different modes of
disposal. lhpre is no discussion of the pntential for denial of the MBDS 5
continued use, and no contingency plan in the event of refusal.
Proposed Steitwagen Rank Martne Sanctuary
The DEIS should fully consider the probable designation of Steliwaqen
Dart as a National Marine Sanctuary. and the likelihood of restrictions being
tmpoeed to protect sensitive resources of tire Bank the use of Stelirragen
Basin -— directly adjacent to Stetiwagon Bank - - for disposal of potentially
toric spoils, is in direcE conflict with the goals of protecting and preserving
the resources of this area. Sanctuary-associated restriction, will very likely
preclude use of the MODE for urban/induetrial spoils, severely limiting the
usefulness of the site.
Ii sher ies Resources
We commend the EPA for acknowledging t hat dumping in the MOPS must not
occur during times when important species are spawning in the Steliciaqen
region. Rut even with restricted times for dumping, there is still the on-
going risk posed to fisheries from the anticipated four per cent (cumulative 1
resuspension of sediments every three to four years More ctetai led inrormatlon
on potential impacts from this resuspension must he presnnteii in the final
PEtS, including an assessment of the potential for hioarc,.mulative effects in
exposed species
‘Toxtcs Exceedences
We question EPA’s acceptance of the fact that rontiniied use of the MODS
will cause exceedances of torics criteria foceedenres would be unacceptable.
especially in light of the proposed sanctuary desiguiat ion anti seasonal impoi -
tance of the Basin to marine life. If dumping In the Basin is to be allowed
Use of the MUDS for clean spoils. eaclusivety. is an alternative that
m’ist be evaluated. We strongty recommend that such restricted disposal be
the onty type of disposal considered for the MOPS. Consideration should be
given to managing and disposing of contaminated spoits by some means other
than ocean disposal.
Conclusion
We find that the lack of planning for alternative disposal sites and
disposal techniques in the DEIS renders the document incomplete. EPA appears
to be proceeding under the assumption that the MOPS continuation will be
approved, obviating the need for evaluation of alternatives. To the contrary.
the environmental sensitivity of the region and the proposed designatioii of
nearby Stettwagen Bank am a National Marine Sanctuary warrant concerted eval-
uation of alternatives. We urge that such an evatuation be made anti a ievised
DEIS be prepared.
Thank you for the eppoi tunity to comment.
Sincerely.
4 0 c Oa a v-
Sharon E. Dean
Conservation Coordinator
New Engiand Aquarium
SEP
cc’ David Fterra, Dir., EPA Water Management Division
Ron Manfredonia. Chief. EPA Water Quality flranch
i t ymheriee Keckler. Ocean Disposal Coordinator, EPA Water Ouatity Branch
Jeffrey flenoit, Dir , Mass. Coastal Zone Management Office
Arleen O’Donnell, Asst, Commissioner for Resources Protection. Mass. DEP
Neti O’Brien, Acting Dir.. Division of tiater Pollution Control, liass. PEP
John Prescott, Exec. Dir , New England Aquarium
-------
S
Nes t
England
4quarlusn
&.t. U wfl.. !,IOfl ’I fl•
August 22, lqqO
lea Inairsiatie, IM Valet Qeallip Branch
SsppI Ma! (El i far l ie Sssectcsellg Sap Dispose! Si! .
Ron Manfredonia, Chief, EPA Water quality lirancte
(IS. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
JFK Federal Building, %IQB 1900
Boston, MA 02203
Re: Ssjppismental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Designation of Dredged Material Disposal Site in
?4assachtisatt s Bay — Alternative Sun Screening
Dear Mr. Mantredonis,
The New England Aquarium baa reviewed t his Stspplementai Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (SUFIS), regortling continued use of
the Massachusetts Bay Dredged Maturials Diatenani Site (MRDS). We
thank the EPA for reviewing the feasibility of alternative sites
We concur that the MWDS is an acceptable site, provided that
certain issues are addressed prior to final approval of the MEDS
Plan. Pirat, decisions regarding the continued use of the MEDS
must be tempered by careful consideration of cumulative impacts on
the regional resources of Steilwagen Bank and the Gulf of Maine.
Secondly, assurances must be given thai only clean dredge spoils
wilt be dumped at ths site Finally, dumping in or near the Foul
Area should be prohibited until the resident containers of
hazardoue/radiOactive wastes are evaluated for their integrity,
and the safest management option (or them ie determined
• Cumulative Impacts
The combined effects of pollution i lepeil, overfisheing, etc.
are taking their toll on the biological conmunity of the region’s
marine environment. Decisions abutil the use of the MEDS heve
significant bearing upon the health of the ecitiro food web of
Massachusetts Bay. The New Lngiaced Aquarium walcomes CPA ’s offer
to establish an advisory coirmittee for the MRPS, a step which will
ensure that public concerns about mannqomenl decisions for the
MEDS will be heard we recomond that the advisory cormittee be
involved in the process of devolopin’i a manogement pinn for the
MBDS.
The New England Aquarium further eurqes the Pi’A to lend full
support to the designation of Stellwnqen flunk as a National Marine
Sanctuary. The proximity of a mar l en’ saciritierry to Ihe M ienS would
help enhance dacisions regardin ; dsimplnq within ihe MHl)S
• Spoiie Quelity
As noted in our cuereeeuritirry on I t i’ i cii I ml i n IS ciii, ieI’p 3989,
Stel Iwagen Bank’s marine li re ruuid t i ’ i,dvr’rsuly impacted by
periodic violations of tonics criteria, violations that would be
facilitated by dumping contaminated epoile within the 51205
hincause there appears to be a great deal of latitude for decisions
about the quality of sediments, all decisions about the disposal
of spoils must be based upon the most stringent interpretation of
sediment quality standards possible Guarding against further
pollution within Massachusetts Bay will help to ensure the health
and safety of the rich biotic conlaunity of the Stellwagen Dank
erea, es wail as the tens of thousands of people who consume fish
products from the region.
• Management of Submerged Hazardous Wastes within the Foul Area
There is an urgent need for further assessment of hazardous
waste containers (containing various tonics end radioactive
materials) within the Foul Area. Although monitoring of these
containers several years ago showed their integrity to be
acceptable, there has been no determination of the current
condition of these containers, and no assessment of the moat
environmentally safe management option for them. Until such time
as a full assessment of the containers within Poul Area has been
conducted, dumping within range of the Foul Area must be
prohibited.
• Conclusions
The New England Aquarium does not oppose future use of the
51805 eite for the disposal of clean eedimenta As outlined above,
our concerns are focused on ensuring that dredge spoils destined
for disposal within the MEDS are indeed uncontaminated, and that
existing containers of hazardous wastes within the Foul Area are
monitored end managed in the most environmentally safe manner. As
such, the New England Aquarium recorsnsnds that no dumping of
dredge spoils be permitted within the 51805. until such time as’
mechanism(eJ are put in place (including, but
not limited to, establishment of an advisory
committee) to ensure that cumulative impacts
on the region are considered;
the 13.5. EPA and Army Corps of Enij’mneers
(COIl), with the assistance of the advisory
connittee, develops guidelines to enauro,thst
standarde for approval of permits to dump
dredge spoils in the MBDS are interpreted such
that only the highest quality spoils are
dumped at sea;
thu COil develops alternative plans for
containment and/or disposal of contaminated
-------
lo u luafredoulu. tP* later QPiaIIII Iriaci
SrppI entaI tcis Par The ssacbosetIs S o; Disposal ills
Pep 3
sediments (i.e the top 1 — l.5rn of sediments)
from local dredging pc-ojects;
procedures are enacted to pnsliro that no
dredge spoils are duonped In ttø’ Foul Area or
areas of the MBDS where contntners of
hazardous wastes are presant, unlass or until
such time as it has been determined that
covering these containers with new sediments
will not result in a loss of integrity of the
containers, and a determination is made as to
the necessity of remedial actions for any of
the containers present within the MI3PS;
monitoring of the containers within the roul
Area is initiated, and asotirences are matte
that such monitoring will be continued on a
regular basis.
We look forward to working with tha EPA end COIl on this issue
as it evolves, and offer our support and espertise if requested.
Sincerely,
-. Robert P. Edward
Conservation Assistant
New England Aquarium
cc Julie letup, A tnlst otor, U S. 110 Region I
David Pierre, Dir. • P V C later N000lelent Division
I .bnrtee luckier, Ocoun Dioposot C rdtnator, EPA Inter Quelitp bond
Jefferey ienoii, Dir , Sass Office of Could Zone Saneirsoni
Arleen Otonneil, tisi. Ccisuioner (Or iesonrceo Protection boo P U
lrian Eonhoe, Actiny Director, Div of later Pollution Control, Sac, DIP
iota Prescott, loec. Dir • liii touted Aqosrica
Pool Doyle, Director of Proiross A tetcibits. Me. 1011usd Aqusniti
-------
A
Massachusetts Audubon: North Shore
159 Ha it i Street
Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930
(508) 283-0598 / 744 2967
November ii, i9B9
Ms Ann Rodney
MEP— 19000
JFK Federal Building
Boston, HA 02203
Dear Ms Rodney,
The Massachusetts Audubon Society welcomes the opportunity to submit
contents on the EPA ’s Draft Environmental impact Statement (GElS) on the
“Evaluation of the continued use of the Massachusetts Bay Dredge Material
Disposal Site. We believe that the clooeness of thia site to the important
fish and wildlife habitat of Stellwegen Bank, and the long term implications
of ocaan disposal warrant a careful analysis of the effects of past dradga
disposal in this area. We urge that the EPA submit a revised GElS that
addraases tha following issues
i. Alternatives to the use of the present Massachusetts Eay Disposal
Site (MOOS) should be considered We are not convinced that the £15 has
conclusively shown that the continued usa of tha present MOOS is entirely
suitable, The MOOS is on the border or Steliwagen Bank, a particularly
valuable area for fish and marine marransla As the £15 points out, the MOOS
contains many of the sane species of fish, marine mantels, reptiles, and birds
that occur on Stellwegen Bank. Disposal has led to deterioration of the
habitat and (as indicated by the modelling) occasional water quality
violations. If the present MOOS did not alresdy exist, it is likely that it
would not be considered en appropriate site for future dumping. we therefore
urge the EPA to examine alternate ocean sites end land dispoesl options.
2. Tile amount and fate of suspended silt that is generated by dredga
disposal, and does not settle out (estimated at 3—l ot of the total materiel)
should be measured empirically, since it was critical for modeling the amount
of times that water quality criteria were exceeded (Tables 4.0 — 4.9).
Calculations (p 154—155) show negligible impact of this fraction on the
background level of suspended particles in the area, however this is from one
disposal event.
Specific questions we have concerning this matariel
a. Is this fine particulate frect ion likely to differ in Its
concentration of contaminants compared to the more coerse particles?
b. What are the cumulative ispects from repeated use of the area?
3. No date is presented on the contaminant levels of bottom fish caught
in the MBDS. We believe it appropriate to measure contaminants in tissue
samples of those species (witch flounder, plaice) that are most likely to be
consumed by humans. The revised GE lS should address whether there are heslth
risks associated with human consumption of these fish caught in the MBDS.
4. Certain benthic invertebrates had high levels of PCB’s in their
tissues. Does this place predators at risk through bioconcentration?
5 An importent. eapect of determining potential future impacts on this
site is the projected future use of the area.
The pressure to dispose of dredge materiel at see will likely increase
as land sites near the ocean become more scarce. This is e good opportunity
to examine alternative ocean end land disposal aites that would have lass
potential to impact fisheries and wildlife.
sincerely yours,
Robert Buchsbsum, Ph.D.
Coastal Ecologist
r,on., .,n H..,.I J Pjn ,
-------
5.
Re ferences
COED 1989. Site Evaluation Studies of the Massachusetts Bay
Disposal Site for Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material. US Army
Corps of Engineers, New England Division.
P. S. Angela Sanrilippo , President of the Gloucester Fishermen’s
Wives Association, has asked me to convey to you the opposition
of that organization to any continued dumping at NODS because of
the threats to the important fieherie resources in Massachusetts
Bay.
-------
CLF
Conservation Law Foundalion ot New England, Inc
Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Inc.
3 J y Sires)
Boson, Mnnthussiiu
02 )86 1491
(8)fl T422640
Fn ei 62380ta
DY HA I l S
Kymberlee Keckler
US EPA, Region I, WQE-1900C
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02201
Dear Ma. tceckler:
The Conservation law Foundation 4CLF) wishes to cake the
following comments on the Supplemental emit Environmental Impact
Statement for the Designation or Dredged Material Dispcaal Site
in Massachusetts Bay (Supplemental DrIS), which supplemented the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Evaluation of the Continued
Use of the Massachusetts Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site
(DEIS).
(1) Alternative site screening
the alternative site screening presented in the Supplemental
DEIS addresses one of the two major deficiencies of the 0515, the
failure to consider alternatives to the exisiting site, the
Massachusetts usy Disposal Site (MBDS)
The first of the two phases of analysis, the delineation of
a Zone of Siting Feasibility (2SF), defines three areas where
dredged spoil disposal for the Boston ares would be economically
feasible and could be ccnductsd without adversely affecting
environmentally senSitive areas or conflicting with existing
incompstible uses. The three areae are northern Massachusetts
Bay (MMD) , southern Massachosetts Bay 45MB) and Murray Basin
(MB ). ‘This part of the analysts appears to be adegsate.
The second phase of analysis, the evaluation of alternatives
and selection of a proposed site, is confused and unclear, with
inconsistent use of two different geographic bcalea - - the three
areas and specific smaller sites w ithin cecli area. The confusion
is wail demonstrsted in Tab le (p 45-26) : its title is
“Evaluation of Alternative Dredged Material t)t posa1 Areas Within
Massachusetts Bay and Gulf of Meino ’, but it presents a
comparison of thres specific stc’n, one (or ench area The
difference in geographic ncale I’. ieçu’rtant because some of the
Vs,,nint Olilce a flalisy Minis Menipsils Verment 0i602 • (807) 223 5992
criteria used for evaluation vary from site to site within each
area, criteria such as proximity to shipping and fishing,
sediment dispersal/transport, end historic use for disposal. As
an example, the advantages listed for the MMD area on p. 33
include historic use, but only a email part of 5MB has been used
historically for dumping (MaDs aad the overlapping Industrial
Waste Disposal Site), so this advantage does not apply to the
whole ares. Furthermore, the 5MB area also contains a
historically used dumpsite, but this was not credited to that
area’s advantage In the evaluation. There is no indication that
the 5MB dumpsite was considered.
Compounding the confusion in the fact that the specific
sites used for evaluation for two of the areas, 5MB and MB, are
never Identified or located on a sap. The reader therefore has
no ides what MSDS is being compared to. Furthermore, the major
reference cited for the 8MB site. Cog 1955, is not included in
the list of references,
For these reasons, the evalustion process is inadequate and
fails to provide the anslysie necessary for deciding butween the
three alternative areas.
(2) Proposal to soya MUDS one mile to west
After recommending use of the MMD area based upon a
comparison of MUDS to two unspecified alternative sites, the
Supplemental BETS concludes with a three sentence proposal to
move 11855 to a new location, the discontinued Industrial Waste
Disposal Site, which overlaps MUDS and is centered one nautical
mile to the west. The brief justification for thin proposal
includes “a beneficial ‘defacto’ capping of the industrial waste
site by disposing dredged material”. In our consents on the
DEIS, C [ ,F recoemended that this site be investigated, but the
three sentences in the Supplamental SETS do not begin to address
the issues that need to be considered.
While the idea of using future disposal of dredged Jnater2al
to ramadiats contamination from peat dumping is attractive, any
implementation of it at the induetrisl Waste Disposal Site eust
carefully distinguish between twc types of contamination at the
site: (1) contaminated sediments from past dredged spoil
disposal and {2) potential contamination from containers of low
level radioactive wastes and hazardous wastes. Tt seess clear
that the contaminated sediments will be reiaediated only by
covering with clesnsr material, since the level of contamination
Is much too low to justify dredging and treatment, such as is
planned for the Feb “hotspot” in the Achushnet River estuary Sn
Hew Bedford, MA. The containers of waste, however, may merit
retr Level.
August 20, 1990
Pismds.Ascpct,dPiq,
-------
Conservation Law Foundation of flew England, Inc
Conservation Law Foundation ol New England, Inc.
It was the presence of those containers at the Industrial
Waste Disposal Site and the deairo to covering them with
dredged spoils that was the impetus for moving NODS one mile to
the east of the Industrial Waste Disposal Site when NODS was
originally deaignated to receive dredged spoils on an interin
basis in 1977, according to William A. Hubbard of the flew England
Division of the Army Corps of Engineers (pere. cone). He stated
that the rationale at the time was to keep open the option of
future retrieval because of uncertainty about how to deal with
the containers, and that it was the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts that requested offsetting the two sites. Thus the
proposal of the Supplemental 0515 to move 7100$ one mile to the
west would undo this earlier decision with no acknowledgement or
discussion of it in either the 05 15 or the S .pptomental OFIS.
CLI’ maintains thst the uncertainty about how to deal with
the containers of wastes persists today and that boundaries for a
reconfigured dredged spoil disposal site in the vicinity of the
Industrial Waste Disposal Site cannot be drawn until the
uncertainty is resolved and an irportant queetion is answered:
Is it advisable to cover the containers with dredged spoils? If
the answer is yes, than the boundaries of MOOS should be drawn to
include gfl of the ares with the densest concentration of
containers. That area has bean partially mspped with side scan
sonar (see attached figure). but its northern extent would have
to be determined. If, on the other hand, the answer to this
question is no, than the boundaries of NODS should be drawn to
exclude the area with the densest concentration of containers.
The disposal buoy for NODS is located south of the densest
concentration of containers, so ongoing disposal of dredged
materiel appears not to be affecting the containers. Therefore,
the question about whether or not to cover the contsinera can anti
should bs resolved with due deliberation and opportunity for
public comment.
Despite the uncertainty about the waste containers, there
are good reasons to redraw the boundsries for NODS if a careful
consideration of alternative areas results in selecting a site in
northern Massachusetts Bay for finel designation. The eastern
half of MOOS appears to be essentially pristine end unaffected by
paet dumping, based on the results from side scan sonar and
Remote surveys and from contaminsnt analysis of sediments. And
the northeastern sector is probably unsuitable for dredged spoil
disposal because of the strong slope upwards to Stellwagen Hank.
It would be desirable to linit the dinposal site to areas already
affected by pest dredged epoil disposnl (plue ereae affected by
past dumping of containers, if covering them is judged to be
advieeble) and to relatively flat arena
(3) Continuing failure to addreee bioaccumulation of toxicante
The second major deficiency of the 0515 — — insufficient
attention to bioaccumulation of toxicante — — is not addressed in
the Supplemental DEIS. This concern was raised by the Netlonel
Marine Fisheries Service (NNFS) in their ecoping comments of
April 5, 1985 and by several commentere to the 0515, CLI’ and HMFS
included. It is clear that past disposal practices have
resulted in elevated concentrations of heevy metals, PCBa and
PAils in sediments at MADS, and the few samples taken of benthic
invertebrates show eignificent bioeccusulation of PcBs and FAHe.
Except for e few flounder specimens taken recently, for which the
results have not yet been reported, no samples of lobsters or
bottom—feeding fish from MOOS have been analysed to find out how
far up the food chain these persistent toxicants have moved and
what concentrations have been reached in edible seafood.
This continues to be en important gap in the inforaation
needed to assess the advisability of continued disposal of
dredged spoils at or near MOOS. We know from experience at New
Bedford Harbor end at Boston Harbor that these contaminants have
adversely effected the marine life end the edibility of seafood
in those two places, we do not know how much of a threat dredged
epoils present to the marine resources of Massachusetts Bay.
Therefore we do not agree that the 0515 hee established that
there are “no significant effects from either existing
operations or future use of the site” (Supplemental DEIS, p. 34).
We repeat our request that the Final £15 address the issue of
bioaccusulation of persistent toxicants, and we maintain that the
EIS will be inadequate if it fails to do so.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Eleanor N. Dorsey
Staff scientist
Attachment
SInS — fl,,,c!,d P.o..
-------
r
it
14%4
010
a
V.
N
I n.
C —
‘
ox’
n . e
u k
i : southern boundary of uniform
o j S number of hard targets.
KXXXx northern boundary of uniform bottom containing a few
dredged material deposits.
C : areas of medium to high densities of targets.
Pigure 3.A.2-49 Analysis of side scam sonar survey in the vicinity
of FIBUS Indicating locstions of high ref lectamce
1o rce.: i.&. arJ , te.. Ko • FIs.n j. ii*t. 3. I c G. ,J.A*.. sh.J.cj •4 II. H usc L. cc#r
D;;postl.f On4S d tl..kriSI. US fl) . 1
bottom containing a large
-------
u ,.‘.—o cv’s..’.. — - - I I .
C Rt for Marine Comevadon
F orrnev?yCenle Fe, EatvIron neU,I £ducat’o” En 1 *7 )
Paul 0. Reough
Acting Administrator
Region # 1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
JFK Federal Building
Boston, NA 02203
Jack Sobel, Director
Marine Protected Areas Program
Center for Marine Conservation
Suite 500
1725 Desales Street, NW
Washington, DC 20038
COMMENTS ON TI lE “DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT’ FOR T IlE
MASSACHUSETTS BAY DBEDOED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIOMATTON
Deer Kr. Reough:
I am writing to comment on the “Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (o iS)” on the Massachusetts Bay Dredged Materiel
Disposal Site (MaRS). I heard you speak last “ask at the Growth
Management Forum at Tufts University where you criticized privete
intereste and other agencies for their unwillingness to comply
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA l and pledged
continued tough implementation end enfnrcenent of NF.PA by your
agency. Although these words sounded good end were no doubt
well—intended, EPA’s stated policy that the agency is not
compelled to follow NEPA end Council on Envlronm,ntal Q uality
requirements with regards to completion of KID’s raises questions
about the agency’s commitment to the NEPA process. This Ia
particularly relevant with regards to the recently released 0516
on the P1805 which I believe is clearly in violation of both NEPA
and EPA’s own regulations and procedures for designating ocean
diepoesl sites.
I would iike to state from the start that I do not
neceeearilp oppose the designation of the P1808. Rather, I have
serious questions about the designation end feel strongly that
the REID does not provide the necessary information for either
the public or a decision—maker to properly evaluate this action.
I an particularly concerned about the agency’s failure to
consider any alternatives to designation in the 0515 and the
justification that has been given by EPA employees for this
failure.
NEPA clearly requires that federal agencies discuss in
detail alternatives to a proposed action in en £15 so that a
decision—maker can consider thee along with the proposed action
in determining a course of action (NEPA Sec. 102(2)(Cfliii)).
The implementing regulations issued by the Council on
environmental Quality (CEQ) make this responsibility even
clearer, “. . .(the EIS) shell inform decision—askers and the
public of tho reasonable alternatives which would avoid or
ainimiaa adverse impact ...” (CFR 1502.1); “(The alternatives)
section is the heart of the E IS. . . it should present the
onvironmental impacts of the proposal end the alternatives in
comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues end providing
a clear basis for choice among options.. .In this section agencies
shall rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable
alternatives.. .devote eubetential treatsent to each (reasonable)
alternative. • .eo that reviewers may evaluate their comparative
merits. (CPR 1502.14). These implementing regulations also
cleerly state that “E lS’s shall serve ee the means of eeeeaeing
the environmentel impaot of proposad agency actions, rather than
justifying decisions already made.” (CPR i502.l.).
The DM8 for the MDDS is seriously deficient with regards to
these requirements and a host of others em well. It is clearly a
document meant to justify a decision that has already been made
(which it also tails at) and not to objectively assess
alternetives. Prom discussions with EPA personnel, I understand
that EPA’s rationale for not fulfilling these rsquireaents steme
from EPA policy spelled out in the Pedaral Register on Nay 7,
1974 (PR 39(89)1 and based on a Federal Court of Appeele ruling
thst EPA is not bound by NEPA to prepare RIB’s for its
environmentally protective activities and therefore need not
adhere to NEPA requirements if it voluntarily elects to prepare
an RIS. The Appeals Court ruling in no way juetifies EPA’s
current failure to complete a valid E IS. To begin with, there is
general agreement that the exemption derived from the decision
does not apply to all EPA actions. A strong ar gument can be
constructed that this decision would not apply to the designation
of a dieposal site since it is not an environmentally protective
activity. However, even if one accepts that the court decision
does apply to this Eta, it still does not Justify non-compliance
with NEPA.
The fallacy in EPA’s attempt to use thin court decision to
avoid NEPA requirements involves the sass Doctrine of Functional
Equality which was used to decide the court case. The court
decision was based on the argument that the purpose of NEPA was
to incorporate environmental planning into the federal deoieion-
making process and that EPA ea an agency created to protect the
environment could develop its own procedures for doing so in
carrying out environmentally protective memeuree provided that
they were functionally equivalent to NEPA requiremente. However,
much measures must be functionally equivalent, 8ince the RID is
a critical part of the NEPA process and the elternstives section
is the heart of an ETS, it is inconceivable that EPA’e actions
could be considered functionally equivalent to a NEPA required
ElS ; nor can the other procedures used by EPA in attdmpting to
designate this site be considered functionally equivalent to NEPA.
I 729 l SSreet NW E dnØor DC 2(036
9 0 2 1 4 2 * 3 6 09 ThieisA(202 1812 ’3oI Q
2
-------
MQL) 13 ‘89 15150 FROM CTR FOR EMU 1R EDL)CAT
PAGE 004 MOO 13 ‘89 iS 50 FROM CTR FOR ENVIR EDUCAT
PAGE. 005
purthermors, EPA. failure to consider alternatives to the
proposed action is also in violation of it , procedures.
Poeeibly in recognition of the above arguments, EPA issued
prooedures for the “voluntary’ preparation of 5 15’s for certain
of Its acticne includIng the designation of disposal sites on
October 2i 1 1971 (PR 39(284)1. Regardless of ita reason for
issuing these proc-ederen, EPA is presucebly bound to foLlow its
own prooedures. These procedures are “in general accordance with
CEQ’s Guidelines of August 1, 1973” which Implement I EPA. EPA’s
own procedures require 2 19’s in general to “(Include)
Alternativee to the proposed action. Describe end objectively
weigh reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, to the
extent such alternatives are permitted by isw. The analysis
should be sufficiently detailed to reveal the Agency’s
comparative evaluation of the beneficial and adverse
environmental, health, social, and economic offecte of the
proposed action and each alternative, inriuding the uncertainty
associated with the evaluation.” Thee, general alternative
requirement. continue for some length and can be found in Section
3 of these procedures. Sect ion 4(b) of the procedures requires
that “the following specific alternatives also be included:
altarnative types of dumped materielel alternative amounts of
material; alternative frequencies of d,,splng; alternative dumping
techniques; alternetive dumping sites w thin and outside the
proposed areas; end the use of multiple sites to reduce dumping
at individual sites.”
CEQ’s Guidelines for implementir’g hE ra state that the
alternatives section is the “heart of as 515” and EP A ’s
prooedures are in “general accordance with CEQ’s Guidelinea.
‘rho alternatives section of the 200 plus page HELlS EElS is 1 1 /2
pages long. I believe that the 1 1/2 pages devoted to the heart
of this document is Indicative of its adequacy. In order to
fulfill it. purpose end comply with both P4EPA and EPA’s own
procedures, considerable rewriting of this document is necessary.
With regerds to the alternatives section, 1 think that all
of the alternetives required to be discussed should be
eoneidered. I feel that consideration of alternative dumping
sites both within and outside the dusping area and alternatives
regarding the amount end type of materiel are of particular
importance. EPA personnel have argued that they need not
consider alternative sites boceune thoy are required to designate
historical sites if feasible, This argument Is not valid for two
reaaone. The firat is that historical sites are to be preferred
only If no other site in environoentaily preferable. Unless
alternatives ore evaluated, such a judgment can not be made.
Even EPA’s own Ocean Dumping Site Detignatton handbook recognizes
thie and develops a three phase procean to ensure that
alternat Ives are considered and that the moat envircnaenteliy
acceptable site ts designated. Ilnwevsr, this Handbook and the
three phass procees uutli,,ed ,, ,t sees an Mesa been ignored in
this iiaslgn.Laun process wi 1 , was this puetcus not followed’
has a Zone ci Sating I’eebtl,i,itiJ ,Jcte,slned’ it so, what was it
end why wasn’t it mentioned in the DEfl? If not, why wasn’t it?
Were sensitive and incompatible areas for dumping identified and
eliminated from consideration’ If eo, what areas were these?
Above all, why were additional candidate eltes not selected,
evaluated and a determination made as to which was moat
envirenmontelly aeceptable? The second point is that other
historically used sites such as the induatrial waste site just to
the West of the proposed site and other previoueiy designated
disposal sites need to be considered.
The argument which EPA has forwarded that this 0515 need not
consider alternatives unless it ie determined that the site in
question is not feasible is totally invalid. The term feasible
has been defined by EPA to include being the most environmentally
acceptable which as discussed above cannot be done without
considering other e stee. The other argument forwarded by EPA for
net considering alternatives is that alternatives will be
considered during the permitting proceee. This is totally
absurd. Even if it ia true that alternatives wili be considered
at that time, this would not relieve EPA of its responeibility to
consider them during designation.
SPA’s Ocean Pumping Regulations contain both general and
specific criteria to be used in the selection of dieposal sites.
The general criteria (40 CPR 228.5) state that “(a.) The dumping
of materials into the ocean will be permitted only at sites or in
areas selected to ainimize t ue Interferences of disposal
activities with other activities in the marine environment,
particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or
sbeltflehsraes.. .“ end that ‘(b. Location and bouaderies of
disposal sites wi ll be so chesen that temporary perturbations in
water quality or other envircn,nental conditions during initial
mixing caused by disposal operations anywhere within the mite can
be expeoted to be reduced to normal ambient sea water levels or
to undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before
reaching sny beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known
geographically limited fishery or shellfishsry.” Under specific
criteria, the regulatiens continue to state that the selection of
disposal sites will consider “(2.) Location in relation to
breeding spawning, nursery feeding or passage areas of living
resources in adult or juvenile phasea;...(7.) Existence and
effects of pfesent and previous discharges and dumping in the
area,..(B.) Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation,
mineral extraction, desalination, fish and shellfish culture,
areas of special scientific iaportance, end other legitimate uses
of the ocean.. .(il.) Existence at or in close proximity to the
site of any significant natural or cultural features of historic
importance.”
The MOOS lies within a few kilometers of Stellwagen Bank.
Staliwagen Bank is currently an active candidate for marine
sanctuary status and is likely to be designated in the near
future. This fact alone should have received careful
consideration and discuaaien in the 0515 rather than the cursory
paragraph that was spent on it. EPA’s justifiuetien for not
a
4
-------
11tH! 1 , 5 855 15 51 H?uN LII? PI,JW t Nt /l I ? ttJtJc.i. ‘H’$t utie
considering it further was that it has not yet been designated.
Thi.e ‘. explanation is unacceptable. While not yet a marine
sanctuary, Steliwagen Bank in clearly an area of “existing (and
extremely productive) fish and ahelifisherisa’ • a geographically
limited fishery end eha llflnhery”, end “ Ian Important) breeding,
spawning, nursery, (siding, arid passage area for a (trecendous
eesoctrsart) of living recoin-can (including several endangered
whale speciee) in adult and Juvenile phases”, “an area of special
scientific importance. recreation and other legitimate uses Of
the oocnn”, end “an area of significant natural end cultural
‘litres of historic importance.’
SPA’s criteria require a careful discussion of such an area
In en RIB focusing on the designaticn of a disposal site in close
proximity to it and a discussion of posaible impacts. A sore
paragraph mentioning that Steliwagen Hank is not yet a sanctuary
is simply not sufficient. Even if EPA wasn’t already bound to
consider alternative sites, the existence of a site auch as
Steilvagen in such close proximity to 1 1 8DB would necessitate such
‘-t’ns$deration. Certainly this area deservne sore than a brief
dismissal.
Furthermore, although somewhat cryptically written, the
document does coatain infornetion that impacts from current
dumping do extend outside the disposal site for dietancee of up
to several kilometers. Elevated levels of heavy metals including
i’per and other toxins are found in sediments at considerable
:‘tances from the site and are believed to be due to drift of
smaller particles of dumped dredge material . Such iapacte could
threaten the resoutcee of Stellwagen Hank and neod to be more
directly addressed and elternativee to the site that would be
environmentally preferable must be considered. Sw-h alternativee
should include moving the site further to the West to the degree
that impacts on other areas do not become a problem. Also, areas
well to the east of Steliwagen Book such as Wilkineon Basin
should be considered.
I recogniae that Region 1 EPA has a well earned reputation
for its efforts to protect lice England’s environssntal quslity.
However, I believe the concerns raised about this DRIB need to be
addressed to match that reputation. I trust that EPA will
address them and the resulting RIB will do justice to thst
reputation end be a model for others to follow.
Sincerely,
tJeck Sobel
virectcr, varins Protected Areas
$
-------
Center for Marine Conservation
Owen Ruta
Chief of Marine and Esutarine Division
Region *1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
JFK Federal Building
Boston, HA 02203
Dear Ms. Ruta:
Jennifer McCann
Center For Marine Conservation
1725 DeSalea at., NW
Washington. DC 20036
August 20. 1990
I am writing on behalf of he Center for Marine Conservation
(CMC) to comment on the “Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (SETS)” for the Designation of the Dredged Material
Disposal Site (HBDS) in Massachusetts Bay Although CMC is not
necessarily opposed to the dumping of deal at the Foul site
we continue to have concerns regarding the proposed designation
In particular the failure of EPA to consider a number of required
alternatives in either the DEIS or SF15 violates EPS’s own
established procedures and raises questions on the adequacy of
available information for making an informed decision. It is also
essential that further studies on the existing contaminants in the
Foul area and the affects of capping these containers take place
before this area can be permanently designated as the Massachusetts
Bay Dredged Material Disposal site If studies reveal that capping
of this area should not occur, dumping at this site should not take
place and appropriate remediation for existing contaminants should
follow In addition, wherever the dump site is located, a
management plan with strict regulations concerning such items as
the dumping volume, cleanliness, frequency of dumping and material
types should be developed and enforced A monitoring program
should alno be implemented to follow potentially adverse effects
of continued dumping Construction of a contained site to hold
waste that is, according to the strict regulations, too
contaminated to be ocean dumped should begin immediately
Presently, inadequate information is known about the
radioactive and hazardous waste containers and other dumped waste
in the Foul site and throughout Massachusetts Bay including their
contents, condition and how they are affecting the marine
environment. According to published documents including several
from EPA, dredged sediments, explosives, toxic wastes, construction
wastes, abandoned vessels and radioactive waste make up the
majority of the past dumped waste in Massachusetts Bay. In 1980,
Dr. Roger Mattson testified at a hearing before the Subcommittee
on Oceanography of the House of Representatives that the majority
of the Massachusetts bay dumping appears to have been done within
two overlapping sites, the Massachusetts Bay Dispoaal Site, and the
Foul Site. An estimated 90,000 radioactive waste containers were
dumped somewhere between Olouceater to Plymouth and out to Georges
Bank from approximately 1946—1970.
The most recent study to verify that there is no leakage of
these radioactive containers in Massachusetts Bay was done in 1981
and 1982 by the EPA, NOAA and FDA. The study identified where
containers were located in the Foul Site. It also identified that
it was likely there were containers of radioactivity in the area
and that they were not leaking. This study was done nearly ten
years ago A study to test if there is any leaking from these
containers should be done on a regular basis.
In 1987 a preliminary assessment of the area was completed by
The Superfund Program. Its results recommended that no further
action would be taken on the site. This decision was based on
incomplete and limited knowledge of the waste present on site.
There is no known summary of the quantities and types of hazardous
wastes dumped overboard, but according to Robert Margolis’ 1990
report on “Two Ocean Disposal Sites in Massachusetts Bay: Past and
Future Actions Under the Superfund”, carcinogens, toxic heavy
metals and toxic organic compounds have been documented. In
addition, moat hazardous waste was probably packaged less securely
than the low level radioactive wastes Which were embedded in 4-5
inches of reinforced concrete
What was dumped and especially what condition this waste is
in now is virtually unknown. Leaking of these radioactive and
contaminated containers can occur at any time and harm the marine
environment. It is imperative to begin and continue monitoring and
studies of this area on a regular if not ongoing basis to know the
progress these contaminants may have on the marine environment.
With more atudies to identify such things as the conditions of
these existing containers and also the affects of capping, a
responsible decision can be made on whether the capping of these
contaminants is appropriate remediation for these containers or the
easiest way to deal with the problem and the beginning of a
possible catastrophe The Gulf of the Farallones is present’y
dealing with the problem of the leakage of radioactive containers.
Leakage has contaminated nearby sediments and fish.
Hazardous and radioactive waste containers are not the only
P ______
A1fl2 7 90
L
EP A
Hf P - WOB
I Li” Ii’., .Sh tl NW V.. Is ,, I S I’’.
k II s ’II.I. ’II’ W.II
-------
Center for Marine Conservation
Owen Ruts
Chief of Marine and Esutarine Division
Region *1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
JFK Federal Building
Boston, HA 02203
Dear Ha. Rota:
Jennifer McCann
Center For Marine Conservation
1725 DeSales st. • NW
Washington. DC 20036
August 20, 1990
I am writing on behalf of the Center for Marine Conservation
(CHC) to comment on the “Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (gEls)” for the Designation of the Dredged Material
Disposal Site (119DB) in Massachusetts Bay Although CMC is not
necessarily opposed to the dumping of clean spoils at the Foul site
we continue to have concerns regarding the proposed designation.
In particular the failure of EPA to consider a number of reguired
alternatives in either the DEIS or SETS violates EPS’s own
established procedures and raises questions on the adequacy of
available information for making an informed decision. It is also
essential that further etudies on the exinting contaminants in the
Foul area and the affects of capping these containers take place
before this area can be permanently designated as the Hsssochuaetta
Bay Dredged Material Disposal site Ti studies reveal that capping
of this area should not occur, dumping at this site nhould not take
place and appropriate remediation for existing contaminants should
follow. In addition, wherever the dump 9ite is located, a
management plan with strict regulations concerning such items as
the dumping volume, cleanliness, frequency of dumping and material
types should be developed and enforced. A monitoring program
should alao be implemented to follow potentially adverse effects
of continued dumping. Construction of a contained site to hold
waste that is, according to the strirt regulations, too
contaminated to be ocean dumped should begin immediately.
Presently, inadequate information is known about the
radioactive and hazardous waste containers and other dumped waste
in the Foul site and throughout Massachusetts Bay including their
contents, condition and how they are affecting the marine
environment. According to published documents including several
from EPA, dredged sediments, explosives, toxic wastes, construction
wastes, abandoned vessels and radioactive waste make up the
majority of the past dumped waste in Massachusetts Ray. Tn 1990,
Dr. Roger Mattson testified at a hearing before the Subcommittee
on Oceanography of the House of Representatives that the majority
of the Massachusetts Bay dumping appears to have been done within
two overlapping sites, the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site, end the
Foul Site. An estimated 90,000 radioactive waste containers were
dumped somewhere between Gloucester to Plymouth and out to Georges
Bank from approximately 1946-1970.
The most recent study to verify that there is no leakage of
these radioactive containers in Massachusetts Bay was done in 1981
and 1982 by the EPA, NOAPt and FDA. The study identified where
containers were located in the Foul Site. It also identified that
it was likely there were containers of radioactivity in the ares
and that they were not leaking. This study was done nearly ten
years ago. A study to teat if there in any leaking from these
containers should be done on a regular basin.
In 1987 a preliminary assessment of the area was completed by
The Superfund Program. Its results recommended that no further
action would be taken on the site. This decigion was based on
incomplete and limited knowledge of the waste present on site.
There is no known summary of the quantities and types of hazardous
wastes dumped overboard, but according to Robert Msrgolis’ 1990
report on “Two Ocean Disposal Sites in Massachusetts Day: Pant and
Future Actions Under the Buperfund”, carcinogens, toxic heavy
metals and toxic organic compounds have been documented. In
addition, most hazardous waste was probably packaged less securely
than the low level radioactive wastes which were embedded in 4-5
inches of reinforced concrete.
What was dumped and especially what condition this waste ia
in now is virtually unknown. Leaking of these radioactive and
contaminated containers can occur at any time and harm the marine
environment. It is imperative to begin and continue monitoring and
studies of this area on a regular if not ongoing basis to know the
progress these contaminants may have on the marine environment.
With more studies to identify such things as the conditions of
these existing containers and also the affects of capping, a
responsible decision can be made on whether the capping of these
contaminants is appropriate remediation for these containers or the
easiest way to deal with the problem and the beginning of a
possible catastrophe. The Gulf of the Farallonea is presently
dealing with the problem of the leakage of radioactive containers.
Leakage has contaminated nearby sediments and fish.
Hazardoua and radioactive waste containers are not the only
‘ ,Michnii’t,,i , I)( lli)I( I)”)p l ’ •,( fl
a hI, u) ’))I ( ) (V.1”
‘
N 279O,
L
MfP!’ vo8 I
1725 DeSa?es9rvcI NW
,ervcledpaj,r ,
-------
The development of an advisory committee composed of members
from the scientific and marine studies communities is also looked
upon favorably. This committee could assist and assure that
management of this area is functioning properly
We cannot continue to use our oceana as a dumping basin that
can handle anything. It too has a limit of what it can take
Sincerely,
Jennifer HcCann
Marine Protected
Ptreas Specialist
-------
Center for Coasüd Studies
.4 Private Non Etafit Organization to’ l?e,earch and 1 dueng,.,n ii, the (no . 1 ,,! Pn ,n,nnraent
59 COMMP.RCIItL STREET • 1 10XR26 • PROVINCE1OWN.MA° ,SACIILJS 1 flS 02657 J50 5 1 457 3622
inshore environment WI ti high F i olirrv , ,,nt , nt i ol ,o,,ri.
August 16, 1990
Kymberlee Keckler
US Environment.al Protection Agency
JFK Federal Building
Boston, M . 02203-2211
Dear Ms. Keckler,
Thank you for the opportunity to com.ent on the Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement regarding the designation of the Massachusetts
Bay Disposal Site.
The Center for Coastal Studies is a research and conservation institution
located in Provincetown, Massachusetts. For the past fifteen years,
scientists from the Center for Coastal Studies have been involved in research
projects related to the ecology of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays; most of
this research has focused on the Whales that inhabit the region throughout
the year and the Integrity of the ecosystem that supports these anluels.
Ongoing studies funded in part by the National Marine Fisheries Service
include population studies of humpback whales, g ptera nuveeangliee , fin
whales, Balaenoutera ohvmalue . and feeding ecology of North Atlantic right
whales, Eubalaena glacialis ,
Our concerns as they relate to dredged material disposal, therefore, are
based on our knowledge of the Ms8sachusetts Bay erosyates and the niche
occupied in it by marine mammals.
After reviewing the alternative sitez’ ‘-oposed by the EPA, we aupport the
idea of maintaining the P 48DB at the existing site, where the shallower water
depth will allow for easier •onitorltig. We would encourage a more stringent
monitoring program than currently exists, With monitoring of sodiment
dispersal, heavy metals, hydrocarbons and other pollutants conducted by the
EPA with oversight by MOM and a local Citixens Advisory Oroup. Since the
Supplemental DEIS does not adequately address some of- the concerns originally
expressed by lIMPS regarding continuation of this site and its potential
impact on fisheries resources, we would strongly support a sonitoring program
in which NOAA/NMFS plays a strong role.
Since existing regulations allow for considerable variation in the quality of
dredged materials that are permitted for dumping, we would like to Stress
that any spoils taken to the site should be appromed for disposal under the
post conservative Japproach possible. St nd rdu whieh are conslilereti
acceptable for offshore deepwater areas are nt,t n.remasriiy acreptahie For an
We would at this time oppose extending the location of the NODS westward to
coincide with the area of the industrisi waste site in order to use clean
dredged material as a cap For the industrial site, Ae expressed in the
original DEIS, capping of any site remains a controversial approach to
sitigation. Although testing results may at soae future point change our
standing on this issue, we believe no capping of the industrial waste site
should occur until the following problems are clearly resolved:
1. The exact location, number, and content of the barrels of
hamardous material that have been disposed of at the industrial site remain
unknown, and further studies should be conducted to locate these barrels and
determine their condition before the dumping of additional material is
undertaken;
2. Testing of the sediments surrounding the Industrial site to
determine possible contamination should be conducted prior to any attempt at
capping, and we would strongly encourage the EPA, NOAA, and the Commonwealth
to attempt to obtain Supertund support for ascii testing. Apparently the Foul
Area was added to the list of potential Superfund sites in 1981, at which
time no action was taken;
3. Should a capping operation eventually begin, we concur with
NOAA’s belief that dredged spoil disposal should result in a sediment cap of
at least aix inches to prevent to the greatest possible degree sediment
transport from oceanographic processes and from sediment reworking by benthic
organ lens.
We understand that it is highly unlikely that any dredged material tro. the
Boston harbor area will pass EPA standards for disposal of clean dredge
spoils. We would therefore strongly support a different containment site,
preferably a non—aarine site located a safe distance from any fishery
resources or endangered marine mammal habitats, and would once again urge the
EPA and COB to use conservative standards when issuing permits for disposal
of Boston Harbor materials.
Doth the NODS and the industrial waste site are likely to be located either
inside or just outside of the proposed Steliwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary. Whether they are specifically Included In the sanctuary or not,
any contamination at the site has the potential to impact sanctuary
resources. We would therefore urge that any Citicens’ Advisory Board include
the NOAA Stellwagen Sanctuary Manager if/when sanctuary designation occurs.
We also support the decision of the Stollwagen Sanctuary Coalition Steering
Committee which suggests that both the industrial waste site and the P4809 be
Included within sanctuary boundaries, EPA supports the view that the NODS
should be located outside of sanctuary boundaries, while at the ms.e time
noting that “dredged material disposal at the existing NODS will not
significantly adversely affect the marine resources of Stellwagen Bank.” The
DF.lS assures that “the combination of the COB’s per.itting process, adequate
disposal site monitoring, use of the revised dredged material testing
protocol, evaluation of the existing reference site, and continuing research
piograms will ensure proper management of the site”, yet there appears to be
-------
a conflict with the additional statement that “the actual area of Steliwagen
Bank has been excluded trot the 2SF (Zone of Siting Feasibility) te protect
marine fisheries resources and threatened or endangered species.
if indeed the NODS represents no threat to sanctuary resources, then there
should be no objection to including It within the proposed boundaries, if
the threat does exist, thee locating the lISPS inside the sanctuary will
permit additional monitoring of potential Impact.
We would strongly urge that seasonal dispusal criteria for the site also be
adopted. Coastal phytoplankton biooss rear ) a peai period In ti,e early
epr lng, and sedleent dispersal during this i.erloi will, its associated
increase in turbidity sed decreased light penetration, could have an adverse
impact on pliytopiankton production. Decreased phytoplsnkton production is
likely to result in lowered toopiankto,i production, or an overall shift in
species composition of the plankton. Should this occur, even on a temporary
baste, it has the potential to affect the single food resouice of the North
Atlantic right whales in this area. calenold copepods of the genera Celanos
and Patudocelanus , In the case of species literally teetering e li the brink
of extinction, as Is the northern right whale, any negetive lapsct on fond
resources, however slight, say be hseardous to their future recovery.
I hope that these comsents are useful.
Sincerely,
4 ‘t t - -.
Karen l ’Steuar
Director of Conservation end EducatIonal Programs
Center for Coastal Studies
-------
Aug ust 1ff. 19V(I
U.S. Environmental Protection Aye,icy, Ifeqion I
Marine and Estuary Protection Section
John F. Kennedy Federal Building IWill-—ISOOl
ifoston, fin 02205-2211
l)par Sire,
On behalf of the International Wildlife roalition, representing a
membership of ilfl,f)OO, we offer tile following ronments pertaining
to the Supplemental Draft rnvironnental Impact Statement fur the
Designation of Diedged Material Dlspns..l SLte il l Ma’icacfiiusetts
Bay.
Ihe International Wildlife Coalition is a non-profit wildlife
f,rqaliization with key interests in the research and protection
of marine mammals, sea turtles and their habitats, particularly
in New England waters.
After reviewing the Supplemental OtIS, we have coriclilded that the
cotitinued disposal of dredged materials at the Massachusetts Pay
Disposal Site (MUDS), historically termed the roul Area, should
lint he allowed. We believe that creari disposal guidelines
specified within the Marine Protection, Researrfi an,l Sanctuaries
Act f’MPfl5A l have not beet ’ fully ailrirnssntl.
-lence, we belIeve that the co,itxnued use of the MOl tS has the
potential to negatively impact eenlogi al systems witlita the
marine environment for the reasons stated lielowi
1) Essential in situ studies required to fully understand and
address the physical and biological processes that occur at the
MOOS are not available. Data on wind speeds, directions and
durations pertinent to resuspension rates of dIsposed materials
have not been recorded for the MUDS area. The DEIS utilized wind
measurements taken at logan Airport for 1901 The DCIS indicates
that the use of this data may have uriderprerli, ted actual sediment
resuspensions at MUDS beca use speeds at toga” are lnwer than at
MUDS and t9Bt was a relatively calm year with respect to wind
speeds.
l)etailed on—site infermatian conrernirici ententiel physical
disturbances caused by currents irid waves is also unavailahle.
There is a need to address the modes of sedIment transport anti
erosional rates for disposed materials r,f varyIng composition.
Data pertaining to biological factors olieratiuiq at flUBS are
nit. fl ,t.fa, tory littlilie’. rv Inul fill Ihi. sialii I iziug antI/or
ihi’ labi Ii ; iiq .f It_h ,,lIjpnt.irl,at ii.’’, arp ,,,cnnclusive. Also
ii,c-omi,l pie are stuili e’, per ‘i’. inq to tl,e D L I urrence and abundance
of fi’h eggs. larvde aid (is 1 ’ communities at MUDS ar,d the effects
itt e,,v,ronmental stresses in ’ these mar n .e species.
.‘J Ilie long—term effects of material previously disposed at P4BPS
are impossih le to acc urately predict beca,ise the exact location
and chemical compoattion of materialh has not been effectively
ntiniiured or managed. Prior to the l9flO s, (1BPS and surrounding
waters were used for unregulated dumping of materials of unknown
t.imuinsition As a result, the chemical composition of the
majority of materials disposed at P 4 ( 11 ) 1, was not analy edj this
iesulLuii in the disposal of sore dredged material that were
rou,siuiererf ‘contaeinated. Fur tI.ermore. trio lack of appropriate
,linpo.al controls in the past has resulted ii i the presence of
fir e dge t miteriale beyo n d the MOPS buLindary and uiicategorized
industrIal material witl,in the Illll)b boundary.
ci Uiiav.iilabiliiy of necessary data to corroborate EPA s
coiiclusioii that the majority of contaminated materials disposed
at FlUbS are physically and biologically contained on-site.
Studies at MUDS indicahinq the ,listritii,tion, abundance and
present levels of contamination ni phytoplainkton arid rooplankton
fiavo nut been clone. he OtIS indicates that during disposal
a’ h,vit,rn,, there is the potential for prolonged eiposure of
holster nrniainisms to halogens, urganohalugors and heavy metals.
More c.peci fically, Lee exieedaiices for copper, lead, mercury.
“i i hi nl , 71 it ,,ncJ CCC eiceedaii, es if copper, lead, mercury and PCO
a m eipecfed. At presnuit. iii information exits concerning the
iIiys is a I ahsiir p1 ion and b i oar cuirmi I at ii,, , of these chemical
cor,tomimants by phytoplanittin, zooplanliton and ichthyoplankton.
Similar information on the demecsal and pelagic community
has leer. attenpted, hut is inn iimplete. (he DEIS alto acknowledges
the lack of quantitative or conclusive data concerning sediment
contamination and the associated effects on these organisms. In
general, effects including tosicity, reduced reproductive
potential, bioaccumulatinii and pathological alterations in
resident and transient marine organisms utilrrinq MUDS is
In ning. fhe cosmopolitan and migratory nature of many fish
spec i es requinas that more detailed analysis of marine species .
especially preferred prey_r.l,hsc-ies for marine mammals (sand lance,
mackerel and herring), be cuiiducted.
Ii Due to its close proximity to Stellwagen Basic, disposed
materials at MUDS have tl,e potential to degrade or endanger an
ei,viroimentally sensitive area. Stellwagen Sank, a olacial
-------
deposit of sand and gravel in tic’ suiuithwest huh if Maine, is
located 5.5 km to the east oP tiUl lU. this niiiqoe batliymetrii
feature aupports a r i tt, le’sel ul biological pro,l,,ctivity anti
diversity. It is the Preferred hu h, tat of many eui.tanijered sitU
threatened species • inc hiding mar me ,,,a,nsal s a,,d mar toe turtles.
the north Atlantic right whale, a critically eiuilarnjered
species, ut i I i ces waters cit Lane l.iiui hay and Massachusetts Ilay
general ly from late—wi,, ter to ear Iy-spr inrj. (bun ui,y these son t he,
the abundance, distribottoui a uth uruoveme,,ts lit iu,dividual right
whales are tot well documented due to reduced sighting ci tort
combined with i,uclement weather conditions offshore. hesearLh
indicates that this ares may be a critical hahitat with respect
to the breeding success of the fuop,clwtionr f-c,rtfiercurore, the
large proportion cit eother/calf p.iJrs stçjhiterl in early spring
suggests this t so,,thui-’rn Ben I uiij laid waters (say a h-so lie an
important 1 though temporary, nursery a.ea
Potential summer use of this area a’. ,i initucal feeding anti
nursery area was iuiihi cal ed by do, uiunn’iu flit ‘ . 1 gi lt m nys duir irig J’lUtj
In response to shifts in prey ahunuiihui,,e, llfl uiu,lmvidual right
whales were sighted iii hlassaciuuus,rt Is hay anil raRe Cod bay thlayua
pers. comm. I. Many of these whialc’s were mother/calf uair s who
stayed iii the area for eiutc-ndncl lien iods cit time
Five species of marine turtle’, p g are eiiciauuijered antI 1 is
threatenedt, are known to reside i i, ta co h-ngland waters, primarily
dur ing the summer antI tall months ‘as t rrse.,rcl, indicates that
these waters are important fee,Ji’ucj area’. f or many turtle species,
especially young Pidhey s turtles and leatherbarlts (Prescott.
pers. comml. However 1 little is know abuol the abundance, small—
scale movements or critical areas ,,tihizc’d by marine turtles
during their residency
Demograpihic inforrnalion on inarhili’ hun ties is probably tuuaciurate
lwith population estimates ln,e.r’nl ,jijw,uwardj, dne ho their
limited detectability at sea. ltu’ta,u’.u’ sea turtles In slew England
waters are typically jovec h l Ic’s lint u’1it tar the Iratluerhiack l
their small size is nnt condnc lvi’ fit, clt’tec hal,i Ii ty by r.liilibnard
or aerial surveys tfesear,h nil a,iuuhi temale huihiny . ‘migrating
to and from their ruestinuj li,’.ii t ics, i,,chucates tt,at these
individuals spend the majority nh tliu’ir time hieneatlu the ‘.urface
Small sue and 1 or.nj dive tmuni’s I ccml,m,,eui wi lIt reduced water
clarity and surface glare ia , , alit’, visibility and therefore,
reliability ot spec ies utleot if ii at iou, and Luuiiutn,
Species identitiratio,, and couuu,i’, .ure also nhi.ui,uu’nh tram
stranding in lormatiuiui inn, olih shunuuued tori I es whit. I , wash ashore
u ,ii I ape t.uui bearl,es duri ng late fall and early winter; itot all
slruiuuto’i turtles are accounted for (as a result of offshore
I iii teit Is, iii tc’i,’, u sin mar ‘-,lil ai,ds and inconsis tent human e f tort I
(t’,c-ui oth, pers. comm.) flany regard marine turtles in Bee
I uucjlaiuuJ waters as “wau fs” which are lust to the pcipulat ion and,
hhiereluci’, are uf little cuiuierti. However, present numbers of
sea turtles are very low and this dictates that we pay more
ah tentionu to small losses in any area of their range.
5) NMI-b commeriral catch statistics indicate that tine waters
surrounding the MUDS rehiresen t a productive f I sfuer y resource. flau uy
uf the recreational and commercial activities occurring in the
area are based on the observations or takes of mariuie organisms.
Examples include but are i-rot limited to whalewatching anti
ccmnercial fislunnj Ion btuefin tuna.
liotlu whales and tuna are highly mobile pelagic species whose
muveusents an d distriluu,tion can vary seasonally and yearly,
depending upon water temperature and prey—species availability
flhtlaiuinjh the PEtS indicates that flubs does not premently
represent a ‘ rucial area for either whales or tuna, this region
co,uhul I,ecome ,uo important fuabi tat in the future. i-or thernore, the
Sophilemuental IhEIS indicates that flUbS is just to the west of the
high—use boundry for commercial fishing and sportfsshing. Any
degradation cut resources in the fl u iDS region could negatively
allect the uummercial activities thence, the ec000eic hivelihood l
n f many New toy landers.
5) thceaii disposal activities at 113 05 have the potential to imp,ui
a marine sanctuary currently uiidar review. The National di eaui u i
and fltmosh,heric Administration l’NtJAA”) is reviewing Stel lwagen
tlarrk for designation as a national marine sanctuary. the
Stellwagen Bank Steering Committee, the IDA for the Cotisur,wealth
of Massachusetts arid the Gloucester l-ssl,ermuan s Wives separately
recommeitrieci boundaries t lrat include p 03 r,, I I Stel Iwagen Uank is
awanihed ssiiu tuary status with boundaries including NUO I, than
increased monitoring and management of disposal activi ties at
MOSS or the c-omplete halt to all such activities may occur.
the hhiternatunmual Wildlife Coalition does not recommend lice
continued use of MBh)S as a repository of dredged materials. hi
continued use of hIfluis in , deemed tine best al toriuative, l I-i cr , ci’
believe that the precautionary measures listed below mo nt lie
take,, to more fully insure the health oh tho marine onv,ronment.
If the brnonilary of MI IIh hi is ci ’ tei,ded to include portions oh
‘ F
-------
the Inrisisirsal Waste ‘lite, then lsazar,l,i,us mater ial previously
disposed in these areas must be sluilled. Site lurattois and
abundance of drums which contain radioactive and tonic material
must be determined as well as the degree of leakasle from such
containers. Drums containing harardous waste which pose as a
threat to mar use reso urces must be r etnoveil lie fore (sir tlier use of
lisp are., is al It iwed to coistirsue
.?. N(IAA should be involved i rs the evalusal Iris. ansi i ateqoriration
of cassslidate disposable dreulged material iusd should he
instrumental in muiuitoriuug disposal artlvitie’i.
S. A Citizen s Monitor Group should he created lii help mosti tor
and assess disposal activities at Mlmc. If ctellwageo batik is
given sanctuary status and MIJD5 is include d witlussu its
hosirsdar tes • then the manager for this sasic tusary should be a
member nf this group.
4. fin —site romprehiensive studies s’valuatiusq physical, cl.emscal
and biuloyscal processes are required to fully assess imparts of
disposal activities at MUDS to marine resources Data pertaining
to pisys ica I processes, sur h as ci ml ans I cs,rrs’n t measuremesil s, are
required to more accurately determine riot only chic degree of
material transport during dispnsah astsvilses. bust also the rates
sif resuspension and erosion for ill sposesl m l I s’r sal s hieseari hi
indicating the abusiujanre and slistribislinii of planl’tonir species
and the degree of bioaccusulatioii of toxins in marine organisms
must be roisduc t’ed iii order to assess ti , ” deqr ee of tr ssplsi r
transfer within the marine food rh.siss.
5 Ongoing studies monitoring and assessing ,Iispis’.al as I ivsh se’.
at MOOS are required hu muse fully evaluate imparts to resident
a,sd transient marine ursjarsisms, especially those endangered or
threatened. lo date, data does not usislirate t hat the MnOh area is
a critical habitat for any 5 PC5P5 of sea turtle or cetacean,
inc titling the Ridley s turtle arid the sun. lii flI laiitsi risiht w hale.
However, seasonal anti ausnual var lalus ii ty l ’s sisjhsting data for
many of these species indicates this area insshd herisme a critical
liahi tat in ti m f ii tsir e
Ehasik you for the opportunity to comment.
Sinrere __ p LQ
Carol Lysso Danton anile A. Car hsnui
Prr.sject roordinacor Letatean tlinloqist
Isiterusational WI l ill I fe rual i tics,,
‘5 -
-------
g Jt QL
S Cetacean Research Unit S
U.S. Environmental protection Agency. Region I Novd 6 19d9
JFK Federal Building
Water Quality Branch
Boston, HA 02203 WWPWQB
To Whom it Hay Concern,
We have carefully reviewed the Craft Environmentel lapact
Statement entitled “Evaluation of the continued Use of the
Hasaachueetta Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site,” and would like
to offer commentary. Specifically, we would like to address the
potential impact of continued use of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal
Site (lIBOS) to endangered cetaceans that are round in and around
the site.
The Cetacean Research Unit (CRU) has been studying the
distribution, ecology, demography, and behavior of baleen whales
along ths New England coast since 1979. During that period, our
studies have csntered around the waters containing and adjacent to
northern Stetlwagen Bank. This study area also includes the ?IBDS.
We feel that our research fron which much of the information
contained in the DaIS is drawn, mekee us well qualified to assess
baleen whale distribution in relation to the site, and the
potential effects of the proposed action on thess endangered
species.
Fin whales ( Balaenostera phvsalus ) are the most abundant
endangered catacean found in the Mans. Although absolute numbers
of humpbacks seen in the MBDS are higher than tin whales, these
data corns from directed searches for humpbacks and will tend to
under—represent fin whale abundance. However, our data does not
always indicate that residency time in and around NBD5 ie minimal
(DEIS, pg. 141). While it is true that many individuals move out
of the area efter 1—7 days, residency in the vicinity ef HBDS of
up to three months has been documented. The difficulty in
identifying individual fin whales probably results in an under-
representation of residency tires, although the degres of this
effect remains unknown.
Localized movements of fin whales around the northern
Ste llwagen/MBDS is clearly tied to movements of prey. Exact prey
varies — from 1979—1985. sand lance were clearly preferred; in
2
1986 and 1987, however, significant levels of feeding on ccpepods
( Calanue 11 cchfr), small mackerel ( Scomber scombrue) , and
euphsueiide ( Mensncvtinhanes norvenica ) were seen. This clarifies
the statement that schooling fiehas are preferred prey; while true
much of the time, it is not en absolute, as implied in the DEIS.
This is significant - even in years when humpback whales ( Henantera
novaeespliee ) moved away froa the northern Stellwagen/MSDS eras,
significant use by fin whales was still observed. Many of the
sightings during 1986-7 were in the Hans area.
While humpback whales are not found around the MBDS as
conaistently as fin whales, there is still significant habitat use
in the area. The DEIS states that “Concentrations of whales are
usually greatest in aummsr and eerly fell and loweet in winter end
early spring.” While we do not question that the period of mid-
November to late March is one of little humpback use of the I4DDS
area, sightings at any point between April and mid-November have
been docunented. In 1985—1989 inclusive, significant aggregations
were seen on northern stellwagun during April, even in years of
near absence during summer months (1986 —1987).
During the periods that humpback whales have been abundant on
northern Steliwagen, smeller numbers of whales were frequently seen
is the immediate vicinity of the HBD5. These were, at various
times, adults making foraging traneite from the Bank, juveniles
that may be excluded from the larger feeding groups around the
Bank, and mother/calf pairs. It is the latter group that were most
frequently seen in the immediate vicinity of the Mans in the 1988—
9 field work. Large feeding groups have been eighted in the
immediate vicinity of MBDS as well.
While the DEIS indicates that survey date for right whales
( Eubelsena glac qalas ) exists only from 1985 (pg. 142), it in fact
exists only since 1985. spring surveys carried out by our
organization suggest that right whales are regularly sighted during
April of each year. However, the heavy concentration of 20—30
animals seen near thu MBD5 in 1985 has not recurred is subsequent
years.
Data collected since 1985 ham also shed new light on right
whele summering habitats. During 1986, when humpback whales
virtually abandoned the area during summer (due to a lack of
suitable sand lance concnetrations) right whales established
residency during the mid-July to early-october period. At least 19
different individuals were identified In the northern Stellwugen/
MBDS study area during that period, including four cow/calf pairs.
While a few animals were transient, many were resident for most,
if not all, of the period. While this represents an anomaly during
the recent studies on cetaceans in this area, its historical
incidence remains unknown. Further, just under 50% of right whale
sightings during the summer of 1986 were in the immediate vicinity
of the Hans.
November 18, 1989
P0 . Box I I I • Gloucnier MA 81930 • 308 281 6351
A sos.proIll ergasIzatlos emphasla}ng whale nsrarth end education
-------
3
4
During the same period, eel whales (DiUenoot borealis )
were frequent in and around the seine regions as right whales. The
similar prey preferences of the two species (primarily copepods)
often cause them to be sympatric. At least 29 individuals were
identified during the same period as the right whale influx. No
eel whales have been seen around the northern Stellwagen/MDDS area
since. This Bpecjes is historically known to undertake periodic
area invasions to exploit locally available prey patches, and the
1986 episode seems to fit that description. However, the Final
Snvironmental Impact Statement (FELS) should reflect this
occasional heavier use.
In general, the species descriptions In the DEIS are difficult
to interpret. Having been involved in the studies that are used to
describe endangered species use of the area, we are aware of what
“quadrant 2” or “quadrant 1” is, but they only receive a brief
description in the fin whale summary (pg. 141 of the DEIS). I C this
data in to be used, a better description should be incorporated.
Further, it should be noted that the directed aerial and shipboard
survey date set consists of only three surveys, and not a detailed
data set. At the least, the above information needs to be included
in the DEIS, and the information on the area used by endangered
cetaceans more clearly stated. We have attached copies of
distribution plots for humpback, fin, and right whales prepared by
the Manomet Bird Observatory from CR11 sighting data. We suggest
they be included in the FEIS.
In assessing the effects of the proposed plan on threatened
and endangered species (Section 4.3.4, pg. 205), the DEIS notes
that “All physical, chemical, and biological effects associated
with disposal activities are spatially confined to within the MBDS
designated area.” As has been briefly discussed in the DEIS, and
in more detail above, this area also receives moderate and, at
times, heavy use from endangered whales. Further, the DEIS states
“Contaminant impacts to prey items of whales are not anticipated
since these species do not inhabit the deep water silt/clay bottom
of MBDS.” However, sand lance (the major humpback and fin whale
prey) do inhabit bottom sediments on a regular basis. Whether or
not they use the bottom in the MUDS is unknown: It is well
documented that they both make heavy use of northern Steliwagen
sediments, and have been seen in large aggregations in and around
the MOOS.
We are concerned that the potential heavy use of the NODS by
endangered cetaceans or their prey may result in the retention and
possible bioaccumulatlon of pollutants. Work done in several
different areas, including the Rhode Island lab of the
Environmental Protection Agency, has demonstrated the sensitivity
of marine mammals to toxins. Results have been nimiler in all areas
and species studied: cetaceans have consistently demonstrated the
highest levels of any mammals in a variety of pollutant levels (DTYF
- 450-1830 ppm in common dolphin ( Delehinus delohinun ) : i’cn - 420 -
450 ppm in harbor porpoise ( Phocena ahocena) : Mercury - 1,272 ppm
in killer whale ( Orcinue Pollutant levels are highest in
young animals and adult males: adult females are able to dump some
of the toxin load to young through lactation (documented in
pinnipeds, several small odontocetes, and fin whales). The effect
of these pollutant loads on cetaceans is unknown; however, a
population of beluga ( Delohinamterue leucas ) in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, carrying a heavy toxin load, is now showing signs of
reduced viable reproduction and increased mortality. Regarding
humpback whales specifically, the Draft National Recovery Plan on
humpback whales suggests that “Contaminants much as pesticides,
PCB’s, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and others, could affect
survival of humpback whales” (pg. 52).
The current levels of toxins in any of the endangered species
of cetaceans using the MBDS on a regular basis is unknown. However,
the DEIS points out that disposal station sediment concentrations
of PCB’e average 0.414 ppm, far above that of 0.061 ppm found on
Stallwagsn Hank. While continued dumping of dredge spoils is
presented as being only for “clean” spoil, the degree of accuracy
with which that can be determined may be questionable (ass the
comments submitted by National Marine Fisheries Service). Hence,
we feel that the risk of continued exposure of these endangered
species to potentially elevating levels of sediment contamination
in and around important habitat is not adequately addressed in the
DEIS.
Regarding a decision on the proposed action to continue use
of the MBDS, we feel that the no effect conclusion stated in the
DEIS is presumptuous and insupportable in regard to endangered
cetaceans. Before such a decision can be made, an assessment of
pollutant levels in several of these species needs to be conducted.
Results from such work will make it possible to better determine
whether the risk of potential increased exposure to contaminated
sediments is a real and serious threat to species viability and/or
recovery. To determine whether MUDS activities present threats to
these species we suggest that such tests allow a comparison between
control individuals and those that that spend some period in
Massachusetts Bay and/or the MBDS. Given the extensive and
coordinated sighting histories of many individual humpback, fin,
and right whales around the Gulf of Maine, and the opportunity to
obtain lipid samples from a wide range of living individuals using
biopsy sampling programs, such a comparison is quite feasible and
realistic. We suggest that the Environmental Protection Agency work
in coordination with existing research groups and permitted
activities to obtain results pertinent to assessing the risks of
proceeding with the proposed activity.
We thank the Environmental Protection Agency for the
opportunity to comment on the DEIS. If there are any questions
regarding the information contained in this commentary, please feel
-------
tree to contact us. We look forward to seeing the suggested changes
incorporated into the FEIS.
Sincerely,
Mason Welrirlch
flirector
enclosures
cc: Doug Beach, National Marine Fisherien Service
Sherrard Foster, National Marine Sanctuary Program
Dr. Thomas French, Massachusatte Dep’t. ot Fish Wildlife
Sen. John Kerry
Sen. Ted Kennedy
Rap. Gerry Studds
0
‘a
0
0
6S
z
-------
4240N
40 N
a’
a’
42 ’I0 N
42’ O N
7010w
-------
42 40N
Right Whale
30
2&
ALL SEASONS
7*00w $0
30
-------
Save the Harbor
___ Save the Bay
oq.RitxOVi ,iie
August 20, 1990
Kymberlee Keckler
US EPA Region I, WQE-I900 C
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Ms Keckler
Save the Harbor/Save the Bay is a non.profli environmental
group with over 2,500 members in the greater flocton area
We are. committed to the clean-up of Boston Harbor and the
protection of Massachusetts Bay. We would lilcc to makc the
following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
aAU? U&Hh1 N -
Statement for the Designation of Dredged Material Disposal Site
In Massachusetts Bay (Supplemental DEIS), which expanded the
Drart Environmental Impact Statement’ Evaluation of the
Continued Use of the Massachusetts flay Dredged Disposal Site
1.) Save the Harbor/Save the Bay Is deeply concerned about
the lack of information In this DEIS regarding the hiciorlcnl
dumping of radioactive, hazardous, and chemical wastes in this
area, and the effect this dumping has had, and will have In the
future, on this site The United States Ilouce Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife, and the Environment held two hearings on
the subject of Radioactive Waste Dumping in the Ocean in 1980
and 1981. From these hearings there are records of over 4,008
PrTrna ruEy o containers of radioactive wastes including low level radioactive
wastes, a nuclear submarine part, and source materials such as
uranium and thorium that have been dumped at the proposed
dredged disposal site. The site was used for dumping at least
1946 (from testimony), if not earlier, yet recordc only
exist from 1952. From the testimony, the radioactive material
was a small percentage of the total containers dtiniped in this
area, leading one to believe ihere are many ihousamids of
barrels of chemical and hazardous wastes dumped in thu . area
(some of which have beem transported by Iichicrnien trawling)
OIc.N., Current studies (Vertical Profiles of Radlonuclidcs, Selected
JU3VE 1 Metals, and Hydrocarbons in Massachucetts flay Sedumentc by
b,TC C b
OWINEwAOORISIIS 23 WEST STREET FOURTH FLOOR’ UOSTON MSSSACHUSETTS 02 1 1 1
Omt, w i1i.tEh2t , L . m !!L(2L 2112 ML_L212L11Li220
Wade, I turn. Boilmimer. Joncc and Itochun. l)raft Report i9H9)
show a core c.imnple of ‘ .C(luuiicfli . 11 ‘ t.mtuon 10° 12 W, 42° 24 N
in the vicinity of tlmc propo’.ed dredge disposal site showing
levels of 239, 240 Pu at 3 5 times expected levels, and 210 Pb
(decay of 226 Ra) at three limes expected levels. This core also
shows significant levels of PCBs and DDTs
We strongly urge the office of Radiation Programs, EPA, in
Washington to do a thorough testing and study of the proposed
dredge disposal site before it is open for further dumping. It is
not clear If it Is prudent to dump on top of the barrels and
contaminated sediments, and that issue has to be throughly
studied by qualified personnel through radioactive testing and
predictions of the future of those barrels The DEIS on page 33
states in its conclusions “no significant adverse effects from
past material disposal’ as one of the advantages of this site.
We do not believe the study is sufficient to state that.
2) Save the Harbor/Save the Bay is also concerned about the
lack of information on how the bioaccumulation of’ the heavy
metals, toxics, and radioactivity might, or might not, be moving
up the food chain in this area, and whether further disposal
will, or will not, stop bioaccumulation. Bottom feeding fish and
lobsters have to be evaluated, and it has to be clear if dredge
spoils really “cap” contaminants in the area. Contaminated
dredge spoils should not be allowed to be ocean disposed at
this site because of the fisheries in this area,
Based on these factors we believe that the EIS does not
adequately address our concerns, and that we can not support
the designation until these concerns have been addressed.
Thank-you for the opportunity to comment.
cc Hon. Gerry Studds, EOEA, CZM. CLF
Sincerely,
Sheila Lynch-Benttlnen
Vice-President
71 NORTh WASHINGTON STREET ‘BOSION MASSACKUSETTS O2II . (T l)N2 SAVE
-------
I - Li
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
PPEARAI4CES, Cont inued:
2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2
6 aen Ruta, ChSe l
3 BOSTON RCOION Environmenta l Protection Açency
Marine and Estuarian Protection Program
4 4
5 In the Matter of : 5
8 6
PUBLIC HEARING:
7 7
8 8
RE: EPA’S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT STATCMENT
9 ON THE EVALUATION OF THE CONTINUED UUE OF 9
THE MASSACHUSETTS AY DRED GED MATERiAL SITE.
ID 10
I I 1 1
12 12
13 Conference Room 13’: 13
U.S. Transportation B ” : [ ding
14 lenctail Sq’iare I I
Cambridge, tlaesachLIsettm
Is (5
(6 Wedrenday 16
Nc.vehmer I, 1189
I ? I ?
18 I i
The above e’:ttt led matte’ tame c.n for hearing,
(0 pureuant it, Notice, at 7: ’A p.m. it
20 20
21 BEFORE: Ron Mantred f ln ha, thIef 21
Water Duality PransI,
22 Environmental Pr..tect:c’n Agev cy 22
Region I
23 23
Kymberlem VetI,ler, Staff Engineer
24 EnvironmentaL ProtectIon Agency 24
Marane and Fetuarian Protection Program
25 25
AlT : Rr(’(IHIINO APEX REPORTING
Reqibterell (‘rofr ;.i’ .ru l I(enc.rtorm Registered Profesniena] Reporters
(617 .(i( jc77 (617>426-3077
-------
3
COMMENCED C7’u6 p.m. )
Mr<. MANFREDONIAr Well, I guess we will get
started.
Good evening.
My name is Ron Manfredonia. I’m chief of
the Water Duality Branch at EPA, Peglon I in Boston.
have been desi gnated by the acting Reps onal
Administrator, Mr. Paul Keougli, to serve as the Hearing
Officer for tonight’’ public hearing on EPA’s draft
environmental impart statement on the evaluation .jf the
12 cont tiiued use of the Mass achusetts Bay Dredged
13 Materials site.
14 With me this evening, to my right, is
is lymberlee ICeckler, who is a staff engineer in ErA’s
1 6 Marine and Cotuarian F rotertion rrouram. And to my
I l left is Gwen Euta who is the chief of that section.
The proposed designated site is located
approximately twenty two miles east of Boston in
2f Massachusetts Bay iii ninety meters of water and is two
21 nautical miles in diameter.
22 Ch’A’s draft lEES concludes that the
23 designation of the Massachusetts Bay Dredged Materials
24 site appears to be appropriate and is of suitable si2e
25 to accommodate the regional disposal needs of
A lEX REPORTING
Registered rrofessional Reporters
t6 17)4 76
-------
S
Massachusetts communities I to , , Gloucester to PlymoLitli.
The intensive nceanc.5r aphi c eval uat I cns
performed at the site indicate that the Lc.ntlnued use
of the site icr dredyed material dispc.sal will not have
any signniicant adverse envir.:.nmtntaf Impacts.
EPA believes that the material deposited at
the site remains in place, and sin.-e the area has
previously been used for dispr.sal rjf dredged material,
such a designation would not degrade additional areas
of the ocean.
As scientific understanding of
oceanogr apfii c processes evolves, the management of the
site will be continually reassessed.
The EPA draft envir ’nmental Impact
statement was made available to the publIc on September
29, 1969. During ti le forty five day comment per ‘cd, we
will welcome and encourdue any and all written comments
you may have on our document. Written cc.mments may be
addressed to Ann Rodney, HA Feglon I, WOE, l)”tC, JET
reder at Diii Idi ng, Boston, Nas’i.
After tile forty five thay sment period,
EPA will review an, 1 evaluate the ccmment i ivu,’ tc niçjh,t
along with any written cc.mments we receive tn or before
November 13, l9lfl.
Please note on the inside cover page of the
draft E IS, that it’s stated that t he comment period
ends November 6th. Due to the filing of this draft Els
on September 29th ci this year, the comment period has
been extended to at low for a full forty live day
comment period.
EPA is scheduled to publish the final
environmental impact statement which will contain a
summary of the oral and written comments received
during the forty five day comment period and EPA’s
response to tfioae comments. After publication of the
final environmental impact statement in this spring of
199u, another comment period will take place to allow
for public reaction to EPA’s final recommendations.
Soon after the close of the final comment
period, EPA will issue a record of decision,
formalizing the Agency’s final decision.
This public hearing is being recorded for
the public record. This is an informational,
nonadveruarial hearing under the National Environmental
Felicy Act and the Clean Water Act. And as such, I
will not permit cross examination of the EPA
representatives or commentors. No questions will be
permitted except for the purposes of clarification.
2
3
4
5
5
e
e
Is
II
12
13
14
Is
IS
17
Is
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
3
4
5
S
7
S
S
‘ I
LI
12
93
14
1 5
Is
I ?
is
I S
212
21
22
23
24
22
Al IX III LII r IN’..
Peyi stored I r .Iin ’,i 4, il KepJr to’ s
ul/’ I.i, ‘‘11
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professiona) Reporters
(617)426—3077
-------
7
As you walked in, there was a sign tip sheet
for people who uot,ld like to speak thin evening. If
you would like to speal’ but have not signed up, feel
free to do so.
The following normal prc’tocol for public
hearings, I will now call upon federally elected
officials or their repreeentatives who would like ic
entertain any comments.
(No response)
(No response)
officials.
(No response)
MR. MANFREDONIAi State elected officials.
MR. MANrPEDONIA . Locally elected
MR. PIANrRED0NIAi rederal eoencies.
Yes.
MR. MANTZARISi Chris Mantraris, National
risheries Services.
I have Just a brief statement. We will be
sending in an official comment at a later date.
As I was reviewing your document, I noticed
there was a lacl of attention paid to the potential for
the Stel lwagen Dank area to become a marine sanctuary.
If, right now, the Stellwagen Panh area is
in the process of —- the NOAA pecpie are gathering
APEX ptropt Inn
Regi stered Prof,e.ic.nah Pepc.rterm
(Gil 14211-3 ° ? ?
information to determine ---- to develop an f’nvlronmental
impact statement to determine whether or not that area
should become a marine sanctuary.
If it does, and there is a probahility that
it will, there is a likelihood that some of the
activities at the — -—— area can be restricted and even
phased out over time.
Go, I think any environmental impact
statement should reference the fact that there is a
potential for that to become a marine sanctuary area,
and a discussion followed as to what impacts would
result from having much a sanctuary and what
implications it has.
Thani’ you.
MR. MANrRCDONIAi
Any other federal
(No response)
(No response)
(No response)
MR. MANFREI3ONIAi State officials?
MR. MANrF’LDONIA : Local officials’
MR. MANrREDONIAi Okay.
With that, we have one individual who
signed up, Mason Weinrich.
2
3
4
S
8
7
8
a
10
II
12
13
14
IS
I 8
I ?
18
19
20
21
22
22
24
25
2
3
4
5
8
8
0
10
ii
12
‘3
I I
Ii
Ii
I ?
I D
I D
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
Thanks, Chris.
officials?
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426—3077
Q
-------
S
9
fIR. WEINRI’:n: I represent an organization
in Gloucester called the Satation tphonetic) Research
Unit, which has been doing the researc h on the
Dalean (phonetic) whaler., port icular ly in the northern
Stal lwagen sani region for ten years now, starting in
1979.
And, in reviewing the draft environmental
impact statement, it’s our feeling that not enough
attention was paid to the ne c . 1 the area by Humpback
and Finbaci. whales, nor the potential icy severe impa .: t
on those animals.
The evidence for impact is as fc.llowsi
first of all, our data for a number of years has
indicated that there are some transient feeding animals
through that area in t he case of both endangered
Humpback and Firiback wholes. r ue residency time is
usually not great in that area, at though there are
certain times where there are, as the impact statement
notes.
it does not ntte the fact that that is a
major transit zone to and from the nor them and
southern end of Stat lwagmii banI , which has a number of
anima ls passing through it.
It does not note that the area is more
heavily used by Ii nbac I dial us than hiumphac l whaleu.
, \ILX ILl UI rING
Registered Irvfessicnial reporters
tul?’ IZC. 2’’77
Arid most importantly, It fails to point out
the of marine animals, particularly satations, to
environmental toxins. Research worhi is being done at
the EPA ’s Rhode Island lab t(iat show now that the PCB
levels and the DOT levels in certain marine mammals
that frequent the Massachusetts Day area and the intra
New England area have high contaminant levels already
in their blubber tissue and their fat tissue.
It has also been shown through studies in
this area and in other areas throughout the world that
marine mammals tend to accumulate those and can not
deal with those as well. Further, that Vacates wall
dump that toxin load to their offspring through
nursi ng.
Given that in the areas of the MOOS, there
are areas that already have elevated to, for instance,
.414 ppm PLOs which is known to be one of the things
that severely impacts marine mammals.
I think that that needs to be noted in a
thorough FEIS.
The other thing that needs to be
coordinated, I think, with this — - and needs to be
noted in the environmental impact statement —— is the
fact that the National Fisheries Service is now in the
process of coming up with a national recovery plan for
APEX REPORT ING
Registered Professional Reporters
CGI 7)42G—ao77
2
3
4
S
a
B
a
is
ii
14
is
is
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
2
S
&
7
a
5
is
l b
12
13
14
Is
is
I ?
ho
‘9
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
I r i
ii
humpback whales and Piglit whales which dons address
this area, and in fact, it addr esses the tc.’d ns
themsel vms.
And it states-— The draft statea, and I
quote, ‘Contaminants such as pesticides, PCDs,
hydrocarbons, heavy metals and others could effect
survival of Humpback whales.’ So, coordination with
the National Recovery Teas should also be a part of the
rEls.
Thani’ you.
MR. MANFRUDONIA I Mason, could you identify
who you represent 1
MR. wCINRICI-i, The Satation Pesearci l Unit,
Gloucester, Mass.
MR. MANrRCD0NIAI 01 ay. Th,ar,l you.
I don’t have anyone else who has signed up
to offer any comments. Is there anyone who wishes to
sake a statement?
MR. WILEYi I just have a question.
MR. MANFPEDONIAi Please just identify who
MR. WILEYt Sure.
Dave I.Jiiey. l’s with thin Marine Mammal
Are super f und- - Is super fund funding being
used for any of this project?
MR. IIANrREDONIA: I said earlier that we
weren’t going to entertain questions, but I will answer
that. No.
MR. WILEY, So it
of the criteria for super fund
MR. MANPREDONIA,
of the dredged material?
MR. WILEVi Yeah.
MR. MANrREDONIAI In one aspect.
MR. WILEY, I Just know that there are
certain criteria for disposal of materials that are
being used, are being dumped through super fund funding.
I was curious if this disposal situation did meet those
c r i t er i a.
MR. MANrREDONIAI Well, the EIS refers to a
protocol that EPA and resource agencies have developed
which will regulate the type of material that can be
disposed of at the site.
That in itself will be the guiding criteria
by which — — what material can be disposed.
MR. WILEYs Are there copies of that
avai table?
MR. MANrRED0NIAi This ElS ’
2
3
4
&
8
7
8
a
ID
I I
12
13
14
IS
ha
I ?
10
‘9
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
doesn’t have to meet any
disposal?
Do you mean the disposal
2
3
4
5
e
8
9
ie
‘ I
12
‘3
I I
Is
I D
‘7
I D
Is
20
21
22
23
24
25
you are.
Research Center.
ArEX PEf OR1IN(1
Registered Professional Pnpnrters
(617)426 3”77 -
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426—3077
-------
12 13
MR. WILEVi Yes. 1 CERT1FI ATE OF REPORTER AND TRANS CRIBER
2 MR. MAFIrkEDONIA. Sure, just leave your 2
This is to certify that the attached proceedings
3 name and we will get y’ u a ccpy.
befores THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AQENCY
4 Anyone else’ 4
in the Matter of.
6
6 (No response)
6 MR. NANUPEDONIAI What I would 1t1.e to do 6
PUBLIC MEETING
z then is, let’ s recess for ab.,i’t te n minutes and then 1 7
8 will reconvene. If no one slic.ws up, then we will call 6
Place. Cambridge, MA
a it a night.
Datei 11/01/89
10 Off the rr’cc’rd. 10
(A short break oil the re ...rd.1 were held as herein appears, and that this is the true,
12 MR. MANIPLOLINIIA. Ut . the rocc.rd. 12 accurate and complete transcript prepared from the notes
I ) Well, it’o 7,31) p.a. Let me simply ash, is 13 and/or recordings taken of the above entitled proceeding.
14 there anyone else who wishes to speal relative to the 14
is issue before us. 15
S. Podersen 11/01/89
io (No response) 10 Reporter Date
I ; MR. MANrPEUONIA. Way. 11 L. lladi 11/13/89
Transcriber Date
to W a t lt that, I would I ii e tc. tI tani everyone I I
to for attending this evening’s hoar trig. 19
20 As I said oar Her, the comment period 20
21 closes November 13th and we would certainly welcome any 21
2 2 and all written comments you have rn E IS by that time. 22
23 Thank you, agat n i. have a good event ng. 23
24 (The public hearing adjourned at 7 3n’ p.m. i 24
25
25
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
Art I I Fl UI I INCi
(617)426-3077
registered Iroleotioiiai L.porter..
it,l7i 12C, u77
-------
APPENDIX B
EPA’s COMMENT LEYIERS ON THE BOSTON HARBOR
FEDERAL DREDGING PROJECT
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
\ J.F. kENNEDY FEDERAL. BUILDING. BOSTON, MASSAC14USE1TS 02203.2211
c lfl!IO t
June 12. 1991
Philip P Hams, Colonel
US. .Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149
Dear Colonel Hams:
We have reviewed the Navigation improvement Study Dredge Matenal Disposal Plan Supplement to
Feasibility Report and Supporting Documentation for Boston Harbor. Massachusetts dated August
1990 regarding a proposal to dredge 2.25 milkon Cubic yards of material from the Reserved Channel
and the Mystic and Chelsea Rivers in light of its suitabihty for ocean disposal at the Massachusetts
Bay Disposal Site (MBDS). We are concerned with i) the suitability of this matenal for open water
disposal in Massachusetts Bay, ii) the preferred disposal alternative proposed, namnety, disposal at
the MBDS with capping, and ‘ii) the alternatives analysis Our concerns are discussed below.
As stated in our letter to you dated December 10. 1990, we believe that the testing procedures were
conducted iri accordance with the national arid regional testing protocols Recent data from our
research laboratory in Narragansett shows that there is no apparent correlation between ammonia
and sulfide concentrations and their contribution to toxicity In fact, the lowest toxicity, 5%, was
found in containers with the highest ammonia concentrations As a result, we disagree with your
reasons for dismissing actual test data because the amphipod bioassays may not be valid
The testing results indicate that dredged material from this project is unsuitable for unrestricted
open water disposal as greater than 20% mortality in Ampelisca abdita over reference matenal was
demonstrated in the Mystic and Chelsea Rivers and the Reserved Channel arid greater than 10%
mortality of Macoma nasuta over reference material was shown in the Mystic River Bioaccumulation
of cadmium, chromium, and lead in Macoma nasuta was also exhibited in statistically significant
concentrations Moreover, the detection limits achieved for the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PANs) were much higher (500 to 4500 ppb) than those jointly recommended by EPA and the
COE in the regional testing protocol (20 ppb). We believe that the high detection limits may have
concealed any detectable bioaccumulation of PAHs Furthermore, the detection limits used were at
concentrations well over those shown to cause biological effects Given the magnitude of the
mortality and bioaccumulation exhibited in these sediments we do not believe that these sediments
are acceptable for unrestncted open water disposal at the MBDS
Secondly, as slated in EPA’s Draft Environmental impact Statement (DEIS ’) for the designation of a
disposal site in Massachusetts Bay (which recelvec COE concurrence), the viability of capping as
a mitigation measure at the MBDS remains uncertain Moreover, the COE. as a cooperating
agency, assisted EPA in generating a list of unresolved issues related to the feasibility of capping as
a management option (DEIS, p 229)
EPA has investigated the modeling effort employed by the COE. namely use of the DAMOS model
to demonstrate that capping is a viable management option at the MBDS. We question why the
more refined model, ADDAMS, was not used EPA believes that the ADDAMS model may be a
more realistic model because it includes additional variables, such as. dispersion of fines and tidal
current ellipses. Furthermore, the DAMOS model only simulates the convective descent and
dynamic collapse phases of the disposal The passive transport and dispersion phase, in which
PR3M E . D APER
-------
fines cart travel significant distances before setthng to the bottom, does not appear to be
considered by the DAMOS model. We believe that failure to consider this phase will underpredict
the spreading of the deposited material and overestimate the predicted cap thickness Additionally
factors such as surface waves. bathymetry, and water intrusion into the dredged material plume
were not considered by the DAMOS model
Use of the ADDAMS model predicted that 7% of the dredged material released did not settle in the
mound. The DAMOS model did not provide such results We question how water quality would be
affected by having 7% of the dredged material disposed remain in the water column We are
concerned that such sediments may result in water column toxicity while in suspension, or berithic
toxicity if settled and not properly capped
EPA remains concerned that some of the most crucial unresolved issues regarding capping at the
MBDS have not been resolved or even addressed by the COE These unresolved issues include.
but are not limited to:
i) whether the contaminants in the underlying strata diffuse through the cap;
ii) whether capping is feasible at the depth of the MBDS.
iii) whether the studies used to demonstrate that capping is a viable management
option accurately reflect actual disposal operations:
iv) whether unacceptable effects occur during disposal as a result of dispersion of
fine matenai;
v) whether intrusion of water to the dredged material plume causes enough
dispersion to prevent formation of an effective mound,
vi) stability of a cap dunrig severe storm events:
vii) identification of the thickness of an effective cap (including the depth ot a cap
needed to isolate the contaminated material from bioturbation),
viii) whether the percentage of fines present ri the dredged material is the
predominate contnbution to the grain size distribution, therefore making the material
more inclined to disperse,
ix) whether the fines which might be dispersed during descent constitute the most
contaminated portion of the dredged material, and
x) whether a mound of fine silt (presuming one can be so created) can be effectively
capped and isolated by large dumps of cohesive clay
The MBDS represents sri open ocean environment EPA does not believe that the MBOS can be
logically compared to much shallower disposal sites within Long Island Sound In deeper water
currents and stratification may have more pronounced effects on the bottom distnbuttofl of dispOSed
sediments In shallow water, currents have little effect on the trajectory of the descending plume
Larger offsets may be expected in deeper water, which may reduce the accuracy of capping
Moreover, we believe that the COE did not adequately address the effects of stratification on settling
velocities or the area ot lateral spreading.
ii
-------
It seems logical that the amount of sediments remaining in suspension after a disposal event is
likely to increase with increasing water depths The sediments remaining in suspension are those
on the edge of the plume, which are not sub ected to the downward draft of the overall dump
Because the plume diameter increases linearly with depth, the outside area of the plume increases
as the square of the depth, and as a first approximation. the amount of sediment remaining in
suspension can be assumed to also increase as the square of the depth Thus! it appears that a
doubling of the water depth would quadruple the amount of sediment remaEning in suspension
EPA acknowledges that this estimation is dependent on many factors, including grain size, and
should b verified with held measurements
We therefore strongly disagree with the decision to cap these sediments via sequencing of dredging
operations, as we continue to believe that the efficacy of this option has yet to be proven.
Moreover, EPA does not believe that premature theories related to capping shoutd be tested on
large volumes of contaminated material. Until these questions are answered and the appropriate
data obtained, we cannot allow disposal of such matenal at the MBDS.
Thirdly, we do not believe that a tiatl spectrum of atternative means of disposal has been thoroughly
investigated we recommend that the COE consider combinations of different disposal alternatives
for different materials Such alternatives may include use of the 94,000 cubic yards of rock as
construction aggregate or for artificial reef creation, and use of the native marine clays as landfill
cover and capping rratenal in light of the timeliness of this project, EPA believes that it is
imperative that major construction projects, including the Third Harbor Tunnel/Central Artery Project
and the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority ’s new treatment plant at Deer island, be
coordinated so that a comprehensive evaluation of alternative methods of disposal can be
conducted and an environmentally favorable solution to the disposal problem achieved We strongly
encourage you to investigate alternative disposal locations, including the upland alternatives
evaluated for the ml project and confined aquatic or subaquatic disposal sites. Moreover, we
request that you consider inclusion of plans for a regional containment facility br contaminated
dredged material since this project is one of the largest proposed in recent years and may
represent the majority of material going to such a facility
Because of the toxic charactenstics of these sediments, the uncertainty associated with capping as
a mitigation measure, and the inadequacy of the alternatives analysis, EPA oblects to this proposal
We look forward to the meeting regarding capping proposed for this summer and to discovering a
mutually acceptable solution to the disposal problem Please do not hesitate to contact Kyrnberlee
Keckler of my staff at (617) 565-4432 or FTS 635-4432 should you have any questions
G Manfredonia. Chief
Waler Quality Branch
cc Vernon Lang. (JSFWS, Concod, NH
Christopher Mantzans. NMFS. Gloucester, MA
Judith Skinner. MACC, Marblehead. MA
William F Lawless, USACOE. Waltham, MA
Terrance S Fleming. USACQE. Waltham. MA
Thomas J Fredette, USACOE. Waltham! MA
Judith Pederson, MCZM. Boston. MA
Eleanor Dorsey, CLF, Boston, MA
ii i
-------
(3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
J.F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 32203-2211
September 27, 1991
Joseph L. Ignazio, Director
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division
Planning Directorate
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149
Dear Mr. lgnazio:
This letter is in response to your request dated August 16, 1991 asking EPA to
voice any technical concerns related to capping at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal
Site (“MBDS ). Many of our concerns have already been recorded in EPA’s Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) for the designation of a disposal site in
Massachusetts Bay and in our letter to you dated June 12, 1991, a copy of which
is attached. We have compiled a list of some of the unresolved issues related to
capping in deep water open ocean environments and have summarized them on
Attachment A. We may have additional questions related to capping at the MBDS
in the future.
The MBDS represents an open ocean environment. EPA does not believe that the
data collected regarding capping at shallow disposal sites within Long Island Sound
can be logically compared to the MBDS. In deeper water, currents and
stra1if cation may have more pronounced effects on the bottom distribution of
disposed sediments. In shallow water, currents have little effect on the trajectory
of the descending plume. Larger oftsets may be expected in deeper water, which
may reduce the accuracy of capping.
It seems logical that the amount of sediments remaining in suspension after a
disposal event is likely to increase with increasing water depths. The sediments
remaining in suspension are those on the edge of the plume, which are not
subjected to the downward draft of the overall dump. Because the plume diameter
increases linearly with depth, the outside area of the plume increases as the square
of the depth, and as a first approximation, the amount of sediment remaining in
suspension can be assumed to also increase as the square of the depth. Thus, it
appears that a doubling of the water depth would quadruple the amount of
sediment remainin n suspension. EPA acknowledges that this estimation is
dependent on many factors, including grain size, and should be verified with field
measurements.
The water content of the dumped material mound can be expected to increase
with increasing water depth, leading to less favorable conditions for isolation of
RINW CU RECYC%.EC PAPER
-------
contaminants. Higher mound water content results in larger mound spreading,
more mixing of the contaminated material with the overlying cap and a larger
amount of contaminated pore water expelled during consolidation of the mound.
EPA believes that this issue should be investigated.
EPA continues to believe that the efficacy of capping at the MBDS has yet to be
proven. Consequently, we do not believe that it can be relied upon as an
appropriate management strategy at this time. We look forward to discussing
these issues at the meeting scheduled for October 1 5, 1991. Please do not
hesitate to contact Kymberlee Keckler of my staff at (617) 565-4432 or FTS 835-
4432 should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Rona G Manfredonia, Chief
Water Quality Branch
Attachments
cc: Vernon Lang, USFWS, Concord, NH
Michael Ludwig, NMFS, Milford, CT
Christopher Mantzaris, NMFS, Gloucester, MA
William F. Lawless, USACOE, Waltham, MA
Terrance S. Fleming, USACOE, Waltham, MA
Thomas J. Fredette, USACOE, Waltham, MA
Judith Pederson, MCZM, Boston, MA
Sally Newbury, CLF, Boston, MA
Eleanor Dorsey, CLF, Boston, MA
Judith Skinner, MACC, Marblehead, MA
-------
ATIACHMENT A
UNRESOLVED ISSUES RELATED TO CAPP 1NG AT THE MBDS
1. Does entrainment of water into the dredged material plume cause enough
dispersion to produce an ineffective mound?
2. Is the percentage of fine grain sized dredged material so high that the material
tends to disperse? How does water content affect dispersion and turbidity flow?
3. Can the studies conducted in 18 to 35 meters of water be applied to the MBDS
where depths average 90 meters?
4. Is capping feasible at the depth of the MBDS?
5. Does water column stratification affect settling velocities or the area of lateral
spreading on the seafloor? Would restricting disposal to periods without water
column stratification significantly reduce the amount of fine grained material
remaining in suspension?
6. Are risks to the marine ecosystem worse than those associated with upland or
other options?
7. Are risks associated with handling contaminated material threatening enough to
preclude dredging? Have the pollutants or the concentrations of these pollutants
which trigger such a reaction been identified?
8. Do unacceptable effects occur during disposal as a result of dispersion of fine
material?
9. Do contaminated sediments which do not settle in the disposal mound result in
water column toxicity anywhere while in suspension, or benthic toxicity when
settled and not properly capped?
10. How do the crosscurrents present at the MBDS affect dispersion and the
creation of a mound?
11. Is all of the dredged material in a disposal barge discharged at the dump site?
Is the barge cleaned,pf remnant matenal at the disposal site? f not, have potential
impacts of disposal of such material outside of the disposal site been assessed?
1 2. What are the physical constraints with respect to weather, seastate, and
sediment characteristics limiting the feasibility of capping?
-------
13. Do the fines dispersed during descent constitute the most contaminated
portion of the dredged material 7
14. Do the contaminants in the underlying strata diffuse through the cap?
15. Is there sufficient understanding regarding how contaminants of concern
partition into a marine water column?
16. What is the composition, both physica) and chemical, of the dredged and
capping materials?
17. Is the concentration of contaminants (or their bloavailability) in the pore water
altered by dredging or disposal operations?
18. How will the areal extent of the uncapped material be determined (i.e., how
will the disposal mound footprint be mapped)?
19. Given that a thin “apron” of dredged material surrounds the mound after
disposal and covers an extensive area of the seafloor that cannot be mapped by
the available methods 1 can this apron be adequately capped in addition to the
mound itself?
20. What are the dimensions of the area of the seafloor affected by disposal of a
single barge of dredged material?
21. What is the stability of a cap during severe storm events?
22. Has the thickness of an effective cap (including the depth of a cap needed to
isolate the contaminated material from bioturbation) been identified? If so, how
was it determined?
23. Can a mound of fine silt (presuming one can be so created) be effectively
capped and isolated by large clumps of cohesive clay (as proposed for the federal
Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement project)?
24. Is “clean material available in sufficient quantity and appropriate grain size in
the same time period that the “contaminated” dredged material is proposed for
ocean disposal?
25. Will the mound created be dense enough to support an effective cap?
26. How is a determination made on the effectiveness of a capping operation (i.e.,
how do you tell it the capping material has completely and un formIy covered the
disposai mound)?
-------
27. By what procedure or mechanism will the materials be delivered to the
seafloor? Will sediments be emplaced close to the seafloor using a diffuser or
allowed to freefall through the water column?
28. Will a borrow pit be constructed to receive the contaminated sediments and
the overlying clean capping sediments?
29. What monitoring programs (for contaminant migration and physical conditions)
wilt be in place during mound construction and capping operations?
30. What are the long-term monitoring and remedial plans after mound
construction and capping?
31. Will there be plans to monitor the site after storms (i.e., Nor’easters) in
addition to the routine monitoring proposed?
32. What actions will be taken if fotlow-up monitoring shows that the capping
operation has been unsuccessful?
33. What is the accuracy of the methods used for both monitoring and detection
of the disposal mound? How will this affect volume estimates and impact
assessments for dredged material which is dispersed or resuspended?
34. What are the costs of monitoring a capped disposal mound to check for
inadequacies in the cap? What are the costs for repairing any such inadequacies?
Who would be responsible for these costs? Who would ensure that monitoring
would be conducted into the indefinite future as would probably be required?
35. Do the studies used to demonstrate that capping is a viable management
option accurately reflect actual disposal operations?
36. Has a mass balance been conducted relating volumes of materials disposed,
materials dispersed, and concentrations of contaminants?
37. Have studies relating various water depths, water content, currents,
stratification, and grain sizes been conducted to determine how much material
remains in suspension following a disposal event? Have these studies identified
where the disposed material ultimately results?
38. How are the differences between the volume of material dredged and the
volume of disposed redged material after consolidation accurately calculated?
39. Based on characteristics of the dredged and capping materials, have mound
consolidation and cap adjustment been modelled?
-------
40. What effect does seastate have on sediment characteristics in a disposal
barge during transit to a disposal site?
41. What models or other methods have been used .to determine that the
proposed capping methods will be effective (including those used to calculate
mound dimensions, cap thickness, and susceptibility of the cap to erosion)?
-------
til/
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY L j
NEW ENGLAND o vjsjorg. CORPS OF ErVOINEERS
424 TRAPELO ROAD
WALTHAM. MASSACHUSETTS 02254-9149
November 9, 1990
Regulatory Division
CENED-OD-R
Ms. Sherrard C. Foster
Marine and Estuarine Management Division
NOAA
Suite #714
1825 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20235
Dear Ms. Foster:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Preliminary Draft
EIS and Management Plan for the proposed Steliwagen Bank National
Marine Sanctuary. The EIS provides a good summary of the complex
factors and issues that surround the designation. However, we
still have several questions and comments with regard to the draft
(enclosed). Although we have been coordinating with your office
and Massachusetts CZM on preparation of some sections of this
document, these comments result from being able to review the
nearly complete document for the first time. We realize that these
comments have riot been provided in time to be incorporated into the
publication draft, but hope that they will help in preparation of
the final.
As the comments emphasize, we strongly believe that existing
regulations for management of dredged material are adequate and
that further regulation is unnecessary. We feel that
implementation of new regulations should only occur after
exhaustive analysis and understanding of the existing regulations
has been accomplished. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection
Agency is in the process of revising the Ocean Dumping Regulations
and NOAA coordination in this process may be a better alternative
to effect regulatory changes if NOAA believes any are needed.
Please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Tom Fredette of my staff
if you have any questions or comments about our response. He can
be reached at 617/647—8563.
Sin perely,
WJ..i jam F. Lawless, P.E.
Chief, Regulatory Division
Operations Directorate
CF: Brad Barr, MACZM
Kymberlee Keckler, EPA - Region I
-------
Comments on
Preliminary Draft
DEIS and Management Plan
Proposed Steliwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
Executive Summary
Page 1, paragraph 5. We recommend inclusion of a statement indicating that
all of the listed activities have a potential for impacting proposed Sanctuary
resources. As presently written the paragraph suggests that only gravel
mining and dredged material disposal have this potential.
Page 2. The document states that “existing regulatory authority affecting the
proposed sanctuary area (Appendix B will be unaffected by Sanctuary
designation. However, the EIS states that disposing or diBcharging of
material or substances will be regulated by NOA.A under the terms of the
designation. We have not had the opportunity to review Appendix B and
therefore cannot provide any detailed comments. In our view, the need for
supplemental regulation beyond that already provided by other agencies (EPA,
COB) deeply involved in this regulatory arena needs to be clearly demonstrated
in the EIS.
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Need for Designation
Page 9. The purpose of sanctuary designation is to insure coordinated and
comprehensive management of the resource. The existing regulations and
regional management programs serve a similar purpose. To avoid imposing
unnecessary additional regulations, we recommend that the EIS address with
more specificity why the existing laws arid regulations are inadequate to
protect living and nonhiving sanctuary resources.
PART TWO: SANCTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN
I. Management Plan.
B. Sanctuary Goals and Objectives.
Page 12. One of the ob)ectives of the resource protection program is the
establishment of cooperative agreements and other inechanismB for coordination
among all the agencies participating in Sanctuary management-. We concur that
these agreements should be a high priority objective for achieving resource
protection.
Page 12. We agree that research should be focussed on those areas needed to
resolve specific management issues and that the sanctuary ahould Nencourage
information exchange among all agencies and organizations conducting
management—related research in the Sanctuary.
The Corps has been conducting site specific research in the vicinity of
Stellwagen Basin for over 20 years and has accumulated extensive biological,
chemical, and physical oceanographic data of the area around the Massachusetts
Bay Disposal Site (MEDS). The results of our research has been that disposal
of dredged material deemed suitable for ocean disposal at MBDS has not
resulted in significant adverse impacts to the marine environment. We believe
that the existing regulatory framework provides sufficient safeguards to the
Steliwagen system.
1
-------
We are always interested in finding better ways to evaluate and manage
dredged material disposal. EPA and the Corps have recently revised the
testing protocol for open water disposal of dredged material. This
publication represents over 20 years of active research by EPA and the Corps.
Our DAMOS program continues to monitor disposal activities at MBDS. We look
forward to coordinating work with your office on research.
II. Sanctuary Setting
Page 14. We note that the preferred alternative is entirely outside of State
waters and within Federal waters. It would be useful to the reader to note
that whether or not CZM has jurisdiction beyond the three mile limit is under
legal discussion among the agencies.
Page 15. Note that water depths listed here (60 — 120 feet) do not correspond
to those listed on page 14 (120 — 300 feet).
Page 20. ‘The report indicates that bottom currents in the basin area are
gener l1y 18 cm/sec. Our data (COE, 1987) indicates that mean current
velocities at depth (82 meters) are generally less than 10 cm/sec. Velocities
on the order of 20 — 25 cm/sec can be seen during storm events.
The document states that the overturning of tide generated internal waves
has been recorded at depths of 80 meters but does not give any indication of
the significance of these findings with respect to sediment mobility. More
than a decade of COE monitoring activities at MBDS have shown the sediments
within the basin to be very stable and undisturbed.
Page 68. It would help to clarify whether the reference to the “Plan”
(paragraph 3) refers to the Right Whale Recovery Plan or the Sanctuary
Management Plan.
Page 72-74. Dredged material disposal. We recotrimend that existing regulatory
procedures used to evaluate the suitability of dredged material disposal be
discussed in this section. Also it would assist the analysis if the results
of cOE’s Site Evaluation Study and EPA ’s E lS documents were presented.
Briefly summarized these findings are 1) No significant environmental impacts
have been observed at MBDS 2) impacts are listed as category II, 3) the
alternatives analysis identified the MBDS as the most practicable ocean
disposal alternative.
III. Action Plan
A. Overall Management and Development Context.
Page 83. We concur with the statements, that sanctuary research should be
tailored to specific issues affecting Sanctuary resources and this will
involve cooperation and coordination with agencies with regulatory
responsibilities for the Stellwagen Bank area.” We recommend that the
Sanctuary study disposal activities during the first five years following
designation. At the end of this period the information should be reviewed to
determine whether additional Sanctuary oversight is warranted.
Page 84. Existing management programs include the Cape Cod Commission, MACZM,
Mass Ocean Sanctuaries Program (DEN), NE? CC? 1P for Boston Harbor, Cape Cod
Bay, and Nasa Bay, and the Gulf of Maine Initiative. We agree that an office
may be needed to coordinate Sanctuary concerns with these other programs.
2
-------
B. Resource Protection
Page 86. We cannot comment on the Designation Document (Appendix A) and
Sanctuary Regulations (Appendix B) as they have not yet been released for our
review. We understand that Appendix A describes the relationship between the
proposed Sanctuary s regulatory program and other regulatory programs. Since
we are a Federal agency with regulatory jurisdiction within waters of the US
as well as MUDS we are very interested in reviewing these portions of the Els.
Page 87. The statements made here and elsewhere in the document regarding
prohibited discharges are inconsistent with the current presentation in the
regulatory alternatives discussion for dredged material which Btate there is a
prohibition.
C. Research
Page 91. Agencies with jurisdiction over activities in and near the sanctuary
should be involved in the development of the research agenda for the
Sanctuary. The Corps requests that it be a member of the Sanctuary Advisory
Committee that will formulate the Annual Sanctuary Research Plan.
IV. Administration
Resource Protection. MEMD will coordinate efforts to protect and manage
Sanctuary resources with other Federal State, regional and local agencies. In
the case of dredged material disposal, EPA and the Corps would continue to
regulate activities at MBDS using the Title I authority. These activities are
presently coordinated with NOAA Fisheries and FWS. Under the proposed
designation these activities would also be coordinated with NOA.A (MEMD)
through an on—site Sanctuary manager. A Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC)
would advise the Sanctuary Manager on the effectiveness of Sanctuary
regulations. The Sanctuary Manager would evaluate the overall progress of the
sanctuary program and report these findings to MEMD. MEMD would monitor the
effectiveness of existing Sanctuary regulations and promulgate changes where
necessary. As we indicated earlier and based on the above described
coordination, we do not see a need for additional regulatory oversight on the
disposal of dredged material.
Research. The Corps requests participation on the SAC relating to reBearch
issues.
PART THREE: ALTERNATIVES
Page 108 — 111. To assist in the analysis of alternatives, we feel that the
relationship of each Alternative boundary to MBDS be clarified. This will be
a topic of interest to many readers and we recommend it be presented under the
discussion of each Alternative, rather than the brief statement made under
Alternative #3. To clarify this issue and to assist in the analysis of
alternative boundary alignments, it would be helpful to illustrate on a figure
where the existing and proposed disposal sites are in relation to the western
boundaries of each of the proposed alternative sanctuary limits.
Page 121—123. Disposal of Dredged Materials.
The discussion of the regulatory alternatives for dredged material seems
to be written from the perspective that MBDS is included within the preferred
alternative. Our interpretation of the preferred Alternative #2 is that MEDS
is outside of the proposed Sanctuary limits.
3
-------
We believe this section should be written from the perspective of actions
to be taken under the preferred boundary alternative scenario. As written
this section also seems to be in conflict with statements made in several
other places in the document that discharges of all kinds are being prohibited
wi.thin the Sanctuary (e.g., Executive Summary, Pages 87 and 145).
As two examples we cite below statements from Alternatives 1 and 2 and
indicate how they could be misinterpreted. We recommend this wording and that
for Alternatives 3 and 4 also be clarified.
Alternative 1 states disposal. of dredged materials would continue at
MBDS, or anywhere else in the Sanctuary...’ suggesting that MBDS is also
inside the boundaries of the preferred alternative when based on our
interpretation it is not.
Alternative 2 states “.. .disposal of dredged materials would continue at
MBDS, subject to the conditions of existing authorities. However, disposal of
dredged material would be prohibited elsewhere in the Sanctuary. This
Alternative recognizes use of the MBDS as a pre-existing use of the area
within the Sanctuary... This entire paragraph leads the reader to the
impression that MElDS is within the preferred boundary alternative.
In the last sentence of the discussion of Disposal of Dredged Materials
on page 123 it states that EPA would be forced to suspend disposal activities
at MElDS...” if it were found that disposal activities were “causing
demonstrated injury to Sanctuary resources. . . - We recommend that the sentence
be reworded to state that EPA would “be required to suspend or modify disposal
activities at MElDS... As discussed earlier, there may be wide range of
management options that could be employed to avoid observed impacts. Such
management actiofl9 may be sufficient to solve the problem and are already
available under existing regulations.
PART FOUR. Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences of Sanctuary
Designation.
Page 139. We disagree with the assertion that while Title I provides adequate
protection to the immediate vicinity there is “. . .no particular consideration
given at the time of permit application to the marine system... without a
comprehensive perspective of the cumulative effects of Buch activi.ties”.
Impacts of dredged material disposal to Sanctuaries are considered. Cumulative
impacts of Federal actions are investigated in NEPA and the permit evaluation
processes.
Page 140. We recommend further analysis and clarification of why the
no—action alternative is negative with respect to sand and gravel mining. Any
proposal for sand and gravel mining would be sub)ect to existing regulations.
This activity is similar to regulations on alteration of the seabed which
depend on the permit process.
Page 140. We recommend further clarification of whether the taking of
seabirds is a problem in the sanctuary. This needs better resolution before a
determination is made that the no—action alternative would have negative
impacts.
Page 141. We feel further explanation needs to be made for why existing
regulations are inadequate to protect historical and cultural resources.
Page 145-146. We disagree that additional regulation of dredged material
disposal is warranted either outside of or within the Sanctuary. The Title I
regulations provide specific references to cumulative impacts and Marine
Sanctuaries and we are unaware of any reason why the guidance and flexibility
4
-------
ava .lable under the regulations are insufficient to meet this purpose. It is
not clear how NOAA certification of the COE permit process will achieve the
anticipated benefits to water quality. Title I does allow an assessment of
impacts to marine sanctuaries and cumulative impacts are evaluated during the
NEPA and permit review processes of which NOAA i.s already a participant.
Although the Corps welcomes NOAA i.nvolvement in the process in an advisory
role, we believe that the imposition of regulatory oversight of the process is
premature. NOAA must first determine if existing regulations are inadequate
to protect sanctuary resources using the two conditions spelled out in the EIS
[ i.e., a) there is a progressive movement of material to the sanctuary and b)
the material ig having negative impacts on sanctuary resources]. To our
knowledge neither of these conditions have been met. We Bite our own studies
(cOE, 1987) and EPA’s DSEIS (1989) and SEIS (1990) on the designation of the
KBDS. We look forward to working with the Sanctuary Staff and EPA to monitor
conditions in the area. Should future mon .toring studies indicate that there
are potential or recognized impacts to the sanctuary, then we would discuss
the need for actions that are already possible under the existing regulat .ons.
These could include modification of d .sposal procedures (method of disposal,
time of disposal, etc.), modification of the types or quantities of material
disposed, i.ntensified monitoring, or other measures deemed necessary. There
are already regulations in—place that allow a very wide range of management
actions should the need be demonstrated.
S
-------
APPENDIX C
ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSULTATION SUMMARIES
-------
United States Department of the Interior
10! 2 91989
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
400 RALPH PILL MARKETPLACE
22 BRIDGE STREET
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-4901
Mr. Ronald G. Manfredonia, thief November 22, 1989
Water Q iality Branch
U.S. vironmenta.l Protection Agency
J.F. Kennedy Federal &iilding
Boston, ! 02203—2211
Dear Mr. Manfredonia:
This responds to your November 6, 1989, request for concurrence that
designation of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (NB1 ) will not jeopardize
threatened or endangered species under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. As proposed, the MB [ , located 22 nautical miles off-
shore from Boston, will be designated for continued use as a disposal area for
dredged material, primarily of harbor origin from Gloucester to Plymouth,
Massachusetts.
As irxlicated in the September 1989, Draft Erivirormental Impact StaterE.nt,
(DEIS) several federally listed threatened ard erxianger&1 whale and sea
turtle species occur in the Gulf of Maine. As you are aware, the conservation
of endangered whales is the responsibility of the National Marine Fisheries
Service, while the protection arxi rnanag nt of sea turtle (terrestrial)
nesting habitat is the responsibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The
conservation and Section 7 rview of sea turtles in marine waters are also
the responsibility of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMES). Since no
sea turtle nesting habitat is at issue, it is therefore appropriate for EPA to
continue consultation with the NMFS r arding this proposal and potential
effects on these species.
Two Federally listed bird species administered by the Fish and Wildlife
Service that are closely tied to the Massachusetts marine envirorunent are the
rv -pd ro —at t rn (Stern -ir . flii dr,i llij) r d the tbre tened.
piping plover ( tharadrius rnelodus) . While teriis feed primarily over shall i
coastal and tidal waters, roseate ter s are )o n to saretines forage off-
shore in association with schools of predatory fish, such as bluefish, which
drive small schooling prey to the surface. An historic nesting colony of
roseate terns at Thatcher Island, near Rcckport has been long abandoned, and
the nearest active breeding location is a ll colony at Plymouth Beach. D.ie
to the absence of any nearby nesting colonies of this species in
Massachusetts Bay, at most only in.iruinal and sporadic use of the MBtS by
foraging roseate terns could be expected.
It is unlikely that the piping plover, which feeds primarily in on-shore and
tidal habitats remote from the disposal area, would be demonstrably affected
by continued use of the tS. Therefore, although the continued use of the
will exacerbate the already troubled condition of the Massachusetts Bay
environment, we concur with your evaluation that designation of the MBCS will
not jeopardize endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
-------
—2—
This response relates only to erx angered species ar our iiuthal
responsibilities pirsuant to the Edan er I Species Act. dditiona1 tunents
ack ressirr contaminants arz the flEIS have been foiward ur .er separate cover.
Sir ere1y yours,
/ / 14 1a 1 M&
Gordon E. Beckett
Supervisor
New 1ar Field Office
-------
-. I
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT O COMMERCE
- Nat OneI Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- N T ONAL MA NE F SHE IES SEPVcE
133S East-West t ig r iay
CDP 9 ThE D ECTC
Ms. Julie Belaga
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection
Agency
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203—2211
Dear Ms. Belaga:
Attached is the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Biological Opinion for the Final Designation of the Massachusetts
Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) issued under the authority of
Section 7(a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Based on
our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, su bmitted
by the Environmental Protection gency, Region 1, and other
available scientific information, NHFS has determined that final
designation of the MBDS will not jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or threatened species under our
jurisdiction. However, disposal activities associated with the
MBDS may adversely affect some of these species. Therefore, NNFS
has developed conservation recommendations to minimize adverse
effects. These recommendations are consistent with those issued
to the Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division on August 7,
1991, for the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project and
include placement of NMFS-approved observers on board disposal
vessels and collection of reliable ambient water quality data for
the MBDS, determination of toxin tissue levels in live,
free—ranging endangered species, and evaluation of the long-term
behavior of sediments disposed of at the MBDS.
Individual disposal projects will continue to be permitted by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, and these
activities will require separate Section 7 consultations. The
effects of the use of the MBDS to endangered and threatened
species under NNFS jurisdiction will be accounted for in th
biological opinions issued for Corps disposal permits.
Accordingly, this biological opinion does not contain an
incidental take statement. Also, please note that the issue of
“capping” is not considered in this biological opinion.
This concludes consultation responsibilities for this action.
However, consultation must be reinitiated if new information
reveals effects of these activities that may affect listed
species or their habitat in a manner or to an extent not
ISTAN1 ADMIN TOF
FOP PS -IE IES
I
-------
previously considered, the identified activities are modified in
a manner that causes an effect to listed species or critical
habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion, or if
another species is listed or critical habitat designated that may
be affected by the proposed activities.
In addition to Section 7(a) (2), which requires agencies to ensure
that proposed projects will not jeopardize the continued
existence of endangered species, Section 7(a) (1) of the ESA
places an additional responsibility on all Federal agencies to
“utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this
Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered
species... .“ NMFS is developing recovery plans for sea turtles
and final plans for the northern right whale and humpback whale
are being reviewed. These plans describe actions deemed
necessary to achieve recovery and include implementation
schedules that identify the Federal agencies best suited to
address each recovery action. NNFS will advise and coordinate
efforts toward achieving the goals of each plan. Copies of the
northern right whale and humpback whale recovery plans will be
forwarded to you by the Northeast Regional Office when they are
available.
I look forward to future cooperation during recovery plan
implementation and section 7 consultations.
Sincerely,
(4 ) William W. Fox, Jr.
Enclosure
-------
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
SECTION 7 CONSULTATION - BIOLOGICAL OPINION
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
ACTIVITY CONSIDERED: Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site:
Final Designation for Ocean Disposal
CONSULTATION CONDUCTED BY: National Marine Fisheries Service
Northeast Region
DATE ISBITED: _____________________
BACKGRO UND
The Headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
initially requested and received from the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NNFS), a list of endangered and threatened
species that may occur near all interim dredged material disposal
sites in U.S. waters in May 1981.
The Northeast Region (HER), NMFS, notified the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, of new information on endangered and
threatened species in June 1982, arid, advised EPA to incorporate
this information into any documents pertaining to designation of
the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS). As the regulatory
authority which manages the disposal site, the Corps of
Engineers, New England Division (Corps), was given responsibility
by EPA to prepare a technical evaluation document to characterize
marine resources that are potentially at risk from continued use
of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS).
On March 27, 1985, the Corps met with NMFS to design the studies
and data collection necessary for the technical evaluation
document. Specific studies were undertaken by the Corps and
NMFS. The technical document prepared from these studies
provided a description of endangered and threatened species,
their habitats and forage species, and the potential impacts o
continued use of the MBDS to endangered and threatened species
(Hubbard et . 1988). Using this information, EPA then released
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EPA 1989) which concluded
that continued use of the MBDS as a disposal site for dredged
material was not likely to significantly impact any endangered
and threatened species, their prey or critical habitat. In a
letter dated November 6, 1989, EPA requested NNFS concurrence
that the designation of the MBDS as a permanent site for
receiving dredged material would not have any significant effect
on endangered or threatened species under the purview of NMFS.
-------
In response to comments by NMFS and other agencies that raised
concerns about the content of this DEIS, a Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EPA 1990) was also released for
review. NNFS considered the information contained in Hubbard
. (1988) and EPA (1989 and 1990) and believes that endangered
and threatened species under its jurisdiction may be affected by
continued use of the MBDS. Therefore, NNFS utilized these
documents, as well as other available information, to develop
this Biological Opinion.
DESCRIPTION OP PROPOSED ACTIVITY
This biological opinion evaluates the desiqnation of the MBDS as
a permanent dump site. Individual disposal projects permitted by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will require separate section 7
consultations.
A. SITE LOCATION
The interim MBDS is centrally located in Massachusetts Bay
(Figure 1) at the northern edge of Steliwagen Basin. The Basin
averages 90m in depth and is situated immediately west of
Steliwagen Bank, the shallow sand bank that forms the eastern
edge of Massachusetts Bay. The center of the MBDS is at 42°25.7’
N and 70°34.0’ W, and is approximately 22 nautical miles east of
Boston. The site is located in water ranging from approximately
60—100 meters deep, and has a circular boundary of 2 nautical
miles in diameter.
Steliwagen Bank, along with Jeffreys Ledge to the north, is an
important area for a diverse group of both demersal and pelagic
marine fauna that support many of the local commercial and
recreational fisheries. The importance of Steliwagen Bank is
embodied in the ongoing proposal to designate the area as a
National Marine Sanctuary (U.S. Department of Commerce 1991).
Relocation of Boundary
As part of permanent designation, EPA proposes (EPA 1990) that
the center of the permanent MBDS be relocated one nautical mile
west to overlap with the Industrial Waste Site (IWS). The IWS
has been used since the 1940s for both authorized and
unauthorized dumping of various industrial wastes, including
explosives, chemicals and low—level radioactive waste.
Intentionally sunken derelict vessels and construction debris
have also been dumped at the IWS. The IWS was last used in 1976
and was formally removed from the list of designated dump sites
on February 2, 1990. EPA’s purposes in moving the current MBDS
to the IWS are twofold. First, it will further the distance from
the Steliwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary preferred boundary
alternative as currently proposed by NOAA. Second, some parties
2
-------
Pigure 1 - MBDS PROJECT AREA
MAINE
BAY
a NAUTICAL .t$ ó
3
-------
have suggested that the shift could provide a “defacto” capping
of the IWS by disposing dredged material which meets the
requirements of testing protocols over contaminated areas.
B. SITE HISTORY
The NBDS has been an EPA approved interim dredged material
disposal site since the early l970s. The site had been used for
unregulated ocean disposal as far back as the 1940s. The Corps
has disposed or permitted the disposal of 2.8 million cubic yards
of dredged material at the MBDS over the last 12 years.
Permitted projects have included materials dredged from harbors,
rivers, and channels throughout the Massachusetts Bay area.
However, the majority of this material (67%) has come from Boston
Harbor. These dredging projects have generated approximately
230,000 cubic yards annually.
C. NATURE OF FINAL DESIGNATION
EPA proposes to designate the MBDS as a permanent disposal area
for receiving dredged material to accommodate regional disposal
needs under authority of Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (MPRSA). Final
designation would identify the MBDS as the regional site to be
used if ocean disposal is chosen as the preferred alternative.
EPA and the Corps will continue to share management and
monitoring responsibilities for the site as described under
Section 103 of the MPRSA. Ocean disposal would be allowed only
when no practicable alternatives are available which have less
adverse environmental impact. EPA and the Corps believe that
dredged material disposal and associated environmental
alterations will be confined to within the circular boundary of
the site (Hubbard , j. 1988; EPA 1989; EPA 1990), by virtue of
permitting regulations, use of a testing protocol, enforcement,
and site inanageruent\monitoring.
Permitting
The Corps is the permitting authority for ocean disposal. Under
final designation, individual dredging projects in the region
will still be considered on a case—by—case basis. EPA has the
obligation of reviewing each permit to ensure that proposed
dumping complies with Ocean Dumping Criteria as set forth in
40 CFR §227.4. These criteria define unacceptable adverse
effects to the marine environment and ecosystem. If EPA
determines that the proposed project will not comply with the
ocean dumping criteria, a permit cannot be issued. NMFS and the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) also review permits;
however, final veto authority resides with EPA. Permits provide
for management of an ocean disposal site by limiting the types
4
-------
and quantities of material disposed, by setting restrictions on
times of disposal, or by requiring capping or containment of
contaminated material.
Corps—approved inspectors monitor all disposal activities by
recording the LORAN-C coordinates at which the barge stops and
the distance to the target disposal buoy. Current Corps permit
requirements specify that disposal must be point discharged so
that any impacts associated with disposal will be restricted to a
spatially limited area and will avoid areas of known
concentrations of containers of toxic chemicals and low-level
radioactive material. Studies by the Corps have estimated the
impact area as having a radius of 400 meters.
Testing Protocol
Under current ocean dumping regulations (40 CFR Subpart M), only
dredged materials that have undergone an evaluation to determine
their acceptability for ocean disposal may be dumped. Criteria
for this evaluation are intended to prevent further degradation
or endangerment of the marine environment from disposal. A
dredged material testing protocol has been developed by EPA and
the Corps, in cooperation with the USFWS, and NNFS to make these
determinations. Materials that do not pass the protocol are not
considered suitable for unconfined ocean disposal. The
guidelines for performing tests on dredged material are described
in the “Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged
Material into Ocean Waters “ (EPA/Corps 1977) and the recent
“Guidance for Performing Tests on Dredged Material to be Disposed
of in Open Waters” (EPA/Corps 1989) and discussed in more detail
below.
The dredged material testing protocol involves a three-tiered
approach to testing materials for the presence of contaminants
and determination of their effects on marine organisms. As
described by the Corps (1990):
Tier I is a review of existing literature and the
physical characteristics of the area to determine the
potential for contamination and the need for chemical
testing. In Tier II testing, bulk chemical analysis of
the material is performed to determine whether
contaminants are present at concentrations that have the
potential for environmental impacts. Tier III uses
biological testing (bioassay and bioaccumulatiOn) to
determine the potential negative impacts of dredged
material disposal on marine organisms.
The choice of reference site sediments to be used as a comparison
to disposal sediments is a key element in Tier III test results.
Conditions of reference site sediments, as described in the DEIS
5
-------
are the following; “The sediments should be mostly free of
contaminants, similar to dredged material in grain size and
represent conditions of the disposal site if dumping had not
occurred.” Sediments that have not passed testing protocols will
be disposed of on land sites.
In addition, confined ocean disposal, known as “capping,” is
being considered by the Corps as a management alternative for the
disposal of materials that do not pass testing protocols. At
this time, NNFS, USFWS, EPA and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
have not determined the envirorunenta2. feasibility of confined
ocean disposal at the MBDS. Accordingly, this biological opinion
considers only the effects of disposal of materials that have
passed testing protocols, and may be disposed without
confinement.
Enforcement
Enforcement of the site regulations is the joint responsibility
of EPA and the Corps. The Corps may revoke or suspend disposal
permits if any conditions of the permit are violated. EPA is
responsible for assessing the civil liability of the violator by
considering the gravity of the violation, prior violations and
the demonstrated good faith of the violator in attempting to
achieve rapid compliance after notification of a violation.
Site Management Monitoring
EPA has primary responsibility for site management, which
integrates permitting, enforcement, monitoring, and data
interpretation to evaluate continually the appropriateness of
ocean disposal in relation to the MPRSA and the Ocean Dumping
Criteria. According to EPA (1989), the purpose of monitoring is
to evaluate the impact of disposal on the marine environment by
comparing the results to a set of baseline conditions.
Monitoring should take into account both short -term effects
immediately observable and monitored before, at,and immediately
following the time of disposal and long-term or progressive
effects measurable only over a period of years and indicated by
subtle changes in selected characteristics of the ecosystem.
Specific criteria for monitoring results given in the ocean
dumping regulations at 40 CFR §228.10 include evaluation of the
following type of effect: “Accumulation of material constituents
(including without limitation, human pathogens) in marine biota
at or near the site.” In addition, these regulations specify
criteria for the categorization of disposal sites. Impact
category i sites may be classified if any of a number of
conditions are met indicating degradation in or near it. These
conditions include the movement of “waste constituents” from the
6
-------
disposal site, their accumulation in the sediments, water column,
or biota of the site, and the consistent identification of toxic
concentrations above am? ient values outside the site more than
4 hours after disposal. If such conditions are found, EPA is
required to limit use of the disposal site until they are reduced
to acceptable levels of impact. Currently the MBDS is considered
a Category II site.
EPA plans to conduct annual monitoring surveys at the MBDS to
determine dredged material distribution and movement (including
resuspension and transport), benthic organism colonization of
dredged material, sediment chemistry, food chain interactions
between benthos and fish of the area, and bioaccumulation of
contaminants in benthic organisms.
LISTED SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT ?.RPAA
The following is a complete list of endangered and threatened
species that may occur within the Massachusetts Bay area:
Endangered
Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus
Fin whale Balaeno tera physalus
Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis
Humpback whale Megaptera novaeanq liae
Northern right whale Eubalaena glacialis
Leatherback sea turtle Derniochelys coriacea
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempi
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostruin
Threatened
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta
There are no species proposed for listing that occur in the
project area, although NIIFS is conducting a status review of the
harbor porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena) . The harbor porpoise also
has been placed on a candidate species list for the ESA. NMFS
has also received a petition to designate Cape Cod Bay as
critical habitat for the right whale. Because of the bay’s
proximity to the disposal site and importance to this highly
endangered whale, the regional effects of disposal at the MBDS
are of special concern to the species.
SPECIES ACCOUNTS
A number of documents submitted to NMFS by EPA and the New
England Division of the Army Corps of Engineers summarize the
general arid MBDS-specif Ic distributions of the above listed
species (Hubbard j,. 1988; EPA 1989: EPA 1990; MDPW 1991,
7
-------
1991a, 1991b, 1991c, & 1991d). MBDS—specific studies focused on
sightings in three 10’ square quadrants of latitude/longitude
which included and were immediately adjacent east and, west to the
disposal site. Information from these and other sources are
summarized below to provide accounts of the listed species that
may occur in the NBDS.
A. The following species are known to occasionally occur in the
project area but are not likely to be adversely affected for
the reasons given below.
Blue Whale
This species is normally distributed from the Gulf of St.
Lawrence/Nova Scotia region northward during spring and summer.
Although fall and winter ranges are unknown, blue whales are
suspected to migrate south to temperate waters at these times.
Blue whales have been sighted recently on four occasions (in 1986
and 1987) in the vicinity of Steliwagen Bank (Clapham 1990;
Jarvis 1990), and were likely feeding on dense aggregations of
kril]. (Clapham 1990). Blue whale presence in the Stellwagen Bank
area in 1986—1987 corresponded to increased sightings of right
and sei whales, which feed on similar prey types.
Because they are rarely observed there, the Stellwagen Bank area
is not considered usual habitat for blue whales, and activities
at the MBDS should not affect them. However, should conditions
which led to the 1986-1987 sightings reoccur, blue whales could
be seen more frequently in the vicinity of Steliwagen Bank and
the MBDS.
Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle
The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle is the most severely endangered sea
turtle in the world. Nesting, which has decreased from the
efforts of an estimated 40,000 individuals in 1947 to 200-750 for
the last 8 years (Meylan 1986), occurs on a single stretch of
beach near Rancho Nuevo, Tarnaulipas, Mexico (Carr 2 .963;
Hildebrand 1963). Adult distribution is largely restricted to
the Gulf of Mexico.
Significant numbers (37 from 1986 through 1987) of juveniles
(10” to 12” in length) regularly strand in Cape Cod Bay in fall
and winter months as a result of cold-stunning. Temperatures
below 5°C are lethal to Kemp’s ridleys. What attracts juveniles
to Cape Cod Bay is probably foraging habitat which supports
benthic crustaceans, their reported prey (Dobie 1961;
Pritchard and Marquez, 1973). The importance of the Cape Cod Bay
habitat to the survival of the species is unknown, although
Morreale aJ . (1989) documented rapid growth (500 grams per
8
-------
month) for juvenile Kemp’s ridleys that spent the summer months
foraging in Long Island Sound.
Disposal of dredged material at the MBDS will probably not
directly affect Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. In the summer,
surface temperatures at the MBDS may reach 17-18°C, and, bottom
temperatures generally remain below 7°C (MDPW 1991b). Because
the latter temperature is within the lethal range for this
benthic feeding species, use of the MBDS as a foraging area is
unlikely. Indirect or additive effects to the general
environmental health of Cape Cod Bay could degrade foraging
habitat. Discussions of these possible effects to Cape Cod Bay
are located in the Assessment of Impacts section of this
document.
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
The loggerhead sea turtle is the most abundant species of sea
turtle occurring in U.S. waters. The species’ winter and early
spring range is south of 37°00’N in estuarine rivers, coastal
bays, and shelf waters of the southeastern United States.
Loggerheads move northward as temperatures increase to above
20°C.. Juvenile and subadult loggerheads occur in southern
Massachusetts waters from midsummer through fall, probably
feeding on crabs and other benthic invertebrates. Between 1980
and 1988, 23 loggerhead strandings were reported in Cape Cod Bay.
Like the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, the activity of the loggerhead
is limited by temperature. Prolonged exposure to water
temperatures below 15°C may result in dormancy, shock and death.
Final designation of the MBDS will probably not directly affect
loggerhead sea turtles for the same reasons as described for
Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, namely low temperatures and lack of
foraging habitat.
Shortnose Sturq’eon
Shortnose sturgeon is an anadromous fish present in many large
rivers in the Northeast (Dadswell j. 1984). The closest
known population to the MBDS is in the Merrimack River (Figure 1)
(Kiefer and Kynard 1989), however, there is no evidence that the
area of the disposal site is utilized by shortnose sturgeon.
Final designation of the MBDS should not affect this species
because consequences of disposal events are not expected to occur
significantly beyond the boundaries of the MBDS (MDPW 199ld).
Except for possible effects to sea turtle habitat in Cape Cod
Bay, designation of the MBDS is unlikely to affect the blue
whale, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle or
9
-------
shortnose sturgeon. Potential effects to Cape Cod Bay are
discussed and may be applied to any sea turtle habitat that may
exist there.
B. The following species are known to utilize the project area
and may be affected as described below.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are found throughout the oceans of the world,
migrating from tropical and subtropical breeding grounds in
winter to temperate and Arctic feeding grounds in summer
(Evans 1987). Several stocks occur in the northwestern Atlantic.
The Gulf of Maine stock migrates from summer feeding grounds off
the coast of New England to winter breeding grounds along the
Antillean Chain of the West Indies, primarily on Silver and
Navidad Banks north of the Dominican Republic. In the Gulf of
Maine, sightings are most frequent from mid-March through
November between 4l N and 43°N, from the Great South Channel
north along the outside of Cape Cod to Stellwagen Bank and
Jeffreys Ledge. Although small numbers of individuals may be
present in this area year-round, including the waters of
Steliwageri Bank, sightings peak in May and August. Distributions
appear to be closely connected to seasonal abundances of the sand
lance Ammodvte spp., a finfish and the current preferred prey of
humpback whales. However, Atlantic herring, mackerel, pollock,
haddock and krill will be taken if abundant and available (NMFS
1990a). Pollock and haddock are considered semi—demersal species
and have been taken occasionally in spring and fall trawis at the
NBDS site (Hubbard g . 1988). When sand lance numbers were
low in the summer of 1986, humpbacks were largely absent from the
area. As sand lance numbers increased, the humpbacks returned to
previously seen numbers by 1988.
Sand lance prey on copepods, and prefer the sloping, gravel
bottom edges of Steliwagen Bank. Therefore, the distribution of
huinpbacks closely follows the perimeter of Steliwagen Bank north
to Jeffreys Ledge. Approximately 150-250 hunpbacks, representing
25-45 percent of the entire Gulf of Maine population use this
area each year (MDPW 1991c). From May to October, two clusters
of humpback whale sightings on Steliwagen Bank are commonly seen.
One is centered along the southwestern perimeter of Stellwagen
Bank between 4210’ and 42 17’N, and the other from the northern
edge of Steliwagen Bank, 42°22’N to 4240’N.
Numerous sightings were recorded for the NBDS and eastern
quadrants of the MBDS—specific studies, and were centered
4 nautical miles to the east of the MBDS. Notably,
distributional maps of humpback whales with calves show four
occurrences within the boundaries of the MBDS and another
10
-------
18 occurrenceS in SteU.wagen Basin. These sightings are
consistent with those of single adults, who have also been
sighted in the MBDS and Steliwagen Basin.
Researchers with the Cetacean Research Unit have observed
juvenile and adult huinpbacks arid right whales subsurface feeding
in the general area of the MBDS and Stellwagen Basin (Weinrich,
pers. comm. 1991). As already stated, Massachusetts Bay sand
lance stocks were scarce in 1986. Nevertheless, juveniles were
observed in Steliwagen Basin with distended throat grooves after
diving, demonstrating feeding attempts at depth. The Cetacean
Research Unit has postulated that although Steliwagen Basin may
represent marginal habitat for adult hu pbacks, juveniles may be
able to utilize the area for feeding because of their lower
energy requirements (Belt . 1989).
Northern Right Whale
The northern right whale is the most endangered of the large
whales. Devastated by whaling in the 19th and 20th centuries,
remnant populations still exist in the Pacific and northwestern
Atlantic oceans. The northwestern Atlantic stock is thought to
number approximately 350 animals (NMFS 1990b). Researchers have
identified five known “high—use” areas in coastal Florida and
Georgia, the Great South Channel east of Cape Cod, Massachusetts
and Cape Cod Bays, the Bay of Fundy and the Browns and Baccaro
Banks off Nova Scotia. The coastal Florida and Georgia area is
used for calving and overwintering while the other areas
represent spring/summer/fall feeding and breeding grounds. Other
wintering areas may exist, but are as yet unidentified.
Northern right whales are regularly present in Massachusetts and
Cape Cod Bays from mid-February through May, feeding on dense
plankton blooms, often the copepod Calanus fininarchiUs . These
sightings peak in April and May. However, by mid-June most
individuals have either travelled east to the Great South Channel
or north to the aforementioned feeding and breeding grounds.
However, recent information demonstrates the ability of
individuals to move great distances (Bruce Mate, unpublished
data). Therefore, right whales may appear in the Massachusetts
and Cape Cod Bays areas in any season.
The occurrence and behavior of northern right whales have been
studied in Cape Cod Bay in detail since the early 1980’s. Prior
to 1986, right whale sightings were concentrated in the
northeastern sector of Cape Cod Bay. Though less numerous,
sightings have occurred in both the central and eastern quadrants
of the MBDS—specif ic study area. As described for the sei whale,
this situation changed dramatically in 1986. sightings by
researchers studying Cape Cod Bay showed both an increase in the
number of right whales sighted and an expansion of their range.
11
-------
The reasons for this unusual occurrence are the same as described
for sei whales and the same conclusion can be drawn concerning
the periodic importance of the area as a feeding ground for right
whales. However, right whales appear to consistently utilize
areas adjacent to the MBDS.
Fin Whale
Fin whales are the most abundant and widely distributed of the
baleen whales that occur in the Gulf of Maine. Some are present
during all seasons in the area extending from the southern base
of the Great South Channel, northwest along the 50 fathom contour
into the southwestern Gulf of Maine over Stellwagen Bank, to
Jeffreys Ledge. Sightings are most numerous in spring and summer
with peaks in May and July and occur at Jeffreys Ledge,
Steliwagen Bank and the Great South Channel.
Observed distribution of fin whales indicate that they may occur
immediately in and around the disposal site. Most sightings were
to the north and east of the site in spring and summer. However,
some sightings were noted to the west of the site in the period
from January to April and could have indicated inshore feeding on
herring and Atlantic mackerel. Fin whales feed in response to
the general abundance of a variety of schooling fishes (including
herring and Atlantic mackerel) and euphausiids (Gaskin 1982). In
the last 10-15 years they have been observed utilizing American
sand lance ( Ajinnodytes spp.) in the Gulf of Maine. Sand lance
abundance has varied in the area and low numbers of fin whale
sightings from 1984 to 1987 may have been linked to low sand
lance densities. However, changes in fin whale sightings were
not as drastic as those for humpback, sei, and right whales.
Thus, they may be more successful at exploiting alternative prey
species.
Sei Whale
Sei whales are found in most oceans, excluding tropical and
extreme polar seas. Southern New England shelf—edge waters are
presently considered the southern limit of the feeding range for
a stock of sei whales centered off eastern Nova Scotia.
Sightiflgs of f the northeastern United States occur mostly from
April through August in the area extending from the base of the
Great South Channel between the 50 and 1000 fathom contours,
north along the shelf edge through the Northeast Channel into the
deeper basins of the Gulf of Maine.
Sei whales were reported on only three occasions in Massachusetts
and Cape Cod Bays from 1975-1985. Then, in the summer of 1986,
this situation changed dramatically. Sei and right whale
sightings were common while humpback and fin whale sightings
declined. Sei whale sightings in the MBDS area in 1986 were
12
-------
common in these studies. Their distribution indicates that sei
whales utilized Steliwagen Basin and deeper areas of
Massachusetts Bay, including the immediate vicinity of the MBDS,
rather than Steliwagen Bank.
The reason species abundances changed in 1986 is believed related
to changes in prey abundance. Sei and right whales are plankton
feeders, preferring calanoid copepods (although sal whales have
been observed feeding on finfish in other regions). Humpback and
fin whales are piscivorous (although both species have been
reported feeding on euphausiids), and currently utilize sand
lance in the Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays areas. In l986 the
abundance of sand lance was reduced significantly while the
abundance of the copepod ( Calanus finmarchius ) reached a maximum
in the Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bays areas. Although the
1986 species’ distribution is apparently rare, it is clear that
Steliwagen Basin and waters of the MBDS may at times be an
important feeding area for sei whales.
Leatherback Sea Turtle
The species is widely distributed throughout the oceans of the
world, nesting on tropical beaches and feeding in temperate
waters on its preferred prey, jellyfish. The largest of sea
turtles, leatherbacks are able to maintain body temperatures
7 to l7 C above ambient (Co].leen Coogan, per. comm.), possibly
by virtue of their size and an arrangement of blood vessels in
the skin and flippers that enables retention of heat generated
during swimming.
In the northwest Atlantic, leatherbacks have been reported in New
England and as far north as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
Although their tolerance of low temperatures is greater than for
other sea turtles, leatherbacks are generally absent from
northern waters in winter and spring.
Most sightings and reported strandings in this area have occurred
from July through early November. Inshore seasonal movements in
New England may be linked to those of the jellyfish Cvanea
capillata . Because significant numbers of these jellyfish may
periodically occur in the MBDS, the area could be utilized by
leatherbacks for foraging. In addition, individuals may transit
the area during seasonal migrations, or when seeking prey.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS
A. VESSEL TRAFFIC
The possibility of disposal—associated vessel traffic resulting
in collisions with endangered and threatened species has been
assessed. The draft northern right whale and humpback whale
13
-------
recovery plans cite ship collisions as known and potential human
impacts to these species. The right whale’s behavioral
characteristics of resting, skim feeding, and mating at the
surface makes them particularly susceptible to ship collisions.
Twenty percent of the known right whale mortalities from 1970 to
1989 were attributed to ship collisions (NXFS 1990b). In
addition, slightly more than 7 percent of 168 right whales in the
New England Aquarium’s photographic catalog show evidence of ship
strikes (Kraus 1990).
In general, whales utilizing the region show tolerance of boat
traffic (Beach & Weinrich 1989). Northern right and humpback
whales engaged in feeding and courtship behaviors appear to be
unaware of vessel action around them. While this may lower the
probability of harassment, it may also result in whales being
less wary and more susceptible to ship strikes. Leatherback sea
turtles are also known to have been killed by collisions with
ships (MDPW 1991b).
MDPW (1991) reports that tugs and barges are slow moving,
typically travelling at around 5 knots. Listed species in the
area may be aware of, and able to avoid these vessels. In
addition, the Corps plans to familiarize on—board inspectors with
Northeast Region guidelines for the operation of vessels in the
vicinity of endangered whales. Observations by trained
inspectors and vessel crews should further minimize the
possibility of collisions. Therefore, the possibility of vessel
strikes to endangered and threatened species as a result of
disposal—associated operations should not significantly impact
any endangered and threatened species in the project area.
Acoustical disturbance is another potential impact of vessel
traffic that is discussed in the northern right whale and
humpback draft recovery plans. Although data are lacking,
o’bservations have suggested that right whales do not react to low
frequency engine noise or minor vessel maneuvering. Conversely,
cows with calves and single long—diving individuals have been
observed to avoid vessels. Therefore, they may be more aware of
vessels in the area and susceptible to acoustical harassment.
Although the potential for acoustical disturbance exists, it is
unlikely to adversely impact endangered and threatened species in
the area. Disposal—associated vessel traffic will be occurring
to the west of known whale concentration areas, and Corps-
approved inspector’s adherence to HER guidelines concerning the
operation of vessels in the vicinity of whales should further
minimize this impact.
14
-------
B. WATER QUALITY
EPA estimates that future disposal needs for the Boston area will
be similar to historic levels of about 3 million cubic yards per
decade or 230,000 cubic yards per year. However, some projects,
such as the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project (CA/THT)
and the Corps’ Boston Harbor Improvement Project will dispose
large volumes of material at higher rates than historic levels
(1.28 million cubic yards over a 4-year period and 2.25 cubic
million yards over a 2-year period, respectively). CA/THT
materials to be disposed of at the MBDS have passed testing
protocols. Conversely, the Corps is proposing that some
materials from the Boston Harbor Improvement Project that did not
pass the testing protocol be disposed of at the NBDS and capped
with sediments that have passed testing protocols. CA/THT
materials were evaluated extensively for their environmental
effects in MDPW (1991, 1991a, 199Th, 1991c, & 1991d). Because
they may occur concurrently, the combined effects of the CA/THT
project and the Boston Harbor Improvement Project were also
analyzed. N)tPS considers these evaluations to be the best
current available information regarding the effects of disposal
to water quality of the MBDS and discusses their results in this
Biological Opinion as an indication of possible water quality
effects that may result from continued use of the ?4BDS. Because
capping is an unresolved issue, the disposal of materials that
have not passed testing protocols are not assessed for their
potential effects to water quality.
In their assessment of proposed disposal activities, MDPW
reviewed existing information provided in Hubbard r . , 1988.
Studies of the release of sediments from scows, indicated that
the chemical and physical impacts to the water column are short
in duration and spatially restricted to the boundaries of the
MBDS. While most of the material descends to the bottom, about
5 percent may remain in the water column, dispersing according to
prevailing currents.
Although the testing protocol is useful for determining sediments
with contamination levels above background or low conditions, it
does not indicate that sediments are completely contaminant-free,
or evaluate additive impacts with the environment or other
disposal activities. Chemical data used for sediment samples
from the Third Harbor Tunnel, Fort Point Channel and Charles
River in Boston are discussed in MDPW (1991d) and Bryan j.
(1991). Analyses report levels of contamination for arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, copper, nickel, zinc, PCBs
(polychiorinated biphenyls) and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons) in MDPW (1991).
To characterize additionally the water quality impacts of the
CA/THT, these levels were applied to the ADDANS (Automated
15
-------
Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Management System) DTJ}!P model
and used to simulate suspended solids, water column chemistry and
deposition of solids. Details of the model’s runs including
assumptions and conditions are described in MDPW (1991) and MDPW
(1991d). Results are summarized in the following paragraphs.
Total suspended solids (TSS) were estimated for mean current
conditions for three 3,000 cubic yards barges per day (CA/THT
alone) and eight 3,000 cubic yards barges per day (C2 /ThT
combined with Boston Harbor Improvement Project). Simulations
indicate that maximum concentrations of TSS occur in the lower
15 feet of the water column and are brief in duration, with the
majority of sediments settling within 3 hours after a dump event.
No material was found to ascend into the upper 100 feet of the
water column following rapid descent to the bottom. Multiple
dump events result in oscillating concentrations, from a maximum
of 929 mg/i to a minimum of 0.8 mg/i. For a single disposal
event, a maximum TSS concentration of 929 mg/i occurs 13 minutes
after each dump in the lower 15 feet of the water column. Within
1 hour after the dump, TSS concentrations are 47 mg/i. The
maximum increase in TSS at the site boundary is predicted to be 2
mg/i above a background level of 1 mg/i in the lower 15 feet of
the water column. Multiple dump events do not differ
significantly from single dumps because the majority of sediments
settle within 3 hours. Disposal vessels will not be releasing
sediments simultaneously or within 3 hours of another vessel.
MDPW (1991) cites empirical data collected from the disposal of
3,000 cubic yards of dredged material which support the
predictions of the model. In that study, the dredged material
was observed to descend rapidly in a narrow column. TSS were
about 39 mg/i within 20 minutes of disposal and 5—12 mg/i forty
minutes after disposal. At these levels, TSS levels should be
indiscernible from background approximately 15 miles from the
MBDS.
Water column chemistry was simulated by the ADDAMS DU1 ’IP model
using three separate approaches. The first, and most
conservative approach, used results from bulk sediment
contaminant concentrations analysis. This approach is
conservative because it assumes that all contaminants bound to
sediment particles will be released to the water column. The
second approach used results from elutriate analysis and is an
indication of dissolved contaminant levels that would be expected
in the dredged material. The third approach combined information
from elutrjate simulations with estimates of contaminant
concentrations that would be associated with sediment particles
that remain in suspension indefinitely. Degradation processes
such as photolysis, volatilization and changes to contaminants by
bacterial action or combination with other chemicals were not
16
-------
evaluated in any of the three approaches because they were
considered insignificant.
Simulations were run for copper (based on bulk sediment analysis)
and PCBS (based on elutriate analysis). Copper and PCBs were
determined to be the contaminants requiring the greatest dilution
to meet EPA ’s chronic water quality criteria. The biological
assessment explains that simulations are needed only for these
contaminants because predicted concentrations for other
contaminants would be proportional to their concentrations in the
sediments, as revealed by testing.
Bulk Sediment Analysis of Copper
Simulations of copper concentrations based on the first approach,
using bulk sediment analysis, were run for various dump sizes,
frequencies and current conditions (mean and high) for both
surface (140.8 mg/kg) and deeper materials (26.5 mg/kg). The
surface materials, which have not passed testing protocols, are
not considered here. Mean currents transport the plume to the
boundary of the dump site slowly and result in higher
concentrations within the site boundary. High currents transport
sediments faster from the site, but result in concentrations of
almost an order of magnitude lower.
This simulation shows that EPA chronic and acute toxicity
criteria for copper (both 2.9 ugh) are exceeded by deeper
materials in the plume ceritroid for mean currents when disposing
of three barges containing 1,300 cubic yards (oscillating between
.05 and 60.42 ugh) and eight barges containing 3,000 cubic yards
(oscillating between 1.51 and 203.27 ugh) and for high currents
when disposing of eight barges containing 3,000 cubic yards
(oscillating between .09 and 158.1 ugh). EPA acute and chronic
criteria for copper are not exceeded for these or any other
conditions at the site boundary. Simulated concentrations
represent levels above background. The results indicate that
high levels of copper will be present in the water column for
short periods of time. However, they are largely an indication
of contaminants bound to sediments that settle to the bottortt and
should therefore be unavailable to listed species.
Elutriate Analysis PCBs
Simulations of PCB concentrations, based on the second approach
using elutriate analysis, were run for a single 3,000 cubic yards
disposal event under mean current conditions. The PCB
concentration of 9.11 ugh used in this analysis was determined
for surface material only. PCBs were not determined for deeper
native sediments because they should be free of anthropogen -c
contamination. Results estimate a peak cs concentration within
17
-------
the plume center to be 0.0014 ug/l above background approximately
1 hour after disposal and 0.0004 ugh approximately 2 hours after
disposal. Peak concentration at the boundary was 0.001 ugh
above background. These values are below the chronic and acute
EPA water quality criteria for PCBs of 0.03 and 10 ugh,
respectively. Similar simulations were run for copper and the
other analyzed contaminants with no violations of water quality
criteria. Thus, dissolved levels of contaminants should be low
and of short duration.
Combined Elutriate/Suspended Solids Analysis of Copper
Simulations of copper concentrations based on the third
analytical approach, which combined elutriate data with estimates
of solids that remain suspended indefinitely, were run for
surface and deeper materials. This approach provided a more
realistic view of contaminants to be expected in the water
column. The maximum copper concentration predicted was 0.3 ug/i.
above background for surface material and was unaffected by dump
rate. This analysis shows that even if dissolved levels of
contaminants are combined with those of indefinitely suspended
sediments, they will still be low and of short duration.
Deposition Suspended Solids
Finally, the ADDANS DUMP model was used to estimate the
deposition of transported suspended solids. A simulation which
considered sand, silt, and clay behavior following a single
3,000 cubic yards dump event determined that sand would quickly
settle while silt and clay would remain suspended and contribute
to deposition within and beyond the MBDS boundary. Deposition
rates for sand and silt were estimated as 0.003 mm each at
7,500 feet, and <0.00003mm each at 15,000 feet from the dump
site. The total theoretical contribution from the CA/THT was
estimated as 0.2mm at 15,000 feet and should not be discernable
from ambient depositional rates of 1-2 mm/year in Steliwagen
Basin, where oceanographic conditions would cause most of the
material to settle. Because Stellwagen Bank is subjected to
higher energy current velocities, it is unlikely that fine clay
or silt particles would accumulate in this area. Materials that
accumulate within the MBDS will be colonized by benthic organisms
(polychaete worms, bivalves) whose activities might resuspend
small amounts of sediments. The combination of their contaminant
levels, resuspension to no more than a very thin layer above the
bottom, and lack of strong currents to carry them renders this
consideration of insignificant environmental effect to endangered
and threatened species.
18
-------
Conclusions on Water and Sediment Quality
Simulations do not accurately assess additive water quality
contaminant levels based on ambient contaminant concentrations at
the MBDS. Ambient water quality data collected by the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) at a site 2.7
nautical miles west of the MBDS buoy and at the MBDS by Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) are presented in
MDPW (1991d). Although the MWRA data are useful as a control to
compare MBDS ambient levels, it should not be used to assess MBDS
ambient water quality because of possible localized effects of
disposal activities and use of the historical IWS, 1 nautical
mile to the west of the NBDS. SAIC data are not considered
reliable because of high detection limits and the fact that SAIC
filtered copper concentrations were often higher (3 ug/l) than
for unfiltered samples (<2 ugh). Nevertheless, the lack of
credible water quality data for the MBDS limits complete
assessment of water quality impacts.
Water quality impact simulations indicate that suspended
sediments and contaminants which might come in contact with
endangered species, either through uptake by the skin or
swallowing of water, would occur at low levels for short periods
of time and would be restricted to the boundaries of the MBDS.
Furthermore, the probability of an endangered species
encountering a disposal plume is extremely low. Efforts on the
part of the Corps to avoid dumping in the presence of endangered
species when they do occur within the MBDS boundary should
further reduce endangered species contact with disposal plumes or
rock. Dispersed sediments and contaminants will travel beyond
the boundaries of the MBDS and may be reduced to insignificant
levels. Steliwagen Bank and Cape Cod Bay, both important
endangered species feeding areas are located about 4 to 5
nautical miles to the east-northeast and 22 miles south-southeast
from the MBDS, respectively. By th€ model’s predictions, total
suspended solids, contaminant concentrations and sediment
deposition should be diluted (MDPW 1991d).
C. PREY INTERACTIONS:
Phytoplankton and Zooplanktort
Zooplankton are utilized directly by right whales, sei whales,
and fin whales and both phytoplankton and zooplankton are the
first components of marine food chains that support all species.
The effects of disposal activities to plankton is described in
Hubbard, j. (1988).
Phytoplankton in the disposal plume will be exposed to shear
stress and abrasion from sediment particles and may become
entrained in the plume and carried below the euphotic zone.
19
-------
Temporarily high levels of TSS will reduce light penetration and
lower phytoplarikton productivity, known to be affected at TSS
levels of 10 mg/i. Phytoplankton will, also be exposed to
elevated levels of contaminants and nutrients which cause direct
mortality or stimulate growth, respectively. Because disposal
plumes will be of short duration (not greater than 3 hours) and
restricted spatially (estimated at 2.1 percent of the total
surface area of the MBDS), phytoplankton should not be
significantly reduced in abundance.
Zooplankton will also be exposed to shear stress, abrasion,
entrainment, and elevated concentrations of TSS and contaminants
in the disposal plume. A study of the neritic copepod Acartia
tonsa showed that TSS above 50 mg/i may reduce prey ingestion
rates. Toxins may be assimilated by zooplankton via direct
absorption or ingestion of contaminated phytoplankton. As with
phytoplanicton, these effects will be limited in duration and
areal distribution and should not significantly affect endangered
species by lowered abundance or contamination of their prey.
Finfish
Humpback and fin whales feed on a variety of small schooling
fishes including Atlantic herring, mackerel, pollock, haddock
and, primarily in the Gulf of Maine, American sand lance.
Fish eggs and larvae may be affected by shear forces or abrasion
during disposal operations. Demersal eggs and larvae near the
disposal point could be killed by direct burial in disposal
sediments or siltation. Adult fish may be exposed to elevated
turbidity and contaminants, the latter of which they may uptake
through their skin or gills.
American sand lance and Atlantic herring do not spawn in the
vicinity of the MBDS, preferring the sand and gravel substrate
that exist on Steliwagen Bank. Nevertheless, planktonic larvae
of American sand lance are abundant in the area from January to
May, Atlantic mackerel May to June, and Atlantic herring
September to December. Data collected using submersibles and
trawl gear have shown that semi-demersal larval and adult sand
lance occur at the MBDS although the area is not considered their
prime habitat. Adults of the pelagic herring and mackerel and
semi-demersal pollock and haddock also occur in the MBDS.
The MBDS is not considered an important feeding area for
endangered species or their finfish prey. Although disposal
activities may affect some finfish resources that endangered
species utilize, this should not be significant given the limited
extent of disposal activities. A possible exception may be
juvenile humpback whales. Cessation of disposal activities when
20
-------
endangered species are observed feeding in the immediate area of
the disposal point should further minimize these impacts.
Jellyfish
Jellyfish, a major food source for leatherback sea turtles, are
abundant seasonally in Massachusetts Bay. Presumably, these
organisms would be subjected to impacts similar to those for
plankton and finfish. While these pelagic drifters may
occasionally occur at the MBDS, it would represent episodic
events that are unlikely to be significantly affected by the
limited spatial and temporal scope of disposal operations.
Mariine Debris
The accumulation of marine debris in Massachusetts waters has
become a threat to wildlife. The 1989 Massachusetts “Coastweeks”
beach clean—up produced over 20 tons of plastic debris from the
Commonwealth’s coastline. Due to the peculiarities of ocean
currents, marine debris remains circulating in Massachusetts and
Cape Cod Bays. This debris, especially plastics, has been
documented as a serious threat to cetaceans and sea turtles
through ingestion or entanglement, either of which may cause
mortality. For example, a number of stranded leatherback sea
turtles have been found with plastic bags, which they may mistake
for jellyfish, in their stomachs (NMFS, SEFC, unpublished data).
Vessel activity resulting from MBDS disposal activities at the
MBDS may add to the problem from the disposal of normally
generated ship wastes in the area. As of July 31, 1990,
international regulations promulgated by the MARPOL Annex V and
implemented by the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act prohibit the dumping of plastics at sea. Vessels over 26
feet in length must display a MARPOL V placard and vessels over
40 feet in length must have a waste management plan. By
following the MARPOL Annex V guidelines, vessels conducting MBDS
disposal operations would minimize adverse effects to threatened
and endangered species from marine debris.
D. BIQACCUHtJLATION
Endangered cetaceans may be particularly susceptible to the
bloaccuinulation of contaminants. Harbor porpoise in Scotland and
the Bay of Fundy apparently carry excessive concentrations of
dieldrin and DDT residues in their fat—containing tissues,
(Holden and Marsden 1967; Gaskin, Hoidrinet, and Frank 1971 and
1976). Levels were high for males and immature or resting
females and low for pregnant and lactating females suggesting
direct transfer to young. Other lipophilic organochiorine
contaminants, such as PCBs, may thus pose an elevated threat to
cetaceans.
21
-------
In a study of PCB metabolism in small cetaceans, it was found
that PCB metabolic capacity “was extremely low as compared to
those of birds and terrestrial mammals”, implying “long-term
accumulation and possible reproductive toxicity of persistent
organochiorines in these animals.” (Tanabe 1988). A
causal relationship between PCBs and lowered reproductive success
in harbor seals has been shown by Reijnders (1986).
It is currently impossible to conduct a controlled experiment of
this kind on large whales. However, PCB contamination in whales
may lead to similar effects as in seals. Contaminants such as
PCBs and metals have also been found in the leatherback sea
turtle (Eckert and Eckert 1990). In addition to reduced
reproductive potential, contaminants are suspected to cause
iminunosuppress ion and affect overall health especially when
animals are under high stress.
Materials that have passed testing protocols should have low
concentrations of heavy metals. Their low concentrations
combined with the lack of evidence that any endangered species
significantly utilize, either directly or indirectly, the benthic
fauna of the I4BDS renders the threat of bioacuminulation through
sediments negligible.
As stated in MDPW (1991) the only possible route of contamination
to endangered species would be through water column interactions
leading from phytoplankton to zooplankton to whales (right, sei,
and fin), from zooplankton to finfish (primarily sand lance) to
whales (fin and humpback), or from zooplankton and/or fish to
jellyfish to leatherback sea turtles. For materials that have
passed testing protocols, and will be in the water column for
spatially limited short periods of time, as evidenced by the
model, the potential for significant bioaccuinulation in
endangered species from water column interactions is remote.
CUNULATIVE IMPACTS
A. VESSEL TRAFFIC
A number of non-Federal activities add to vessel traffic of the
area. Commercial shipping traffic is estimated at 1200 ship
crossings per year with an average of three per day (U.S.
Department of Commerce 1991). About 20 whale watch companies
representing 40 to 50 boats conduct several thousand trips from
April to September, with the majority of effort in the summer
season. More than 280 commercial vessels fish on Stellwagen
Bank. Sportfishing contributes more than 200 vessels per day
from May to September. In addition, an unknown number of private
recreational boaters frequent Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.
While the combination of these activities may cause sublethal
effects to endangered and threatened species that could prevent
22
-------
or slow a species’ recovery, such effects are currently unknown.
Ship strikes have been identified as a significant mortality
factor to the northern right whale (NNFS 1990b).
a. WATER QUALITY
Previous illegal and unregulated dumping of toxic chemical and
low level radioactive waste containing barrels at the historic
IWS, located 1 nautical mile west of the MBDS may affect water
quality at the site. The impacts of barrel seepage or release of
chemicals when trawlers break them open incidental to
entanglement in nets is unquantified.
In addition, atmospheric contributions of contaminants such as
PCBs will contribute to the levels at the MBDS. Sources of PCB
contamination include atmospheric releases from improperly dumped
electrical equipment. An estimated 98 percent of the PCBs
entering the ocean come from the atmosphere and the remaining
2 percent through river runoff (Clark 1989).
Reliable ambient water quality data are needed to accurately
assess the cumulative effects of future disposal activities.
C. PREY INTERACTIONS
In addition to illegally dumped marine debris, cumulative impacts
from non—Federal actions to prey of endangered species may
include indirect impacts from those mentioned for water quality
and bioaccuinulation sections of this assessment of impacts.
D. BICACCUM JLATION
Past illegal and unregulated dumping at the historic IWS and
unregulated atmospheric or other non—point source inputs of
contaminants such as lead and PCBs may contribute to
environmental contamination resulting in bioaccumu].ation in
endangered species. Bioaccumulation of contaminants in
endangered species cannot be adequately evaluated until more
information is obtained on existing or background toxin levels in
living, free-ranging individuals. NMFS remains concerned about
the possible cumulative effects of adverse impacts to endangered
and threatened species and will continue to call for monitoring
of the species to identify any downward trends.
CONCLUSIONS
?ThIFS concludes that final designation of the MBDS is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or
threatened species under its purview. The following factors form
the basis for that conclusion. However, additional information
is necessary to assure that the basis for this determination
23
-------
remains valid. Appropriate monitoring and management programs
and additional studies are needed, as described in the
Conservation Recommendations.
(1) Current distribution and abundance of humpback, fin, sei,
and right whales and their known prey indicate significant high
use of Steliwagen Bank and adjacent areas rather than those of
the MBDS or IWS, located approximately 4 to 6 nautical miles to
the west. Although leatherback sea turtles and their prey may
occasionally utilize MBDS waters, that use is not considered
critical to their survival. Although some juvenile humpback
whales may feed in Stellwagen Basin and the waters of the MBDS,
rapid descent of sediments through the water column and Corps’
monitoring which restricts disposal when whales are in the area
should prevent adverse impacts to these animals. The blue whale,
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and shortnose
sturgeon do not occur in the MBDS area with enough frequency to
be affected by disposal activities.
(2) This Biological Opinion considers ocean disposal only for
those materials that pass the testing protocol designed to
determine suitability for ocean dumping. Through a disposal
model simulation of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel
project, a relatively large undertaking, the effects of disposal
on total suspended solids, water quality, prey, and suspended
solid deposition was found to be of short duration and limited
generally to the boundaries of the NBDS. Areas of importance to
endangered species that are adjacent to the MEDS such as
Steliwagen Bank and Cape Cod Bay are not expected to receive
significant amounts of materials. Although listed species may
swallow or absorb small amounts of these contaminants through
their skin, the levels should be insignificant.
(3) Existing regulations for ocean dumping and MMFS guidelines
for the intentional approach of marine mammals and proposed
Corps’ management of disposal activities should minimize impacts
from vessel traffic, marine debris and direct impacts of disposal
activities. Close Corps monitoring, with EPA oversight, will
further ensure that disposal is limited to designated buoys in
the MBDS area.
REINITIATION OP CONSULTATION
Reinitiation of formal consultation is required if: (1) New
information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not
previously considered; (2) the identified action is subsequently
modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species or
critical habitat that was not considered in this opinion; or (3)
a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may
be affected by the identified action.
24
-------
CONSERVATION RECONNEIJDATIONS
In addition to Section 7(a)(2), which requires agencies to ensure
that proposed projects will not jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species, Section 7(a) (1) of the ESA places an
additional responsibility on all Federal agencies to: “utilize
their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by
carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered
species.. ...” NI4FS is developing recovery plans for sea turtles,
and final plans for the northern right whale and humpback whale
are being reviewed. These plans describe actions deemed
necessary to achieve recovery, and include implementation
schedules that identify the Federal agencies best suited to
address each recovery action. NMFS will advise and coordinate
efforts toward achieving the goals of each plan. Copies of the
northern right whale and humpback whale recovery plans will be
forwarded to you by the Northeast Regional Office when they are
available.
NNFS recommends that the following conservation measures be
implemented to reduce adverse impacts to listed species. Similar
measures were issued in the August 7, 1991, Biological Opinion to
the Corps and Federal Highway Administration for the Central
Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project. NNFS considers these
recommendations applicable to all disposal projects that may be
conducted at the MBDS. Thus, EPA should use its review authority
to ensure that all permits issued by the Corps include
conservation recommendations one through five. Additionally, a
cooperative effort between EPA, the Corps, NNFS, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and all other agencies involved with potential
environmental degradation of the MBDS is required to accomplish
conservation recommendations six and seven. EPA should be the
lead agency for these long-term studies.
(1) Disposal activities associated with the MBDS may result in
harassment, vessel collisions and exposure of endangered and
threatened species to falling sediments (with small levels of
contamination) and rock. in addition, sediments may affect some
phytoplankton, zooplankton and fish species that are utilized by
endangered species.
To minimize these risks, NMFS-approved observers should be on
board disposal vessels during all disposal operations to ident_fy
and report the presence of listed species in the vicinity of the
MBDS. Disposal vessels should not intentionally approach listed
species closer than 100 feet when in transit. When species are
present in the MBDS, vessels should, except when precluded by
safety considerations, follow the advice of the on-board
NNFS-approved observer to avoid direct impacts to individuals
when releasing sediments at the disposal point. The on-board
25
-------
NMFS-approved observer should utilize the following guidelines to
determine if disposal should be allowed in the presence of listed
species. If listed species are sighted between a distance equal
to twice the d isposal vessel length and the disposal point, then
release of Sediments or rocks should be delayed until the animals
move away from the disposal point. An alternative disposal buoy
may be used, if available, when animals do not leave the primary
disposal point. If visibility precludes the ability to sight
listed species within a distance equal to twice the disposal
vessel length, activities should be suspended until they improve.
If listed species are sighted between a distance equal to twice
the disposal vessel length and 1500 feet of the disposal point,
the onboard NMFS-approved observer will note the animals’
relative position, direction and speed of swimming, and behaviors
such as feeding or logging of whales to determine if release of
sediments or rock is likely to harass or endanger the animals.
For example, whales actively feeding at or near the disposal
point are more likely to interact with the water column and thus
released sediments than resting whales. If listed species are
sighted at or beyond 1500 feet (1/4 nautical mile) of the
disposal point, release of sediments or rock may proceed.
NNFS is currently reviewing regulations for the intentional
approach of marine mammals. Should these regulations be
implemented with stricter approach distances than Northeast
Regional guidelines, these conservation recommendations will be
modified accordingly.
(2) EPA and Corps personnel in charge of disposal monitoring
should be in contact with NER Protected Species Staff regarding
endangered species distributions and abundances in the region
during disposal operations.
(3) Compliance with MARPOL V and the Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, will reduce the effects
of marine debris to listed species. Therefore, all project
vessels over 26 feet in length should be displaying a MARPOL V
sticker. All vessels over 40 feet in length must document their
waste management plan to NMFS.
(4) Monitoring efforts should be implemented to verify the
predictions of the ADDANS DUMP model and ensure that disposal
material remains contained within the MBDS circular boundary.
Highest priority should be given to worst case conditions. Such
data would establish confidence in the model’s use for the MBDS.
(5) Weather conditions may preclude the safe dumping of
materials at the marker buoy. To ensure that disposal effects
will be confined to the MBDS, onboard Corps inspectors should be
given weather guidelines for exercising authority to suspend
disposal operations before leaving port.
26
-------
(6) Information is needed to evaluate sufficiently the additive,
long-term impacts of disposal operations to the water quality of
the MBDS and the Massachusetts Bay in general. EPA should, in
cooperation with the Corps, NNFS and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, conduct studies to adequately characterize the
ambient levels of heavy metals and organics inside the boundaries
of the MBDS and throughout Massachusetts Bay.
(7) All agencies involved in activities that either contribute
to the existing, or may add to the contaminant load in the
Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay system, should be involved in
a long-term testing program to monitor accumulated levels of key
contaminants in free-ranging endangered species. Historic tissue
samples should also be tested when available to determine
background levels of these chemicals.
INCIDENTAL TAKE
Section 7(b) (4) of the ESA requires that when an agency action is
found to comply with Section 7(a) (2), NMFS will issue a statement
specifying the impact of incidental taking of endangered species,
providing reasonable and prudent measures necessary to minimize
impacts, and setting forth the terms and conditions that must be
followed.
The action of final designation of the MBDS should not result in
the direct take of any endangered or threatened species under
NMFS jurisdiction. Furthermore, all disposal at the MBDS will
involve additional Federal action by the Corps or other action
agencies. Section 7 consultation regarding these actions will
provide incidental take statements for the scope of each project.
Accordingly, an incidental take statement is not being issued for
this Biological Opinion.
27
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Beach, D.W. and Weinrich, M.T. 1989. Watching Whales. Oceanus
32(1): 84—88.
Belt, C.R., Weinrich, M.T., and Schilling, M.R. 1989. Behavioral
development of humpback whales in the southern Gulf of Maine.
Pp. 6 Abstracts of the 8th Biennial Conference on the
Biology of Marine Mammals. Society for Marine Mammalogy,
Monterey, CA.
Bryan, B., Randall, A., and Meininger, C. 1991. (Unreferenced
table for Charles River provided in Draft Memorandum).
Response to NMFS Comments on Biological Assessment for
Dredged Material Disposal at MBDS.
Carr, A.R. 1963. Panspecif Ic reproductive convergence in
Lepidochelys ke3in i . Ergebn. Biol. 26: 298—303.
Claphamr p. 1990. Occurrence and distribution of marine mammals
in the Stel].wagen Bank region: a summary. Center for Coastal
Studies. 8 pp.
Clark, R.B. (Editor) 1989. Marine Mammals at Threat from PCBs.
Marine Pollution Bulletin. 20 (11): 539. (in NEWS section
Volume 20, Number 11).
Dadswell, M.J., Taubert, B.D., Squiers, T.S. Marchette, D. and
Buckley, J. 1984. Synopsis of Biological Data on Shortnose
Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum , LeSueur, 1818. NOAA
Technical Report NMFS 14.
Dobie, J. L. , L, H. Ogren and J. F. Fitzpatrick, 3r. 1961. Food
notes and records of the Atlantic ridley turtle ( Lepidochelys
keinpi ) from Louisiana. Copiea 1961 (1): 109—110.
Eckert, K.L. & S.A. Eckert. 1990. Metal and PCB Concentrations
in the “Harlech” Leatherback. Marine Turtle Newsletter 48:
1—6.
Evans, P.G.H. 1987. The Natural History of Whales and Dolphins.
Christopher Helms Ltd , Kent.
Gaskin, D.E., M. Hoidrinet and R. Frank. 1971. Organochiorine
pesticide residues in harbour porpoises from the Bay of Fundy
region. Nature (London) 233:499—500.
Gaskin, D.E., M. Hoidrinet and R. Frank. 1976. DDT residues in
the bli.tbber of hocoena p ocoena (L.) from Eastern Canadian
waters during the 5—year period from 1969—1973. Scientific
Consultation on Marine Mammals. FAO/AcMRR/MM/SC/40. lop.
28
-------
Gaskin, D.E. 1982. The Ecology of Whales and Dolphins.
Heinemann Educational Books, Ltd. London. 459 pp.
Gusey, W. 1977. Fish and Wildlife of the Georges Bank region.
Shell Oil Company. pp. 113-129.
Hildebrand, H. H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidacion de la
tortuga marina “bra” Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), en la
costa occidental del Gulf o de Mexico. Ciencia, Mex 22 (4):
105—112.
Molden, A.V. and K. Marsden. 1967. Organochi.orine pesticides in
seals and porpoises. Nature 216:1274—1276.
Hubbard, WA., Penko, J.N.., and Fleming, TS. 1988. Site
Evaluation Studies of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site for
Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New England Division.
Jarvis, R. 1990. Recreational fisheries of Steliwageri Bank. :
Proceedings of the Steliwagen Bank Conference, University of
Massachusetts, April 26-27, 1990.
Kiefer and Rynard. 1989. Yearly movements of shortnose and
Atlantic sturgeoris in the lower Merrimack River. Proceedings
of the American Fisheries Society New England chapter
meeting, held December 14, 1989, in Groton, Connecticut.
Kraus, S.D. 1990. Rates and potential causes of mortality in
North Atlantic right whales ( Eubalaena glacialis) . Marine
Mammal Science. 6(4):278—29]..
Meylan, A. 1986. The riddle of the ridley. Natural Mist. 95 (1):
90—96.
I4orreale, S. 3., A. Neylan, B. Baumarin. 1989. Sea turtles in
Long Island Sound, New lork: a historical perspective, in;
Eckert, S. A., K L. Eckert and T. H. Richardson (Compilers).
1989. Proceeding of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle
Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NNFS-
SEFC—232: 121—124.
Massachusetts Department of Public Works. 1991. Biological
Assessment for Disposal of Dredged Material proposed at the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site for the Central Artery Thnnel
Project. MDPW, 1 South Station, Boston, Mass., 02110. 14 pp.
+ 4 technical appendices.
Massachusetts Department of Public Works. 1991a. Description of
Dredged Material Disposal at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal
Site. Technical Appendix 1 j Biological Assessment for
Disposal of Dredged Material proposed at the Massachusetts
Bay Disposal Site for the Central Artery Tunnel Project.
29
-------
MDPW, 1 South Station, Boston, Mass., 02110. 14 Pp. + 4
appendices.
Massachusetts Department of Public Works. 1991b. Biota at the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. Technical Appendix 2
Biological Assessment for Disposal of Dredged Material
proposed at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site for the
Central Artery Tunnel Project. MDPW, 1 South Station,
Boston, Mass., 02110. 14 pp. + 4 appendices.
Massachusetts Department of Public Works. 1991c. A
Distributional Assessment of Endangered and Threatened Marine
Mammals and Turtles in the Massachusetts Bay -Cape Cod Areas
with Special Emphasis on the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site.
Technical Appendix 3 j Biological Assessment for Disposal of
Dredged Material proposed at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal
Site for the Central Artery Tunnel Project. MDPW, 1 South
Station, Boston, Mass., 02110. 14 pp. + 4 appendices.
Massachusetts Department of Public Works. l991d. Assessment of
Dredged Material Disposal Events at the Massachusetts Bay
Disposal Site. Technical Appendix 4 Jj Biological Assessment
for Disposal of Dredged Material proposed at the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site for the Central Artery Tunnel
Project. MDPW, 1 South Station, Boston, Mass., 02110. 14
pp. + 4 appendices.
National Marine Fisheries Service. Southeast Fisheries Center.
Sea turtle Stranding and Salvage Network. (Unpublished data).
National Marine Fisheries Service. l990a. Draft National
Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale ( Negaptera
novaearigliae) . Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team
for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring,
Maryland.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1990b. Draft National
Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale ( Eubalaena
glacialis) . Prepared by the Right Whale Recovery Team for
the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring,
Maryland.
Payne, P.M., Wiley, D.N., Young, S.B., Pittman, S., Clapham,
P.J., and Jossi, J.W. 1990. Recent Fluctuations in the
Abundance of Baleen Whales in the Southern Gulf of Maine in
Relation to Changes in Selected Prey. Fishery Bulletin,
88:687—696.
Payne, P.M. and Heinemann, D.W. 1990. A Distributional
Assessment of Cetaceans in the Shelf-Edge Waters of the
Northeastern United States Based on Aerial and Shipboard
Surveys, 1978—1988. Draft presented to National Marine
30
-------
Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole,
Massachusetts.
Payne, PM. and Seizer, L.A. 1986. Marine Mammals, Seabirds and
Marine Turtles in the Gulf of Maine and Massachusetts Bay
with Special Emphasis on the Locations of the Foul—Area
Disposal Site and the Cape Arundel Disposal Site. Prepared
by Manomet Bird Observatory Manomet, MA and presented to
Sanford Ecological Services, Natick, MA.
Pritchard, P.C.H. and R. Marquez. 1973. Kemp’s ridley turtle or
Atlantic ridley. I.U.C.N. Monograph No. 2, Morges,
Switzerland.
Reijnders, P.J.H. 1986. Reproductive failure in common seals
feeding on fish from polluted coastal waters. Nature 324:
456—7.
Tanabe, S., Watanabe, S., Kan, H., and Tatsukawa, R. 1988.
Capacity and Mode of PCB Metabolism in Small Cetaceans.
Marine Mammal Science. 4(2):103—124.
URI. 1982. A Characterization of Marine Mammals and Turtles in
the Mid- and North Atlantic Areas of the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf. Final Report of the Cetacean and
Assessment Program. Prepared by the University of Rhode
Island for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. 1990.
Navigation Improvement Study and Dredge Material Disposal
Plan. Supplement to Feasibility Report. Boston Harbor,
Massachusetts, August, 1990.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. 1991.
Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project. Corps of
Engineers Permit Application. Section 7 Endangered Species
Consultation Biological Assessment. USACOE, 424 Trapelo Road,
Waltham, Mass. 02254—9149. l4pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1991. Stellvagen Bank National
Marine Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Management Plan. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Evaluation of the Continued Use of the
Massachusetts Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site. EPA Region
I, Boston, MA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation of Dredged
Material Disposal Site in Massachusetts Bay. Alternative
Site Screening. EPA Region I, Boston, MA.
31
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers Technical
Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material. 1977.
Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged
Material into Ocean Waters.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, New England Division. 1989. Guidance for
Performing Tests on Dredged Material to be Disposed in Open
Water. EPA DIES, sediment levels for chromium and lead are
higher in MBDS than outside MBDS.
32
-------
APPENDIX D
1991 MONITORING DATA RESULTS
-------
MASSACHUSETTS BAY DISPOSAL SITE
STUDY
U. S. ENVIRONIv NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NARR.AG.ANSETr, RHODE ISLAND
-------
CHEMICAL CONTI NINATION AND ENVIRONMENTALLY RELATED DISEASES
IN AQUATIC ORGANISMS AT THE
MASSACEtJSET S BAY DISPOSAL SITE
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
George R. Gardner
Richard J. Pruell
CONTRIBUTORS
Sandra Baksi
Warren Boothman
Doranne Borsay’
Donald Cobb 1
Jeff Corbin 1
Saro Jayaraman 1
Bruce Reynolds
Paul Yevich
1 Science Applications International Corporation
PROJECT OFFICER
Kyrnberlee Keckler (U.S. EPA Region I, Boston, MA.)
December 31, 1991
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882
-------
CONTEW S
Page
LIST OF TABLES AI 1D FIGURES. ii-iv
INTRODUCTION 1
PART I. THODOLOGY 2-4
Biological Studies 2
Contaminant Studies 3-4
PART II. RESULTS 5-11
Biological Studies 5-7
Contaminant Studies 7-11
CONCLUSIONS 12-13
REFERENCES 14
TABLES 1-43 15-58
FIGURES 1-li.
1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1 Index For Fish Pathology 15
2 Winter Flounder Pathology Master Table 16
3 American Plaice Pathology Master Table 17-18
4 Yellowtail Flounder Pathology Master Table 19
5 Index For Shellfish Pathology 20
6 Sea Scallop Pathology Master Table 21
7 Sea Scallop Pathology Sununary 22
8 Index For Chemical Abbreviations 23
9 Sediment Chemistry I ’2DS: PCB and Pesticide 24
10 Sediment Chemistry DS: PABs 25
11 Sediment Chemistry IWSN: PCB and Pesticide 26
12 Sediment Chemistry IWSN: PAHs 27
13 Sediment Chemistry DS and IWSN: Metals 28
14 Lobster Muscle Chemistry: PCB and Pesticide 29
15 Lobster Muscle Chemistry: PAHs 30
16 Lobster Hepatopancreas Chemistry: PCB and Pesticide. . . .31
17 Lobster Hepatopancreas Chemistry: PAH5 32
18 Lobster Muscie/HepatOpancreaS Chemistry: Metals 33
19 Lobster- Quincy Bay vs. Mass Bay: PCB, Pesticide, PAHs.34
20 Lobster- Quincy Bay vs. Mass Bay: Metals 35
21 Flounder Muscle Chemistry: PCB and Pesticide 36
22 Flounder Muscle Chemistry: PAHs 37
23 Flounder Liver Chemistry: PCB and Pesticide 38
24 Flounder Liver Chemistry: PARs 39
ii
-------
25 Flounder Muscle/Liver Chemistry: Metals .40
26 Flounder- Quincy Bay, Mass Bay, Georges’ Bank: PCB and
Pesticide 4].
27 Flounder- Quincy Bay, Mass Bay, Georges’ Bank: Metals. .42
28 American Plaice Muscle Chemistry: PCB and Pesticide.. . .43
29 American Plaice
30 American Plaice
31 American Plaice
32 American Plaice
33 Scallop Muscle-
34 Scallop Muscle-
35 Scallop Muscle-
36 Scallop Muscle-
37 Scallop Muscle-
Pesticide
Muscle Chemistry: PAHs 44
Liver Chemistry: PCB and Pesticide 45
Liver Chemistry: PA1 s 46
Muscle/Liver Chemistry: Metals 47
Georges’ Bank: PCB and Pesticide 48
Georges’ Bank: PAHs 49
Mass Bay: PCB and Pesticide 50
Mass Bay: PAHs 51
Deployed in Mass Bay: PCB and
52
38 Scallop Muscle- Deployed in Mass Bay: PAHS 53
39 Scallop, Whole Animal- Mass Bay: PCB and Pesticide 54
40 Scallop, Whole Animal- Mass Bay: PAHs 55
41 Scallop, Gut, and Ocean Quahog- Mass Bay: PCB and
Pestic de 56
42 Scallop, Gut, and Ocean Quahog- Mass Bay: PASs 57
43 Bivalve Mollusc Tissue Chemistry: Metals 58
iii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Paae
1 PCB Sum in Lobster Muscle 59
2 PCB Sum in Lobster Hepatopancreas 60
3 PP-DDE in Lobster Muscle 61
4 PP-DDE in Lobster Hepatopancreas 62
S Benzo [ a]pyrene in Lobster Muscle 63
6 Benzo [ alpyrene in Lobster Hepatopancreas 64
7 PCB Sum in Flounder Muscle 65
8 PCB Sum in Flounder Liver 66
9 PP-DDE in Flounder Muscle 67
10 PP-DDE in Flounder Liver 68
11 Flounder Liver Tumors vs Sediment B (alP Concentration at
Mass Bay Foul Area (FA) in Comparison to Georges’ Bank
(GB), Fox Island, RI (Fl), Gaspee Point, RI (GP), Black
Rock Harbor, CT (BRH), Quincy Bay, M (QB), and New
Bedford Harbor, M (NBH) 69
iv
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (bEDS), and Industrial Waste
Site (IWS) coimnonly known as “The Foul Ground” are aquatic
disposal areas for reception of construction and industrial ‘wastes
near Steliwagen Bank in the southern Gulf of Maine nd
Massachusetts Bay. Concern that these waste disposal activities
could lead to ecological risks and possible human health effects
from consumption of contaminated seafood led to a chemical and
biological site characterization by U.S. EPA Region I, and the
Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, Rhode Island CERL-
N). The U.S. EPA research vessel, OSV ANDERSON, supported these
summer of 1991 field survey activities.
This ERL-N study measured the concentration of PCBs, PAHs,
pesticides, and metals in surface sediment samples from 2DS and
IWS, and in edible and non-edible biological tissues of indigenous
fish (Winter Flounder; American Plaice), crustacea (Lobster), and
bivalve molluscs (Sea Scallop; Ocean Quahog). Chemical analysis
were also conducted on sea scallops deployed j situ at both MEDS
and IWS. Pathological examinations of winter and yellowtail
flounder, American plaice, and sea scallops (indigenous and
deployed) were used to appraise the sites for environmentally
related diseases. This ERL-N report summarizes chemistry data for
sediment and animal tissue, and toxic response effects at MEDS and
IWS. Our report also compares some data values for Massachusetts
Bay, Georges’ Bank, and Quincy Bay, Boston Harbor organism and
sediment chemistry, and winter flounder and sea scallop
h.stopathology.
1
-------
THODOLOGY
The study approach followed methodologies developed or modified by
ERL-N research teams in the area of sediment and tissue chemistry,
and gross and cellular pathology in lower animals.
iological Studies
Teleosts: Winter Flounder (n=20), and Yellowtail Flounder (n=1)
were collected near the Industrial Waste Site (IWS) May 13, 1991,
and American Plaice (n=41) were collected June 24, and July 17-
18, 1991. Standard Otter Trawling methods were used to capture
these benthic flatfish.
Invertebrates: Crustaceans and bivalve molluscs collected by otter
trawl and by dredge at DS May 6-8, 1991 included lobster ( Homarus
americanus ) (n=9), Ocean Quahogs ( Arctica islandica ) (n=2), and Sea
Scallop (n=13). In addition, adult Sea Scallop (n=18) were
deployed at three IWS sites in July and recovered in September, and
(n=8) were collected by otter trawl at Georges T Bank during the
July cruise.
Histopathological Protocol:
Teleost and invertebrate tissue fixation and processing followed
guidelines established for use in the ERL-N Lower Animal Pathology
Program. Dietrich’s Fixative was used because of its superior
qualities for teleost tissue fixation and staining, and Hellys was
used with invertebrate tissue for the same reasons.
Winter Flounder and yellowtail were returned to ERL-N live, where
they were measured for total length, weighed to the nearest grain,
fixed in Dietrich’s Fixative, and tissues processed for microscopic
evaluation. American Plaice tissue fixation including initial
processing occurred on-board the OSV Anderson at the time of
collection. Final tissue processing of these animals occurred at
ERL-N upon survey completion. Meristic values for American Plaice
are not reported here since the values had not been recorded at the
time of collection. Sea Scallop from IWS and George Bank were
returned live to ERL-N for tissue fixation, while animals recovered
after deployment at IWS were fixed on-board the OSV Anderson. The
histological tissue processing and staining methods are those
developed for use by the A imed Forces Institute of Pathology, and
ERL-N, or modifications arising from ERL-N methods development.
Histological Endpoints;
The histological assessments focus on portals of chemical entry,
concentration and excretion. Histological accountability includes
the tissues (i.e.; epithelium, connective, muscle, and nervous),
and major internal organs associated with digestive, circulatory,
2
-------
and major internal organs associated with digestive, circulatory,
excretory, endocrine, nervous, and respiratory systems.
Contaminant Studies
Two sediment cores from DS South, and two from IWS North were
taken on the May 6-8, 1991 survey cruise. Thirty biological
organisms for chemical evaluations included lobster (n=9), Ocean
Quahogs (n=2), Sea Scallop {n 3), Winter Flounder (n=9), and
American Plaice (n=4). Sea Scallop chemistry also included animals
deployed at MBDS (n=3), and Georges’ Bank (n=3).
Chemicals measured: Classes of environmental chemicals and
pollutants measured included Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (Chlorinated
pesticides and Polychiorinated biphenyls), Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAH5), and several trace metals.
Analytical Protocol:
Organic Analysis/Sediments
About 10-20 grams of each homogenized wet sediment were added to
30 grams of sodium sulfate, 50 ml of methylene chloride and
internal standards, and the sediment samples were then shaken
overnight. A separate aliquot of the homogenized sample was
weighed prior to and following oven-drying to determine percent
moisture. Following the overnight shaking, the solvent/sample
mixtures were centrifuged and the supernatent collected. Another
SO ml of methylene chloride was added to each sediment, and the
samples were shaken for approximately 6 hours. The samples were
then centrifuged and the supernatent combined with that collected
earlier. Sample extract volumes were reduced under a stream of
nitrogen to approximately 1 in]., exchanged to hexane and treated
with activated copper powder to remove free elemental sulfur. The
extracts were then passed through a column consisting of 9.5 grams
of silicic acid, deactivated with water 6.75 . Two fractions were
collected and combined for each extract; the first was eluted with
50 mis of pentane, the second with 36 mis of methylene chloride.
Following volume reduction under nitrogen, each extract was split
into two equal portions. One half was treated with sulfuric acid
to further remove organic interferences, and was then analyzed for
PCBs and chlorinated pesticides by GC-ECD. The other portion of
each extract was analyzed for PAHs by GC-MSD. Each GC was equipped
with a 30 meter DB-5 capillary colunui, with helium used as the
carrier gas. Multiple level standard calibrations provided the
basis or analyte quantitation.
Organic Analysis/Tissues
Tissue samples were homogenized with a titanium homogeri .zer and
then the homogenate was split for organic and inorganic analysis.
Approximately 10 grams of homogenized tissue was placed in a
centrifuge tube with appropriate amounts of the internal standards
3
-------
and 50 ml of acetonitrile for organic analysis. A separate aliquot
was taken for a moisture determination. Each sample was then
mechanically mixed, centrifuged and the supernatent decanted three
times. The supernatent from each step was combined for each
sample, placed in separatory funnels with deionized water and back
extracted with pentane. The pentane was decanted and dried over
sodium sulfate prior to volume reduction under nitrogen. After the
extracts were brought to one ml, a portion was removed for
gravimetric lipid weight determination. Extract cleanup and
analysis procedures for the tissue samples were identical to those
utilized for the sediment extracts, except for the omission of the
sulfur removal step.
Inorganic Analysis/Sediments
Homogenized wet sediment samples were freeze-dried in polycarbonate
centrifuge tubes so that the dry weight of the samples was
approximately 2.5 grams. Extraction was performed with dilute
nitric acid in an ultrasonic water bath for a minimum of sixteen
hours. After centrifugation, the supernatant for each sample was
decanted and another aliquot of acid was added to each sediment.
The samples were sonicat.ed for an hour, recentrifuged, and the
supernatant combined with the earlier portion. Following dilution
with dilute nitric acid to 50 mis, chemical analysis for each
sample was performed on an Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic
Emission Spectrometer calibrated with multiple level standards.
Inorganic Analysis/Tissues
Homogenized tissue samples were freeze-dried in Teflon vessels,
yielding approximately 2.5 grams of dry sample. Concentrated
nitric acid was added to each vessel, and the samples were heated
to boiling in a microwave. After the samples cooled, they were
filtered and diluted to 50 ml with deionized water. Analysis of
the tissues was performed as described for the sediments, except
that the concentrations of several elements (copper, chromium,
lead, nickel, and cadmium) were determined by Atomic Absorption
Spectrophometry.
4
-------
RESULTS
Biological Studies
Meristic Measures:
The Steliwagen Bank Winter Flounder total length ranged from
20.0-39.7 cm with a mean of 28.14 cm, and weight ranged from 115-
801 gin with a mean of 381 gin. Their age range was from 1.5 to
4.0 years and averaged 2.5 years. Fourteen of these animals were
female, while six were male. The single Yellowtail Flounder
measured 41 cm total length, weighed 714 gin, and was female. The
sex of n=41 American Plaice included twenty five females, six
males, and ten unknown (tissues unavailable).
Pathological Disorders:
Our previous epiderniological studies investigating chemical and
pollutant related diseases in winter flounder and other marine
fish have identified a causal relationship between several
environmentally related non-infectious and infectious diseases,
and exposure to contaminated sediment (Gardner, Pruell and Folmar
1989). These investigations identified individuals at risk by
obtaining pathobiological evidence of exposure, and corresponding
concentrations of chemical pollutants in organism tissues and
site sediment. Our laboratory experiments verify a relationship
between toxic-induced responses in organ systems including Liver,
gall bladder, kidney, spleen, pancreas, gill, and nervous and
ciculatory systems of feral flounder, and environmentally stable
pollutants (Gardner et al. 1991). The present epideiniological
study investigating Massachusetts Bay marine fish identified a
low level of these pollutant related biological abnormalities
including neoplastic, and non-neop..astic disorders. An index
(Table 1), and suirmiary of the cellular pathology data are given
in Master Tables for Winter Flounder (Table 2), American Plaice
(Table 3), yellowtail Flounder (Table 4). Diseases identified in
Sea Scallop (Tables 5 and 6) are su.umiarized in Table 7.
Neoplasrns and Related Disorders
Winter Flounder
A liver hepatorna was observed in one Winter Flounder, a male
measuring 30 cm in length, and weighing 334 grains.
Histologically, the basophilic hepatoina is a single,
circumscribed nodule with a glandular pattern, and a high mitotic
frequency. Synonyms or related terms for hepatoma include
adenoma, and neoplastic nodule. The examination of liver, and of
other internal organs of the animal shows there were rio other
structural alterations correlating with the presence of the
tumor.
S
-------
known to occur in the presence of PARS and other chemical
Contaminants in aquatic systems. Carcinogenic PARs have been
shown to cause a homologous disorder in liver of rodents.
Yellowtail Flounder
Neoplastic cellular disorders were not observed in the single
Yellowtail Flounder collected for examination.
Sea Scallop
Neoplasms were not present in any of the Sea Scallops indigenous
to DS or IWS, or induced in animals deployed j situ .
Non-neoplastic Disorders
Winter Flounder
The examination has shown histological evidence of hepatocytic
vacuolation in the liver of a single Winter Flounder. No other
non-neoplastic hepatotoxic lesions, or structural modifications
were present. Qualitative evaluations of spleen macrophage
centers has shown the total area of splenic tissue covered was
l% in all n=2l Winter Flounder.
Helminthiasis (Worm Diseases) was found in the gastrointestinal
tract (ri=4), biliary system (n=7), and respiratory organs (n=5).
These worms caused parasitic granulornas in the gastrointestinal
tract (n=4), and gill bifurcation (n=1). Helminth parasites are
co imnon in marine fish and are known to parasitize skin, gills,
visceral cavity, the internal organs, and musculature. Evidence
suggests pollutants increase the number and activity of these
infectious organisms. Helminths are absent in Georges’ Bank
flounder.
American Plaice
The prominent liver conditions included the appearance of
basophilic round cells associated with intrahepatic vasculature
(n=2), spongiosis hepatis (n=l) , and chronic inflaIr nation (n=14)
The examination has shown epithelial hyperplasia (n=2), ar.d
ductular lamination (n=6) of intrahepatic biJ.iary ducts.
Qualitative evaluation of the splenic macrophage centers has
shown the centers covered 1% of
n=l3, and tissue was unavailable for examination in n=7 animals.
Helminthiasjs was COfl flOfl to these benthic fishes parasitizing the
gastrointestinal tract (n=2), gills (n=2), and the biliary system
(n=21). Parasitic granulomas were found in the gastrointestinal
tract (n=2), and the kidney (n=l), and bifurcation was observed
in gills (n=3).
6
-------
Yellowtail Flounder
The single Yellowtail Flounder was found to have liver
perivascular, and/or biliary kuffing, and helminthiasis of the
intrahepatic biliary system. The splenic macrophage center ratio
to splenic tissue was >1 .
Sea Scallop
The histological examination has shown limited cellular
pathology, and/or parasitism of tissues and major internal organs
of the Sea Scallop whether the animals are indigenous to DS, or
deployed at IWS. The evidence has shown these conditions in
mantle, adductor muscle, and the digestive, respiratory, and
excretory organs are generally higher at the Georges’ Bank
ref erence location in comparison to DS, IWS deployment site *2,
and IWS deployment site *3 (Table 6). Sea Scallop at the
reference IWS site *1 could not be relocated for retrieval.
Contaminant Studies
Sediment and tissue samples were collected from several locations
in the Mass Bay area. These samples were analyzed for a variety
of organic compounds and elements. The abbreviations used to
represent the analytes in the tables and text are listed in Table
9. Only a very limited number of samples of each type from each
station were collected. Therefore, although some comparisons of
the results are made below, the data have not been statistically
compared and any differences noted should not be considered
definitive.
Chemistry/Sediment
Triplicate chemical analyses were conducted on sediment core
samples that were collected from two locations (IWS North and
DS South). Numerous organic and inorganic chemistry
measurements were made on these samples. The results of these
determinations are shown in Tables 9-].3 In general, the
concer.trations of all contaminants studied were very low in the
samples from both locations. Although the concentration
differences between sites were small, in general the samples from
the DS South station contained higher levels of some organic
contaminants than the IWS North samples.
Of the chlorinated compounds measured, the DDT series compounds
(p,p’ -DDD, p,p’ -DDE and p,p’ -DDT) were found in the highest
concentrations (Tables 9 and 11). Only trace levels of PCB
congeners, chlordanes or other chlorinated compounds were
detected. The concentrations of DDT series compounds were about
a factor of three higher at the DS South site than at the IWS
7
-------
North station. However, in general the levels of all of these
chlorinated compounds were considerably lower than those
previously measured in Quincy Bay (Gardner and Pruell, 1988).
PAH concentrations were generally higher at the DS South
location (factor of about four) than at the IWS North site
(Tables 10 and 12). Again, however, the PAH concentrations at
both of these sites were considerably lower than those measured
in Quincy Bay (Gardner and Pruell, 1988). The only exception to
this is perylene which was found at both the NBDS South and IWS
North sites at relatively high concentrations. The levels
measured at these sites were similar to those previously measured
in many of the Quincy Bay samples. Perylene can have both
anthropogenic (combustion) and natural sources. Although its
natural source has not been completely established it is believed
to be produced naturally during the early digenesis of organic
material in sediments (Venkatesan, 1988). Because perylene was
found in higher concentrations than the other combustion
generated PAHs, the major source of this compound at the DS
South and IWS North sites appears to be natural.
The concentrations of eight elements (Cu, Zn, Cr, Pb, Ni, Cd, Mn
and Fe) were also measured in samples from the DS South and IWS
North sites. Results from the analyses of these samples (Table
13) show that the concentrations of these elements at the two
sites were very similar with the possible exception of Cd which
showed slightly higher concentrations in the DS South samples.
Four of these elements (Cu, Cr, Pb and Cd) were also measured as
part of the Quincy Bay Study (Gardner and Pruell, 1988). In that
study the Cu concentrations measured in surface sediments ranged
from 6.8 to 141 ug/g with only 2 of 33 samples containing levels
below those found in the present study. The Cr concentrations
measured in Quincy Bay ranged from 5.6 to 215 ug/g with most
values well above those measured in the present study. All of
the Pb levels measured in the Quincy Bay Study (6.6 - 164 ug/g)
were above those measured in the DS South and IWS North samples
(Gardner and Pruell, 1988). The Cd concentrations were also
higher in many of the samples from Quincy Bay compared to those
measured from the DS and IWS sites in the present study.
Chemistry/Tissues
Organism samples representing several marine species were also
collected for chemical analysis. These samples were analyzed for
the same suite of analytes as were the sediment samples. This
included a series of PCB congeners, selected chlorinated
pesticides, PAHS and several elements (Cu, Zn, Cr, Pb, Ni, Cd, Mn
and Fe).
Lobster
Muscle and hepatopancreas tissue samples were analyzed from three
8
-------
lobster samples. The muscle samples (claw and tail) contained
low concentrations of organic contaminants (Tables 14 and 15).
PCB congener concentrations were all less than 20 nglg and in the
expected distributions with congeners 118, 153 and 138 being
found in the highest levels. The chlorinated pesticide found in
the highest level was p,p’-DDE (3.64 - 12.4 ng/g). PAR
concentrations were also low in the muscle tissue with maximum
concentrations less than 3 ngig for all compounds measured.
The concentrations of Cr, Pb, Ni, Cd, Mn and Fe were also very
low in the lobster muscle samples (Table 18). Cu and Zn
concentrations were higher; however, these levels probably
reflect the natural biochemistry of this species.
As expected, the concentrations of many of the measured organic
contaminants found in the lobster hepatopancreas samples (Tables
16 and 17) were considerably higher than those measured in the
muscle samples. This was especially true for all of the
chlorinated compounds (except PCB congener 008 and aidrin which
were not detected in any of the lobster samples) and PARs. The
magnitude of the difference between tissues for the organic
contaminants varied among compounds from about a factor of 20 to
as much as a factor of 500.
The only metal showing major differences in concentration between
the two tissue types was Cd (Table 18). The mean Cd
concentration in the hepatopancreas samples was about 200 times
higher than that of the muscle samples (11.1 vs 0.055 ug/g dry
weight).
A comparison of the organic contaminant levels measured in the
lobsters collected from the Mass Bay Disposal Site with those
previously measured in lobsters collected from Quincy Bay is
shcwn in Table 19 and Figures 1-6. For most of the organic
contaminants the concentrations measured in the Quincy Bay
lobster were considerably higher than the levels in the present
samples. Differences in the concentrations of metals were more
variable (Table 20). The site having the higher levels differed
among metals and tissue types with no clear trend.
Winter Flounder
The concentrations of chlorinated organic compounds in the
flounder muscle samples were low (Table 21) and similar to those
that were measured in the lobster muscle samples (Table 14). As
expected, the concentrations of these compounds were considerably
higher in the liver samples (Table 23). The levels detected in
this tissue were similar to those that were measured in the
lobster hepatopancreas samples (Table 16). PAR concentrations
were very low in both the flounder muscle and liver samples
(Tables 22 and 24). These levels were lower than those found in
the corresponding tissues of the lobster samples. This is
9
-------
probably related to the fact that fish generally have a greater
ability to metabolize PAHs than do crustaceans.
Metals concentrations were higher for most elements in the
flounder liver samples relative to the muscle samples (Table 25).
This difference was large for all elements except Cr and Ni.
Tables 26 and 27 show the mean concentrations of organic and
inorganic contaminants, respectively, that have been measured in
flounder from Quincy Bay, the Mass Bay Disposal Site and Georges
Bank. For the organic contaminants (Table 26 and Figures 7-10)
the muscle data show that the levels measured for Mass Bay
samples in the present study are intermediate between those in
samples from the Quincy Bay and Georges Bank locations. This may
indicate a general decrease in concentration with distance from
shore. However, since these samples were collected on different
dates, the time of collection may have also been a factor. The
metals data (Table 27) do not show any clear trends among the
three sites.
American Plaice
Muscle and liver samples from American Plaice collected from Mass
Bay were analyzed for PCBs, chlorinated pesticides and PAHs
(Tables 28-31). However, because of the limited amount of tissue
available, only the muscle samples were analyzed f or metals
(Table 32). The results obtained for this species were very
similar to those of the Winter Flounder samples (Tables 21-25).
Relatively low concentrations of chlorinated compounds were found
in the muscle samples (Table 28) with considerably higher amounts
in the liver samples (Table 30). Only trace concentrations of
PAHe were detected in both tissues (Tables 29 and 31). Metals
levels were low in the Plaice muscle samples (Table 32) and very
similar to those that were found in the Winter Flounder muscle
samples (Table 25)
Bivalves (Scallops and Quahogs)
Indigenous scallops were collected from Mass Bay and Georges
Bank. Scallops were also deployed for ten weeks at the Mass Bay
location. The adductor muscles of these scallops were analyzed
for organic and inorganic contaminants. In addition, other
scallop samples and an ocean quahog sample were collected from
the I 2DS site for whole organism analysis and one scallop gut
sample was analyzed for organic contaminants only. Results from
the analysis of these samples are included in Tables 33-43.
PCB concentrations were generally similar in the indigenous
scallop samples that were collected from the Georges Bank and
Mass Bay sites (Tables 33 and 35). However, the concentrations
of p, p’ -DDE and p,’ -DD]J were somewhat higher at the Mass Bay
site (Tables 33 and 35). PAH concentrations also appeared to be
10
-------
higher at this location (Tables 34 and 36). Concentrations of
PCBs, chlorinated pesticides and P.AHS in the scallops deployed at
the Mass Bay site (Tables 35 and 36) appeared to be similar to or
somewhat higher than the levels seen in the indigenous organisms
collected at that location (Tables 37 and 38).
Metals concentrations were generally low and similar in the Mass
Bay and Georges Bank indigenous scallop muscle samples (Table
43) . Similar levels were also measured in the muscle samples
from scallops deployed at the Mass Bay site.
PCB and chlorinated pesticide concentrations in the whole scallop
samples (Table 39) were similar to those of the scallop muscle
samples (Tables 33, 35 and 37). However, the PAH concentrations
were substantially higher in the whole scallop samples (Table
40). This was particularly true for sample 902593 which
contained very high concentrations of alkylated phenanthrenes and
anthracenes which are indicative of petroleum contamination.
These samples also contained elevated concentrations of Cu and
especially Cd relative to the scallop muscle samples (Table 43).
Organic contaminant concentrations in the scallop gut sample were
very high for the three classes of compounds (PCBs, chlorinated
pesticides and PABs) that were measured (Table 41 and 42).
The organic contaminant levels in the whole ocean quahog sample
were relatively low (Tables 41 and 42) in comparison to those of
the whole scallop samples. This sample did contain relatively
high concentrations of most of the metals (Table 43); however,
the elevated levels of Mn and Fe may indicate that the elevated
levels are due to the presence of sediment in the gut of this
organism.
11
-------
CONCLTJS IONS
Patholo gy
This study identified abnormalities in liver (a single hepatoma,
rnegalocytic hepatosis, spongiosis hepatis, basophilic round cell
infiltration) the biliary system (intra and extrahepatic),
kidney, and spleen of DS/IWS Winter Flounder and American
Plaice. Previous studies have shown the prevalence values for
these toxic-induced diseases of winter flounder coincide with
chemical contamination of sediment (Gardner, Pruell and Folmar
1989). The Mass Bay study also identified diseases of skin,
gill, visceral cavity, internal organs and musculature produced
by parasitic worms. These diseases are absent or rare in
offshore flounder (i.e., Georges t Bank) and clean environments,
but incidence increases in degraded environments as the
conditions become more favorable for these parasites. The
pattern and magnitude of the above diseases of flounder and
plaice at the Mass Bay Foul Area agrees with results previously
established by Gardner, Pruell and Folmar (1989) for low to
moderately polluted New England marine and estuarine
environments.
Our study has shown a 5 prevalence of liver neoplasms in the
Steliwagen Bank Winter Flounder near the IWS and MBDS where
sediment analysis determined B [ a]P values in sediment cores of
0.002 and 0.014 ug/g respectively. We have previously
established a relationship between Winter Flounder liver neoplasm
prevalences and B [ a)P in sediments (Fig. 11 from: Gardner,
Pruell, and Folrnar 1989). According to the empirically derived
curve in Fig. 11, the expected sediment level of B [ a)P for 5
prevalence would be approximately 0.2 ug/gm. There are two
possible explanations for the slightly higher value; 1) the
sample size from the current study consisted of 20 while the
curve shown in Fig. 11 was generated from sample sizes of >100,
and 2) the sediment cores were not taken in the same area from
which the fish were collected.
Data given in Figure 11 for B [ a]P contamination are as follows:
Georges Bank (GB) Non-detectable; Fox Island, Narragansett Bay
(Fl) 0.02 ug/g; Foul Area, Massachusetts Bay (FA) 0.01 ug/g;
Gaspee Point, Narragansett Bay (GP) 1.00 ug/g; Black Rock Harbor,
CT (BRH) 3.16 ug/g; Quincy Bay, Boston Harbor (QB) 6.46 ug/g; New
Bedford Harbor, 1 (NBH) 8.43 ug/g.
Previous studies demonstrate a relationship exists between
abnormalities of structure and function of internal organs,
amounts of melanotic material in spleen macrophage aggregations
of flounder, and environmental degradation (Gardner et al. 1989;
Wolke et al. 1985). These studies show the relationship of
12
-------
macrophage aggregate number and size to area of splenic pulp is a
function of internal organ pathology and organism health. An
aggregate to pulp area of <1% generally indicates a healthy
organism. A higher bulk of aggregate to pulp (i.e.; >l )
generally signifies increased levels of environmentally related
diseases, or degraded organism health. In flounder (particularly
Quincy Bay flounder) identified with liver neoplasms the
inacrophage aggregate area exceeds 8 percent (i.e., 8-50 6). The
current study of spleen in MBDS/IWS fish shows the average
splenic macrophage aggregate to splenic pulp area is <1% in MBDS
Winter Flounder; 20% of the American Plaice have values > l .
Diseases of the liver, and splenic inacrophage values for flatfish
at the DS/IWS collection area follow normal frequency curves
established in previous studies (i.e., fig. 11) for pathology and
chemical contamination of sediment. Therefore, the low
prevalence diseases of the liver and spleen bloinarker values
developed in this study are predictive of the relatively low PAH
(i.e.; B [ a)P) contamination levels we measured in sediment. Fish
parasitism, and Sea Scallop histopathology provides corroborating
evidence f or low level chemical contamination at the DS/IWS
collection area, which we verified by chemical analysis in this
study.
Chemistry
Contaminant concentrations were very low in the sediment samples
collected from the two sites (MBDS South and IWS North sites).
However, since samples from only two stations were analyzed
(triplicate analysis of each), only limited conclusions should be
drawn from these results.
As expected, the highest contaminant concentrations were found in
the lobster hepatopancreas and fish liver samples. Relatively
low levels of contamination were seen in the lobster, flounder,
plaice and scallop muscle sa.mples.
When the lobster and flounder results are compared with data
previously collected from Quincy Bay and Georges Bank, a trend of
decreasing concentrations with distance from shore is observed.
Therefore, these data do not indicate that the Mass Bay site has
a major impact on the concentrations of the measured contaminants
in biota. However, it must be noted that the data that are
available represent only a few samples from a limited number of
species some of which are mobil and therefore should not be
considered conclusive.
13
-------
REFERENCES
Gardner, G.R. and R.J. Pruell. 1988. Quincy Bay Study, Boston
Harbor: A histopathologica]. and chemical assessment of winter
flounder, lobster, and softshell clams indigenous to Quincy Bay,
Boston Harbor and an j Situ evaluation of oysters including
sediment (surface and cores) chemistry. U.S.EPA Final Report,
Region I, Boston, MA.
Gardner, G.R., R.J. Pruell, and L.C. Foirnar. 1989. A comparison
of both neoplastic and non-neoplastic disorders in winter
flounder ( Pseudopeuronectes americanus ) from eight areas in New
England. Mar. Environ. Res . 28: 393-397.
Gardner, G.R., Yevich P.P., Harshbarger, J.C., and A.R. Malcolm.
1991. Carcinogenicity of Black Rock Harbor sediment to the
Eastern oyster and trophic transfer of Black Rock Harbor
carcinogens from the blue mussel to the winter flounder. Environ
Health Perspec , 90: 53-66.
Gardner, G.R., Benyi, S.J., Heltshe, J.F. and J. Rosen. 1989.
Pigment localization in lymphoid organs of the winter flounder
( Pseudopleuronectes americanus ) in relation to contaminated
sediment. Proceedings Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, 10th Annual eeting, Toronto, Canada, October 28-
November 2.
Wolke, R.E., George, C.J. and V.S. Blazer. 1985. Pigmented
rnacrophage accumulations (? C;P! ): Possible monitors of fish
health. In William J. Hargis, Jr. (editor), Parasitology and
Pathology of Marine Organisms of the World Ocean, p 93-97, NOAA
Tech Doc.
Venkatesan, N.I. 1988. Occurrence and possible sources of
pe lene in marine sediments - a review. Marine Chemistry 25: 1-
2 -
14
-------
TABLE 1
INDEX FOR FISH PATHOLOGY
NEOPLASMS
1/ Liver Hepatorna
NON-NEOPLASTIC LESIONS
2AJ Liver/hepatocytic vacuolation
2B1 Liver/megalocytic hepatosis
2C/ Liveribasophiic round cells
21)1 Liver/spongiosis hepatis
2E/ Liver/perivascular or biliary kuffing
2F/ Liverfinflammation
3M Gastrointestinal tract/basophilic nidi
3B1 Gastrointestinal tract/parasitic granulomas
4A/ Respiratory organ/telangiectasia
4B/ Respiratory organ/bifui ation
4C/ Respiratory orgaz e1minthiasis
4D/ Respiratory organmyperplasia
5A1 Spleen % macrophages/< 1
5B/ Spleen % macrophages/> 1
6AJ Biliary/lamination
6B/ Biiary/byperplasia
6C/ Biliary/parasitism
7A/ Kidney/parasitic granuloma
8A/ Parasites/gastrointestinal
8B/ Parasite/gill
15
-------
TABLE 2
MASSACHUSi rS BAY STUDY
MASTER TABLE
WINTER FLOUNDER
SAMPNUM SEX LENGTh
ERL-N (TL CM)
WEIGHT NEOPLAS TIC NON- NEOPLASTIC SPLEEN
(GM) % MA
91-270 F 37.6 628 4B, 6C 5A
-270 M 37.0 593 5A
-272 F 36.0 535 5A
-274 F 39.7 801 8B 5A
-275 F 33.1 480 5A
-276 F 33.0 525 6C 5A
-277 M 34.5 488 6C 5A
-278 F 28.2 328 6C 5A
-279 F 32.2 377 2A,6C 5A
-280 F 29.8 372 3B,6C,8A 5A
-281 F 32.2 407 5A
-282 M 30.8 394 3A,6C,8A 5A
-283 M 30.0 334 1 8A,8B 5A
-284 F 30.5 404 3B 5A
-316 M 23.5 145 8B 5A
-317 F 26.0 212 8A,8B 5A
-318 F 24.0 185 8A 5A
-319 F 23.7 162 3B,8B 5A
-320 M 20.9 115 3B,6C 5A
-321 F 22.0 132 5A
Mean Length 28.14 cm (20.0 -39.7 cm)
Average age was 2.5 yrs. (range 1.5 -4.0 yrs.)
Average weight 381 gm(range 115-801)
-------
TABLE 3
MASSACHUSi iTS BAY STUDY
MASTER TABLE
AMERICAN PLAICE
6C -
2F,4B,6C 5B
6C 5A
6B,6C 5A
7A 5A
6C,8B -
6C -
3B,6C,8A SB
6C,8B 5A
4D,6C 5A
3B 5A
4D,6C 5A
6C 5A
6C 5B
6C 5A
2F 5A
2D,2F,2G,4D,4E,6B 5B
2F,6A 5B
2B,2F,6A -
2F,6A,6C 5A
6C 5A
2F 5A
2F,6A,6C 5A
2F,6C 5A
6A 5A
2C 5B
2C 5A
2F,4C 5A
2F,6C 5A
6C 5B
2F,4B,6A,6C 5B
5B
4B,6A SB
SAMPNUM SEX LENGTH
WEIGHT NEOPLASTIC NON-NEOPLASTIC SPLEEN
ERL-N
(U CM)
(GM)
% MA
* *
91-446 F
-447 F
-448 F
-449 F
91-450 F
-451 F
-452
-453 M
-454 F
91-455 M
-456
-561 F
-562
-563 F
-564 F
91-565 F
-566 F
-567 F
-568 F
-569 F
91-570
91-571 M
-572
-573 F
-574
91-575 F
-576 F
-577 F
-578
-579
91-580 F
-581 M
-582 M
-583 M
-584 F
17
-------
TABLE 3 (confd)
91-585 F 2F SB
-586 F 6C 5A
-587 F 6A SB
-588 5B
-589 F 2F 5A
91-590
* = LENGTh AND WEIGHT MEASURES NOT TAKEN ON BOARD OSV ANDERSON.
18
-------
TABLE 4
MASSACHUS1 IIS BAY STUDY
MASTER TABLE
YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER
SAMPNUM SEX LENGTh
WEIGHT NEOPLASTIC NON-NEOPLASTIC SPLEEN
ERL-N
(11
CM)
(GM)
%
MA
9 1-723 2E,6C 5B
19
-------
TABLE 5
INDEX FOR SHELLFISH PA OLOGY
1AJ Digestive Organ/inflammation
1BI Digestive Organ/para.sidsim
7-A/ Respiratory organlviral-bactenal
7 B/ Respiratory organ/protozoan
3A/ Mantle/inflammation
3B1 Mantle/epithelial necrosis
4A/ Adductor musc1e/a ophy
4B/ Adductor musclelheliminthiasis
5A/ Reproductive organ/inflammation
5B/ Reproductive organ/ductular fibrosis
6A/ Hinge Ligament/inflammation
7A1 Excretory organ/nephrofibrosis
20
-------
TABLE 6
MASSACHUSEITS BAY STUDY
MASTER TABLE
SEA SCALLOP
SANPNUM SITE SEX NON-NEOPLASTIC
ERL-N
91-540 MBDS M 2A,3A,5A
-541 M 1A,2A
-542 F 1A,2A,3B,4A
-543 F 1A,2A,3A&B,4A
-544 M 1A,2A,5A
91-545 F 1A,2A,4A
-546 Georges Bank F 1A,2A
-547 F 1A,2A,3A&B,4A
-548 M IA,2A,4A,3B
-549 “ F 1A,2A,3A,4A,5A
-550 F 1A&B,2A,3A&B
-551 F 1A,4A
-552 M 1A,2AA,4A
-553 F 1A,2A,4A&B
-554 MBDS F
-555 M 3A&B
-556 F 1A
-557 M 4A
-558 M 1A,2A
-559 M 3B
91-560 M
-1295 IWS#2 F 1A,4A
-1296 F 1A
-1297 F 1A,4A
-1298 M 1A,4A,6A,7A
-1299 M 1A,4A
91-1300 M 4A
-1301 IWS#3 F —
-1302 M 4A,5B
-1303 M 1A
-1304 M
-1305 M
21
-------
TABLE 7
SEA SCALLOP PATHOLOGY SUMMARY
(Number and Percent)
PATH INDEX # ENVI
RO
NMENTAL SITE
GEORGES BANK
(n=8)
MBDS
(n=13) 1WS#2(n=5) IWS#3 (n=6)
1A 8(100) 7(54) 5(100) 1(17)
lB 1(13) 0-- 0— 0—
2A 6(75) 8(62) 0-- 0--
3A 4(50) 3(23) 0-- 0--
3B 2(25) 4(31) 0-- 0--
4A 5(63) 4(31) 4(80) 2(33)
4B 3(38) 0— 0— 0—
5A 1(13) 2(15) 0— 1(17)
6A 0— 0— 1(20) 0--
7A 0— 0— 1(20) 0—
22
-------
Table 8
KEY TO ABBR.EVIAT:3NS USED
PCBs
CBOO8 - CB209 Individual PCB congeners are identified
by number after Ballschmiter and Zen
Chlorinated Pesticides
HCB Hexachi orobenz erie
Lindane gamma-HCH or gan na-BHC
Chlordane aipha-Chiordane or cis-Chiordane
TN nach1or trans- Nonachior
PPDDE 4,4’ -DDE or p,p’-DDE
PPDDD 4,4’ -DDD or p. p’ -DDD
PPDDT 4,4’ - DDT or PIP’ -DDT
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Sum MW17S-Cl Cl homologs of phenanthrene and anthracene
Sum MW178-C2 C2 homologs of phenanthrene and anthracene
Sum MW178-C3 C3 homologs of phenanthrene and anthracene
Sum MW178 - C4 C4 homologs of phenanthrene and anthracene
Sum MW228 Sum of molecular weight 228 PARs
Sum Benzofluoranthenes Sum of Benzo(b,k,j)fluoranthene isomers
Sum MW276 Sum of molecular weight 276 PAHs
Sum M 278 Sum of molecular weight 278 PARs
Sum MW302 Sum of molecular weight 302 PARs
23
-------
Table 9
PCB CONGENER AND PESTICIDES CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT CORES
FROM MASS BAY
LOCATION: MASS BAY, MBDS SOUTH
COLLECTION DATE: MAYI 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902495 902495 902495 MEAN
PCB CONGENER
008 (0.11) (0.11) (0.09) (0.05)
018 (0.09) (0.08) (0.09) (0.04)
028 0.09 0.26 (0.09) 0.13
052 (0.10) 0.16 (0.10) (0.09)
044 0.28 0.11 0.28 0.22
066 (0.06) 0.14 (0.06) 0.07
101 0.34 0.50 0.37 0.41
118 0.26 0.32 0.23 0.27
153 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.19
105 (0.05) 0.05 (0.06) (0.03)
138 0.24 0.27 0.20 0.24
187 0.08 0.11 (0.08) (0.08)
128 0.20 0.08 0.16 0.15
180 022 0.06 0.13 0.14
170 0.04 0.52 0.03 0.20
195 (0.07) 0.10 0.11 0.08
206 (0.03) 0.14 (0.14) (0.08)
209 0 04 0.12 0.04 0.06
PESTICIDES
HCB 0.18 0.27 0.14 0.20
LINDANE 0 33 (0.10) 0.36 0.25
ALDRIN (0.08) (0 07) (0.08) (0 04)
ACHLORDANE 0.08 0.22 0.21 0.17
TNONACHLOR 0.06 0.14 0.09 0.09
PPDDE 0.43 0.55 0.49 0.49
PPDDD 3.01 3.45 3.55 3.34
PPDDT 0.09 0.32 0.32 0.24
MIREX (0.04) (0.08) (0.08) (0.03)
Concentrations are in ng./g dry weight.
Numbers within () are MLDs.
For levels below the MLDs, one half the MLD was used to calculate the mean.
-------
Table 10
PAH CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT CORES FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
LOCATION: MASS BAY, MBDS SOUTH
SAMPLE NUMBER 902495 902495 902495 MEAN
PAHs
FLUORENE (3.43) (3.13) (2.86) (1.57)
PHENANTHRENE 34 9 14.2 16.3 21.8
ANTHRACENE 8.25 (3.13) 4.30 4.71
SUMMW178-C1 140 104 11.2 11.9
SUM MW17B-C2 6 01 5.33 3.77 5.04
SUM MWI7B-C3 (3.43) (3 13) (2.86) (1.57)
SUM MWI7&-C4 (3 43) (3 13) (2.86) (1.57)
FLUORANTHENE 51.5 17.8 20.1 29.8
PYRENE 55.7 20.7 24.0 33.5
BENZ [ aIANTHRACENE 22.5 14 8 16.5 17.9
CHRYSENE 27.2 15.8 16.6 19.9
SUM BENZOFL1JORANTHENES 304 18.2 21.2 23 3
BENZO [ eIPYRENE 16.9 9.30 10.8 12 3
ENZO [ aJPYRENE 17.0 11.6 12.0 135
PERYLENE 239 243 234 239
INOENO(I23-cdIPYRENE 8.72 4 51 4.83 6.02
DIBENZ [ ah]ANTHR.ACENE (343) (3.13) (286) (1.57)
BENZO [ ghi]PERYLENE 9.82 4.86 4.48 6 39
CORONENE (3 43) (3 13) (2,86) (1.57)
Concentrations are in ng/g dry weight
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs
To calculate the mean one haff of the MLD was used
25
-------
Table 11
PCB CONG ENER AND PESTICIDES CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT COR_3
FROM MASS BAY
LOCATION: MASS BAY, IWS NORTh
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902494 902494 902494 MEAN
PCB CONGENER
008 0.13 (0.09) (0.10) (0.08)
018 (0.08) (0.07) (0.08) (0.04)
028 (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.04)
052 0.13 0.03 (0.09) (0.07)
044 0.07 0.03 (0.08) (0.03)
066 0.12 (0.05) (0.05) 0.06
101 0.25 0.15 0.08 0.16
118 0.21 0.18 0.06 0.15
153 0.17 0.13 0.06 0.12
105 (0.04) 0.09 (0.05) (0.05)
138 0.19 0.10 0.06 0.12
187 0.07 0.09 (0.06) (0.06)
128 009 0.11 0.11 0.10
180 016 0.09 0.04 0.10
170 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.07
195 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.07
206 0.02 0.02 (0.03) (0.02)
209 (0.03) (0.02) (0.04) (0.02)
PESTICIDES
HCB 0.20 0.16 0.17 0.18
LINDANE (0.09) (0.08) (0.09) (0.04)
ALDRIN (0.06) (0.06) (0.07) (0.03)
ACHLORDANE (0.06) (0.05) (0.06) (0.03)
TNONACHLOR (0.07) (0.06) (0.07) (0.03)
PPDDE 0.22 0.17 0.13 0.17
PPDDD 0.92 0.95 0.81 0.89
PPDDT 0.14 (0.06) (0.07) (0.07)
M1REX (0.06) (0.06) (0.07) (0.03)
Concentrations are in riglg dry weight.
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs.
For levels below the MLDs, one half the MLD was used to calculate the mean.
-------
Table 12
PAH CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT CORES FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
LOCATION: MASS BAY, IWS NORTH
SAMPLE NUMBER 902494 902494 902494 MEAN
PAHs
FLUORENE (2.80) (2.62) (2.85) (1.38)
PHENANTHRENE 5.86 4.91 4.94 5.24
ANTHR.ACENE (2.80) (2.62) (2.85) (1 38)
SUM MW178-C1 (2.80) (2.62) (2.85) (1.38)
SUM MW17B-C2 (2.80) (2.62) (2.85) (1.38)
SUM MW178-C3 (2.80) (2.62) (2.85) (1.38)
SUM MW17B-C4 (2.80) (2.62) (2 85) (1.38)
FLUORANTHENE 6.30 6.88 5 87 6,35
PYRENE 7.04 8.41 7.39 761
BENZ [ a]ANTHRACENE 4.24 4.34 3.02 3.87
CHRYSENE 4.20 5.74 4 95 4.96
SUM BENZOFLUORANTHENES 5.28 6.17 5.26 5.57
BENZO [ eJPYRENE (2.80) (2.62) (2.85) (1.38)
BENZO [ aJPYRENE (2.80) 2.78 (2.85) (1.87)
PERYLENE 156 173 167 165
INDENO [ 123-cd]PYRENE (2.80) (2 62) (2.85) (1.38)
DIBENZ [ ahJANTHRACENE (2.80) (2.62) (2.85) (1.38)
BENZO ghflPERYLENE (2.80) (2.62) (2.85) (1.38)
CORONENE (2.80) (2.62) (2.85) (1 38)
Concentrations are in nglg dry weight
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs.
To calculate the mean one half of the MLD was used
27
-------
Table 13
METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES
MAY, 1990
(ug/g dry weight)
Station Rep Cu Zn Cr Pb Ni Cd Mn Fe
MBDS South 1 15.4 70.3 34.7 3.27 25.5 0.55 212. 19800
2 155 73.6 35.3 3.22 25.7 0.54 222. 20800
3 16.0 74.3 37.0 2.75 26.6 0.52 227. 21100
Mean 15.7 72.7 35.7 3.08 25.9 0.54 220. 20600
(SD) (0.3) (2.2) (1.2) (0.29) (0.6) (0.02) (7 ) (600)
IWS North 2. 18.0 78.7 41.0 3.36 26.2 0.38 251. 22100
2 18.3 79.0 40.6 3.15 26.6 0.36 243. 22800
3 18.8 77.6 40.7 3.05 25.9 0.35 244. 22500
Mean 18.4 78.4 40.8 3.19 26.2 0.36 246. 22400
(SD) (0.4) (0.7) (0.2) (0.16) (0.3) (0.02) (4) (300)
28
-------
Table 14
PCB CONGENER AND PESTICIDES CONCENTRATIONS IN LOBSTER
MUSCLE SAMPLES FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902529 902530 902531
PCB CONGENER
008 (0.19) (0.18) (0.21)
018 1.37 (0.14) (0.17)
028 3.63 1.00 0.72
052 1.93 0.53 0.37
044 1.03 (0.09) (0.17)
066 4.16 2.55 1.32
101 2.25 1.11 0.60
118 12.1 9.29 4.85
153 16.0 10.8 5.38
105 4.47 3.47 1.59
138 12.9 8.35 3.92
187 5.98 4.00 2.70
128 2.55 1.91 0.84
180 4.88 3.40 1.52
170 1.84 1.17 0.53
195 048 0.24 (0.12)
206 0.58 0.30 (0.06)
209 0.34 0.19 0.15
PESTICIDES
HCB 0 78 0.91 0.69
LINDANE 0.06 0.09 (0.19)
ALDRIN (0.13) (0.06) (0.14)
ACHLORDANE 077 0.70 043
TNONACHLOR 1 33 1.24 0.75
PPDDE 124 7.75 3.64
PP000 1.56 1.15 0.50
PPDDT 0.49 0.34 (0.14)
MIREX 0.29 0.19 (0.14)
Concentrations are in ng/g dry weight.
Numbers witbin( ) are MLDs 2 9
-------
Table 15
PAH CONCENTRATIONS IN LOBSTER MUSCLE SAMPLES
FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902529 902530 902531
PAHs
FLUORENE 5.40 9.99 2.87
PHENANTHRENE 9.34 13.6 6.49
ANTHRACENE (2.26) 1.95 (1.22)
SUM MW178-C1 4.96 10.3 3.59
SUM MW178-C2 4.00 7.27 2.22
SUM MW178-C3 (2.26) (1.05) (1.22)
SUM MW178-C4 (2.26) (1.05) (1.22)
FLUORANTHENE 11.2 10.5 5.89
PYRENE 10.9 26.7 5.24
BENZ [ aJANTHRACENE 3.00 1.87 1.35
CHRYSENE 6.03 3.79 3.08
SUM BENZOFLUORANTHENES (2 26) 4.02 3.62
BENZO [ eIPYRENE (2.26) 2.21 2.00
BENZO [ a]PYRENE (2.26) 2.09 1.45
PERYLENE (2.26) (1.05) (1.22)
INOENO [ 123-cdIPYRENE (2.26) (1 05) (1.22)
DIBENZ [ ah]ANTHRACENE (2.26) (1 05) (1.22)
BENZO [ ghiJPERYLENE (2.26) 4.38 1.74
CORONENE (2.26) 440 (1.22)
Concentrations are in ng/g dry weight.
Numbers within ()are MLDs.
30
-------
Table 16
PCB CONGENER AND PESTICIDES CONCENTRATIONS IN LOBSTER
HEPATOPANCREAS SAMPLES FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902500 902501 902502
PCB CONGENER
008 (0.22) (0.17) (0.16)
018 32.8 0.71 0.81
028 108 40.6 39.4
052 49.9 15.3 11.8
044 29.3 2.60 2.18
066 142 118 91.3
101 83.4 54.7 43.7
118 376 368 259
153 538 505 342
105 190 199 128
138 507 459 316
187 199 195 128
128 112 113 70.7
180 280 281 170
170 99.7 102 63.1
195 22.1 20.1 16.7
206 41.1 35.8 32.3
209 17.2 13.8 13.6
PESTICIDES
HCB 13.4 17.7 13.0
LINDANE 3.17 2.74 3.47
ALDRIN (0.15) (0.12) (0.11)
ACHLORDANE 22.3 21.8 21 4
TNONACHLOR 57.3 66.9 62.4
PPDDE 1010 772 573
PPDDD 104 98.8 57 2
PPDDT 30.5 24.6 16 1
MIREX 7.45 8.99 6.44
Concentrations are in ng/g dry weight.
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs. 3
-------
Table 17
PAH CONCENTRATIONS IN LOBSTER HEPATOPANCREAS
SAMPLES FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902500 902501 902502
PAHs
FLUORENE 26.5 17.4 17.9
PHENANTHRENE 108 66.5 942
ANTHRACENE 12.8 4.19 10.2
SUM MW178-C1 80.7 38.4 99.9
SUM MW178-C2 75.5 33.8 101
SUM MW178-C3 52.1 (2.01) 609
SUM MW178-C4 37 6 25.6 46.6
FLUCRANTHENE 241 112 288
PYRENE 198 129 299
BENZ [ a]ANTHRACENE 50.7 22.8 28.6
CHRYSENE 112 60.8 77.2
SUM BENZOFLUOR.ANTHENES 149 121 105
BENZO [ eJPYRENE 82.7 55.9 52.2
BENZO [ a]PYRENE 48.1 38.2 32.5
PERYLENE 23.1 18.1 20.3
INDENO [ 123-cd]PYRENE 31 6 25.0 22.9
DIBENZfah]ANTHRACENE 8.38 4.49 4.38
BENZO [ ghi)PERYLENE 33.3 24.4 25.7
CORONENE (2.58) (2.01) (1.89)
Concentratrons are in ng/g dry weight.
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs.
32
-------
Table 18
TAL CONCENTRATIONS IN AMERICAN LOBSTER SAMPLES
MAY, 1990
(ug/g dry weight)
Cu Zn Cr Pb Ni Cd Mn Fe
LOBSTER MUSCLE 1 121. 151. 0.37 0.15 0.44 0.092 4.84 25.2
LOBSTER MUSCLE 2 82.8 148. 0.19 0.14 0.44 0.041 5.26 31.6
LOBSTER MUSCLE 3 117. 154. 0.31 0.20 0.52 0.033 7.54 39.2
LOBSTER BEPATO 1 97.0 70.7 0.12 0.10 0.53 10.6 5.1 64.6
LOBSTER BEPATO 2 84.5 48.1 0.10 0.07 0.51 11.8 5.6 56.4
LOBSTER HEPATO 3 152. 54.2 0.08 0.00 0.38 11.0 4.8 51.5
33
-------
Table 19
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS IN LOBSTER SAMPLES
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1987 COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
QUINCY BAY MASS BAY
MUSCLE HEPATO PANCREAS MUSCLE HEPATOPANCREAS
n16 n=8 n=3 n=3
PCB SUM* 250 16000 36.2 1720
PESTICIDES
HCB 0.65 26.9 0.79 14.7
G-BHC 0.34 3.96 0.08 3.13
A-CHLORDANE 0.75 61.7 0.63 21.8
PP -DDE 24 6 2550 7.93 785
PP-DDD 0.61 190 1.07 86.7
PP-DOT nd 55.5 0.30 23.7
PAHs
FLUORENE 2.90 62.8 6.09 20.6
PHENANTHRENE 13.7 294 9.81 89.6
ANTHRACENE 0.81 20.4 1.23 9.06
SUM MW 178-Cl 302 906 6.27 73.0
SUM MW 178-C2 42.8 1400 4.50 70.1
SUM MW 178-C3 212 716 nd 38.0
SUM MW 178-C4 3.87 171 nd 36.6
FLUORANTHENE 47.8 1220 9.21 214
PYRENE 32.3 852 14.3 209
BENZ [ a]ANTHRACENE 3.81 840 2.07 34.0
CHRYSENE 17.0 343 4.30 83.3
SUM BENZOFUJORANTHENES 12.0 209 2.92 125
BENZO [ e)PYRENE 687 105 1.78 63.6
BENZO [ aJPYRENE 4 49 53 1 1.56 39.6
PERYLENE 0.98 16 0 nd 20.5
INDENO [ 123-cdIPYRENE 4.77 547 nd 26.5
BENZO{ghi]PERYLENE 4.51 417 2.42 27.8
DIBENZIah)ANTHRACENE 0.80 nd nd 5.75
CORONENE 1.10 nd 2.05 nd
Concentrations are in ng/g dry wt
nci Not detected
PCB SUM (PCB SUM is sum of Congeriers common to all studies: 052,101,151,118,153,138,128,180,195,206&209).
n= Number of samples analysed.
34
-------
Table 20
NEAJI METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN WINTER FLOUNDER MUSCLE SAMPLES
(ug/g dry weight)
QUINCY AY MASS BAY GEORGES BANK
MAY, 1987 MAY, 1990 OCT, 1989
n=25 n=3 n=3
Cu 0.05 1.07 1.2
Zn 26.8 19.7
Cr 0.11 0.14 0.07
Pb 0.02 0.11 0.10
Ni 0.57 0.02
Cd 0.002 0.027 0.072
Mn 1.47 0.68
Fe 11.9 5.5
35
-------
Table 21
PCB AND PESTICIDES CONCENTRATIONS IN FLOUNDER MUSCLE
SAMPLES FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902533 902534 902535
PCB CONGENER
008 (0.15) (0.15) (0.14)
018 0.19 0.11 0.13
028 0.70 0.64 0.69
052 0.76 0.74 0.80
044 0.25 0.21 0.23
066 2.19 2.69 2.19
101 3.04 4.15 3.15
118 8.93 12.7 9.21
153 17.2 24.1 17.2
105 2.85 3.90 3.11
138 15.0 21.4 15.1
187 5.66 6.88 4.68
128 2.76 3.95 2.81
180 8.19 11.8 8.61
170 2.64 3.62 2.84
195 0.75 1.01 0.77
206 1.35 1.82 1.35
209 0.79 0.90 0.83
PESTICIDES
HCB 0.60 0.66 0 81
LINDANE 0.16 0 18 0.20
ALDRIN (0 10) (0.10) (0.10)
ACHLCRDANE 1.29 1.33 1 52
TNONACHLOR 2.63 3.02 2.83
PPDDE 8.52 10.0 9.43
PPDDD 2.49 2.86 2.67
PPDDT 0.92 0.90 1.10
MIREX 0.20 0.27 0.26
Concentrations are in ng/g dry weight.
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs
36
-------
Table 22
PAH CONCENTRATIONS IN WINTER FLOUNDER MUSCLE SAMPLES
FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTiON DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902533 902534 902535
PAHs
FLUORENE (0.88) 1.96 1.59
PHENANTHRENE 1.39 2.44 2.77
ANTHRACENE (0.88) (1.76) (0.83)
SUM MW1 78-Cl 1.27 2.00 1.01
SUM MW178-C2 (0.88) (1.76) 2.21
SUM MW178-C3 (0.88) (1.76) (0 83)
SUM MW178-C4 (0.88) (1 76) (0.83)
FLUORANTHENE 1 21 (1.76) 1.49
PYRENE 1.61 6.53 4.33
BENZ [ aJANTHRACENE (0.88) (1 76) (0.83)
CHRYSENE (0.88) (1.76) (0.83)
SUM BENZOFLUORANTHENES (0.88) (1.76) (0.83)
BENZO [ e]PYRENE (0.88) (1.76) (0.83)
BENZO [ a]PYRENE (0 86) (1.76) (083)
PERYLENE (0.88) (1.76) (083)
I NDENO [ 1 23-cd]PYRENE (0,88) (1.76) (0.83)
DiBENZ [ ah]ANTKRACENE (0.88) (1 76) (0.83)
BENZO [ ghi]PERYLENE (0.88) (1.76) (083)
CORONENE (0.88) (1.76) (0.83)
Concentrations are in ng/g dry weight.
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs.
37
-------
Table 23
PCB AND PESTICIDES CONCENTRATIONS IN FLOUNDER LIVER
SAMPLES FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902507 902508 902532
PCB CONGENER
008 (0.31) (0.33) (0.36)
018 13.2 15.5 30.3
028 37.4 45.4 71.6
052 32.8 42.4 67.4
044 14.3 17.8 29.9
066 54.1 89.9 57.4
101 596 117 69.9
118 182 356 163
153 301 582 259
105 61.6 122 52.7
138 296 584 249
187 103 180 75.0
128 57.9 119 46.6
180 185 395 163
170 59.1 110 47.5
195 17.2 27.0 13.5
206 32 1 53.5 32.4
209 15.0 19.5 15.9
PESTICIDES
HCB 11.7 16.3 13.3
LINDANE 2.73 3.66 2.34
ALDRIN (0.21) (0.22) (0.24)
ACHLORDANE 30.6 43.8 26.1
TNONACHLOR 64.9 101 48.3
PPDDE 275 470 197
PPDDD 59.3 95.6 47.3
PPDDT 17.0 24.5 14.6
MIREX 5.10 6.61 0.81
Concentrations are in ng/g dry weight.
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs 38
-------
Table 24
PAH CONCENTRATIONS IN WINTER FLOUNDER LIVER SAMPLES
FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902507 902508 902532
PAHs
FLUORENE 4.20 3.93 5.39
PHENANTHRENE 7.12 5.29 5.11
ANTHRACENE (1.80) (1.93) (2.12)
SUM MW178-C1 6.24 5.51 (2.12)
SUM MW178-C2 11.6 3.69 6.50
SUM MW178-C3 (1.80) (1.93) (2.12)
SUM MW17S-C4 (1 80) (1.93) (2.12)
FLUORANTHENE 7,59 6.56 8.70
PYRENE 4.08 3.52 5.92
BENZ [ aJANTHRACENE (1.80) (1.93) (2.12)
CHRYSENE (1.80) (1.93) (2.12)
SUM BENZOFLUORANTHENES (1.80) 7.05 9.84
BENZO [ eJPYRENE (1.80) (1.93) (2.12)
BENZO [ a]PYRENE (1 80) (1.93) (2.12)
PERYLENE (1.80) (1.93) (2.12)
INDENO [ 123-ciJPYRENE (1 80) (1.93) (2.12)
DIBENZ [ ah]ANTHR.ACENE (1.80) (1.93) (2.12)
BENZO [ gh i PERYLENE (1 80) (1.93) (2.12)
CORONENE (1.80) (1 93) (2.12)
Concentrations are in ng/g dry weight.
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs
39
-------
Table 25
NETAL CONCENTRATIONS IN WTh FLOUNDER SAMPLES
MAY, 1990
(ug/g dry weight)
Cu Zn Cr Pb Ni Cd Mn Fe
FLOUNDER MUSCLE 1 1.3 27.5 0.11 0.08 0.50 0.032 1.53 14.1
FLOUNDER MUSCLE 2 1.0 27.4 0.21 0.11 0.73 0.041 1.09 10.3
FLOUNDER MUSCLE 3 0.9 25.5 0.09 0.13 0.49 0.008 1.81 11.4
FLOUNDER LIVER 1 39.2 123. 0.1]. 2.34 1.28 0.70 18.3 441.
FLOUNDER LIVER 2 21.4 110. 0.10 2.21 1.75 0.31 15.9 368.
FLOUNDER LIVER 3 40.]. 132. 0.12 1.63 1.40 0.85 15.4 300.
4o
-------
Table 26
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS IN FLOUNDER SAMPLES
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1987 COLLECTION DATE: OCT 1989 COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 199C
QUINCY BAY’ MASS BAY GEORGES BANK
n=25 n9 n=9 n3 n 3
MUSCLE MUSCLE LIVER MUSCLE LIVER
PCB SLiM’ 320 67.0 1520 5.44 120
PESTICIDES
HCB 0.68 0.69 13.8 0.40 7.9
G-BHC 1.21 0.18 2.91 nd
A-CHLQRDANE 4.96 1.38 33.5 nd nd
PP-DDE 25.2 9.32 314 0.99 27.5
PP-DOD 9.33 2.67 67.4 nd nd
PP-DOT 7.26 0.97 18.7 nd nd
Concentrations are in ngig dry wt
nd Not detected
PCB SUM’ (PCB SUM is sum of Congerers common to all studies: 052.101,151,118,153.138,128.180,195,206&209)
QLJINCY BAY’ No data for Flounder Liver Samples.
n Number of samples analysed.
-------
Table 27
) AN METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN AMERICAN LOBSTER SAMPLES
(ug/g dry weight)
QUINCY BAY MASS BAY
MAY, 1987 MAY, 1990
n=25 n3
MUSCLE HEPATOPANCREAS MUSCLE HEPATOPANCREAS
Cu 17.1 294. 107. 111.
Cr 0.09 1.57 0.29 0.10
Pb 0.7]. 0.24 0.16 0.09
Cd 0.007 2.82 0.055 11.1
42
-------
Table 28
PCB CONGENER AND PESTICIDES CONCENTRATIONS IN AMERICAN PLAICE
MUSCLE SAMPLES FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTiON DATE : MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902598 902599 902600’
PCB CONGENER
008 (0.30) (0.15) (0.21)
018 0.74 2.57 0.21
028 1.47 13.3 1.06
052 4.31 17.1 0.93
044 2.18 4.10 0.23
066 (0.16) 7.93 4.33
101 7.87 14.5 4.83
118 7.14 18.6 18.8
153 15.6 31.1 28.9
105 2.46 4.99 6.44
138 13.1 25.2 27.2
187 6.86 8.82 6.40
28 2.06 3.17 5.26
180 4.81 9.00 15.1
170 2.03 3.47 4.13
195 0.76 1.16 0.94
206 1.29 1.60 1.60
209 1.25 0.96 0.80
PESTICIDES
HCB 0.48 0.75 0.65
LINDANE 0.16 0.15 0.20
ALDRIN (0.20) (0.11) (0.14)
ACHLORDANE 0.50 1.89 2.74
TNONACHLQR 1.24 3.64 4.38
PPDDE 7.66 23.5 13.3
PPDDD 2.25 4.08 3.75
PPDDT 0.35 1.81 1.35
MIREX 0.21 0.19 0.30
ncentrations re in nglg dry weight.
Numbers withtin () are MLDs.
Sample was fixed in Dietrichs
42
-------
Table 29
PAH CONCENTRATIONS IN AMERICAN PLAICE MUSCLE SAMPLES
FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902598 902599 902600’
PA}-ls
FLUORENE 2.73 7.58 3.12
PHENANTHRENE 6.11 5.49 2.78
ANTHRACENE (1.75) (1.14) (1.22)
SUM MW178-C1 (1.75) 4.14 (1.22)
SUM MW17B-C2 (1.75) (0.83) (1.22)
SUM MW178-C3 (1.75) (0.83) (1.22)
SUM MW178-C4 (1.75) (0.83) (1.22)
FLUORANTHENE (1.75) (083) (1.22)
PYRENE (1.75) 7.64 4.23
BENZ [ a]ANTHRACENE (1.75) (0.83) (1.22)
CHRYSENE (1.75) (0.83) (1.22)
SUM BENZOFLUORANTHENES (1 75) (0.83) (1.22)
BENZO [ e]PYRENE (1 75) (0.83) (1.22)
BENZO [ a]PYRENE (1 75) (0.83) (1.22)
PERYLENE (1 75) (0.83) (1.22)
INDENOI123-cd]PYRENE (1 75) (0.83) (1.22)
D BENZ [ ah]ANTHRACENE (1 75) (0.83) (1.22)
BENZO [ ghi]PERYLENE (1 75) (0.83) (1.22)
CORONENE (175) (083) (1.22)
Concentrations are in ng/g dry weight.
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs
* Sample was fixed in Dietrichs.
44
-------
Table 30
PCB CONGENER AND PESTICIDES CONCENTRATIONS IN
AMERICAN PLAICE LIVER SAMPLES FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 2596 902597
PCB CONGENER
008 (2.52) (2.58)
018 38.4 (2.05)
028 94.3 13.8
052 201 24.9
044 107 6.35
066 201 37.9
101 429 76.7
118 435 181
153 942 345
105 132 58.1
138 824 281
187 454 91.1
128 133 43.6
180 379 118
170 156 372
195 54.2 9.37
206 101 16.0
209 61.9 11.9
PESTICIDES
HCB 144 9.61
LINDANE 4 92 1 43
ALDRIN (1 70) (1 74)
ACHLORDANE 24 1 16.2
TNONACHLOR 73.9 37 2
PPDDE 489 249
PPDDD 139 444
PPDDT 222 5.78
MIREX 134 2.60
Concentrations are in ng/g dry weight
Numbers withtin ( ) are MLDs
-------
Table 31
PAH CONCENTRATIONS IN AMERICAN PLAICE LIVER SAMPLES
FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902596 902597
PAHs
FLUORENE 19.1 (15.2)
PHENANTHRENE 16.8 25.8
ANTHRACENE (14.8) (15.2)
SUM MW178-C1 (14.8) (15.2)
SUM MW178-C2 19.5 (15.2)
SUM MW17&-C3 (14.8) (15.2)
SUM MW178-C4 (14.8) (15.2)
FLUORANTHENE 16.2 27.3
PYRENE 23.7 26.6
BENZ [ a]ANTHRACENE (14.8) (15.2)
CHRYSENE (14.8) 15.3
SUM BENZOFLUORANTHENES (14.8) 26.3
BENZO [ e]PYRENE (14.8) (15.2)
BENZO [ aJPYRENE (14.8) (15.2)
PERYLENE (14.8) (15.2)
INDENO [ 1 23-cd]PYRENE (14.8) (15.2)
DIBENZ [ ah)ANTHRACENE (14.8) (15.2)
BENZO [ ghi]PERYLENE (14.8) (15.2)
CORONENE (14.8) (15.2)
Concentrations are in ng/g dry weight
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs.
46
-------
Table 32
) TAL CONCENTRATIONS IN AMERICAN PLAICE SAMPLES
MAY, 1990
(ug/g dry weight)
Cu Zn Cr Pb Ni Cd Mn Fe
PLAICE MUSCLE I 1.79 21.4 0.07 0.12 0.00 0.011 0.74 11.5
PLAICE MUSCLE II 1.70 22.6 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.010 0.62 12.5
PLAICE MUSCLES 1.24 34.1 0.99 0.10 0.35 0.015 0.92 7.6
* This sample was fixed in dietricks solution prior to analysis.
-------
Table 33
PCB CONGENER & PESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SCALLOP
MUSCLE SAMPLES FROM GEORGES BANK
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902608 902609 902610
PCB CONGENER
008 0.32 0.11 0.23
018 1.31 (0.21) 0.16
028 3.19 0.85 1.39
052 3.94 (0.24) (0.33)
044 1.46 0.14 0.35
066 1.94 (0.14) (0.20)
101 2.90 0.39 2.08
118 2.54 0.37 2.07
153 2.59 1.83 3.24
105 0.30 0.08 0.38
138 1.01 0.25 2.40
187 0.18 0.04 0.65
128 0.15 0.03 0.42
180 0.17 0.08 0.52
170 (0.09) (0.08) 0.14
195 0.06 0.05 0.14
206 (0.09) (0.08) (0.11)
209 (0.11) (0.10) (0.14)
PESTICIDES
HCB 0.29 0.27 0.37
LINDANE (0.27) (0.24) 0.09
ALDRIN (0.20) (0.18) (0.25)
ACHLORDANE 0.13 0.15 0.26
TNONACHLOR 0.12 0.16 0.34
PPDDE 0.26 0.21 0.84
PPDDD (0.18) 0.07 0.23
PFDDT (0.20) (0.18) (0.25)
MIREX (0.20) (0.18) (0.25)
Concentrations are in nglg dry weight.
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs.
L 8
-------
Table 34
PAH CONCENTRATIONS IN SCALLOP MUSCLE SAMPLES FROM
GEORGES BANK
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902608 902609 902610
PAHs
FLUORENE 2.41 10.8 16.2
PHENANTHRENE 4.16 9.08 14.9
ANTHRACENE (1.72) 2.60 2.87
SUM MW178-C1 3.45 9.55 12.5
SUM MW178-C2 4.24 6.92 11.5
SUM MW178-C3 (1.72) (1.58) (2.20)
SUM MW178-C4 (1.72) (1.58) (2.20)
FLUORANTHENE 2.92 4.60 8.92
PYRENE 4.18 16.3 29.4
BENZ [ aIANTHRACENE (1.72) (1.58) (2.20)
CHRYSENE (1.72) (1 58) 3.70
SUM BENZOFLUORANTHENES (1 72) 1 96 6.67
BENZO [ e]PYRENE (1.72) 1.71 4.50
BENZO(aIPYRENE (1.72) 1 81 2.65
PERYLENE (1 72) (1.58) 4.64
INDENO(123-cdIPYRENE (1.72) (1.58) (2.20)
DIBENZ [ ah]ANTHRACENE (1.72) (1 58) (2 20)
BENZO [ ghiIPERYLENE (1 72) 1.95 4.13
CORONENE (1.72) 2.38 847
Concentrations are in ng/g dry weight.
Numbers withtn ( ) are MLDs.
49
-------
Table 35
PCB CONGENER & PESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SCALLOP
MUSCLE SAMPLES FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902611 902612 902613
PCB CONGENER
008 0.26 0.26 0.37
018 0.62 0.30 1.28
028 1.31 1.75 3.96
052 1.49 1.45 4.80
044 0.95 0.64 2.98
066 1.15 (0.27) 3.82
101 1.85 1.87 3.65
118 1.63 1.70 3.15
153 3.86 3.78 6.00
105 0.22 0.28 0.79
138 2.82 2.86 4.24
187 1.37 1.22 1.85
128 0.44 0.42 0.60
180 0.80 0.77 1.15
170 0.32 0.30 0.44
195 0.10 0.14 0.17
206 (0.07) (0.15) (0 15)
209 0.02 (0.19) (0.20)
PESTICIDES
HCB 0.23 0.47 0.47
LINIDANE (0.22) (0.46) (0 47)
ALDRIN (0 16) (0.34) (0.35)
ACHLORDANE 0.29 0.27 0.31
TNONACHL.OR 040 0.35 0.46
PPDDE 1.33 1.30 1 69
PPDDD 0.57 0.51 0.27
PPDDT (0 16) (0.34) (0.35)
MIREX 0.08 0.07 0.10
Concentrations are in ng/g dry weight.
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs.
50
-------
Table 36
PAH CONCENTRATIONS IN SCALLOP MUSCLE SAMPLES FROM
MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902611 902612 902613
PAHs
FLUORENE 1.74 (2.95) (3.03)
PHENANTHRENE 7.22 8.57 11.5
ANTHRACENE 2.62 (2.95) (3.03)
SUM MW17S-C1 8.82 14.6 16.0
SUM MW178-C2 11.8 20.6 23.0
SUM MW178-C3 3.41 5.71 10.9
SUM MW178-C4 (1.39) (2.95) (3.03)
FLUORANTHENE 23.5 29 8 41.0
PYRENE 26.9 33.4 44.5
BENZ (aIANTHRACENE 9.26 12.7 14.4
CHRYSENE 13.1 15.1 18.2
SUM BENZOFLUORANTHENES 32 3 40.2 49.9
BENZO [ e]PYRENE 17.5 182 24.5
BENZO [ a]PYRENE 9.43 12.3 14.7
PERYLENE 10.8 120 11.4
INDENO(1 23-cd]PYRENE 3.38 (2.95) 3.46
DIBENZ [ ah]ANTHRACENE (1.39) (2.95) (3.03)
BENZO [ ghIIPERYLENE 2.53 (2.95) 3.25
CORONENE (1.39) (2.95) (3.03)
Concentrations are in ng/g dry weight.
Numbers within () are MLDs
51
-------
Tab’e 37
PCB CONGENER & PESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN DEPLOYED SCALLOP
MUSCLE SAMPLES FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE : MAY. 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902601 902602 902603 902604 902605 902606
PCB CONGENER
008 0.77 0.83 0.90 0.71 0.54 0.59
018 0.67 0.51 0.36 0.64 0.61 0.82
028 1.17 1.54 2.34 1.91 1.38 2.01
052 2.30 2.27 3.75 3.42 2.22 3.93
044 1.03 0.91 1.68 1.81 0.99 1.63
066 1.84 1.57 4.24 3.26 2.08 3.93
101 3.80 3.09 9.33 6.83 4.26 8.09
118 445 3.55 12.2 7.86 5.00 9.47
153 6.95 5.51 18.1 14.2 8.45 14.3
105 1.07 0.71 2.64 1.66 1.03 1.98
138 5.80 4.44 14.8 11.8 7.17 11.1
187 1.91 1.38 4.08 4.60 2.63 3.20
128 1.02 0.78 2.55 1.96 1.22 2.02
180 1.32 0.83 2.19 2.65 1.39 2.21
170 0.50 0.33 0.86 1.09 0.59 0.80
195 0.06 0.16 (0.22) 0.16 0 12 (0.16)
206 (0.08) (0 12) (0.12) (0.07) (0.08) (0.08)
209 (0.10) (0.16) (0.15) (0.10) (0 11) (0.11)
PESTICIDES
HCB 0.28 0.42 0 43 0.27 0.27 0.29
LINDANE 0.13 (0.39) 0.22 0.11 0.22 0 17
ALDRIN (0.18) (0.29) (0.27) (0 17) (0.19) (0.19)
ACHLORDANE 0.55 0.39 0.82 0 94 0.64 0.95
TNONACHLOR 1.11 0.85 2.51 2.01 1.18 2.07
PPDDE 4.35 3.41 10.9 7 76 5.02 7 05
PPDDD 0.66 0.61 0.66 1.54 1.11 111
PPDDT (0 18) (0.29) (0.27) (0.17) (0.19) (0 19)
MIREX 0 It 0.09 0.22 0.21 0.14 0.15
Cor centrations are in nglg dry weight.
Numbers within () are MLDS.
52
-------
Table 38
PAH CONCENTRATIONS IN DEPLOYED SCALLOP MUSCLE SAMPLES
FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902601 902602 902603 902604 902605 902606 902607
PAHs
FLUORENE 11.8 20.8 10.7 19.0 29.5 28.0 0.22
PHENANTI-IRENE 22 1 25.3 18.7 35.9 32.0 29.2 1.38
ANTHRACENE 4.41 4.84 4.61 5.01 5.62 4.84 0.47
SUM MW178-C1 22.2 19.3 17.2 31.0 296 22.0 1.59
SUM MW178-C2 22.8 18 4 28.1 36.1 25.7 24.0 9.07
SUM MW178-C3 7.26 5.45 13.6 26.7 6.63 11.1 2.34
SUM MW178-C4 (1.58) (2.49) (2.34) (1.49) (1.63) (1.66) 3.06
FLUORANTHENE 20.5 17.1 211 35.9 31.3 25.1 4.00
PYRENE 41.0 37.3 35 8 80.0 72.7 65.0 5.45
BENZ(a]ANTHRACENE 8 69 5.88 9.66 21.9 18.7 12.0 2.56
CHRYSENE 11.7 10.1 148 28.4 22.8 17.5 3.08
SUM BENZOFLUORANTHENES 27 5 21.9 27.8 67.4 51 7 32 4 8.98
BENZO [ e]PYRENE 15.8 12.9 16.8 31.2 242 16.9 3.88
BENZO [ aJPYRENE 840 7.00 8 91 20 1 17 5 9.75 1.22
PERYLENE 8.16 5.82 7.34 12 2 9.71 6.84 0.44
INDENO [ 123-cd]PYRENE 2 37 (2.49) (2.34) 8 90 7 44 5 98 0.81
DIBENZ [ ah]ANTHRACENE (1.58) (2.49) (2.34) 2.05 1.93 (1 66) 0.37
BENZO(ghi]PERYLENE 5.33 7.56 7.10 154 144 15.2 0.88
CORONENE 1.86 2.50 (2.34) 9.85 24.9 26.9 (7 48)
Concentrations are in ngfg dry weight.
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs
53
-------
Table 39
PCB CONGENER AND PESTICIDES CONCENTRATIONS IN WHOLE
SEA SCALLOP SAMPLES FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902593 902594
PCB CONGENER
008 (0.30) 10.33)
018 3.25 2.76
028 5.03 3.96
052 6.36 6.10
044 3.62 4.20
066 (0.16) 5.35
101 8.02 7.34
118 7.53 6.81
153 14.1 14.4
105 4.75 3.36
136 11.1 10.8
187 4.50 4.80
128 1.85 1.53
180 3.79 3.57
170 1 42 1.32
195 (0.09) (0.10)
206 (0.17) (0.18)
209 0.30 (0.10)
PESTICIDES
HC B 0.81 0.35
LINDANE 0.69 0.54
ALDR N (0.20) (0.22)
ACHLORDANE 1.78 1.79
TNONACHLOR 2.19 2.56
PPODE 5.77 6.90
PP000 4.48 4.61
PPDDT 0.66 0.46
MIREX 0.71 0.18
Concentrations are in ngfg ry weight
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs
-------
Table 40
PAH CONCENTRATIONS IN WHOLE SEA SCALLOP SAMPLES
FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTIONDATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902593 902594
PAHs
FLUORENE 20.2 11.5
PHENANTHRENE 311 50.1
ANTHRACENE 38.9 9.15
SUM MW178-C1 1250 60.8
SUM MW178-C2 2120 88.6
SUM MW178-C3 1300 16.5
SUM MW178-C4 264 (3.87)
FLLJORANTHENE 153 98.7
PYRENE 213 90.9
BENZ [ a]ANTHRACENE 247 25.4
CHRYSENE 47 8 40.3
SUM BENZOFLUORANTHENES 498 65.6
BENZO [ e]PYRENE 23.1 29.9
BENZO [ a]PYRENE 16.3 19.2
PERYLENE 21 1 13.3
INDENO [ 123-cd]PYRENE 8.58 8.16
DIBENZ [ ah]ANTHRACENE (3 52) (3.87)
BENZO [ ghi]PERYLENE 10.7 9.31
CORONENE (3 52) (3.87)
Concentrations are n rig(g dry weight
Numbers within ( ) are MLDs.
55
-------
Table 41
PCB CONGENER AND PESTICIDES CONCENTRATIONS IN
SAMPLES FROM MASS BAY
COLLECTiON DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902595 902607
OCEAN QUAHOG SCALLOP GUT
PCB CONGENER
008 (0.46) 10.1
018 1.98 32.1
028 6.51 107
052 3.78 121
044 4.20 51.6
066 8.12 102
101 5.29 166
118 4.85 221
153 8.87 318
105 6.54 52.4
138 7.58 302
187 2.73 96.5
128 1.11 52.0
180 3.22 66.0
170 0.98 27.7
195 (0.14) 0.86
206 (0.26) 2.04
209 0.87 0.69
PESTICIDES
HCB 1.68 131
LINOANE 2.45 2 86
ALDRIN (0.31) (043)
ACHLORDANE 2.38 28.8
TNONACHLOR 1.82 844
PPDDE 6.82 383
PPCDD 8.42 60.0
PPDDT 0.98 2.91
M REX (0.31) 3.41
Concentrations are in ngI dry weight.
Numbers within C ) are Mt_Ds.
56
-------
Table 42
PAH CONCENTRATIONS IN SAMPLES FROM MAS BAY
COLLECTION DATE: MAY, 1991
SAMPLE NUMBER 902595 902607
OCEAN QUAHOG SCALLOP GUT
PAHs
FLUORENJE 12.1 16.4
PHENANTHRENE 28.5 103
ANTHRJACENE (5.46) 35.0
SUMMW178-C1 235 119
SUM MW178-C2 47.8 678
SUM MW178-C3 (5.46) 175
SUM MW178-C4 (5.46)
FLUORANTHENE 42.4 299
PYRENE 36 8 407
BENZ [ a]ANTHRACENE 14.4 192
CHRYSENE 18.4 230
SUM BENZOFLUOR.ANTHENES 29.4 671
BENZO [ eJPYRENE 18.0 290
BENZO [ aJPYRENE 7.86 91.1
PERYLENE (5.46) 33.0
INDENO [ 123- Cd IPYRENE (5.46) 60.7
DIBENZ [ ah]ANTHRACENE (5 46) 27.8
BENZO [ ght]PERYLENE (5 46) 659
CORONENE (5.46) (7.48)
Concentrations are in ng lg dry weight
Numbers witttn ( ) are MLOs.
57
-------
Table 43
METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN BIVALVE SAMPLES
MAY, 1990
(ug/g dry weight)
DEPLOYED SCALLOPS
SCALLOPS MBDS
SCALLOPS MBDS
SCALLOPS t DS
SCALLOPS ? .IBDS
SCALLOPS MBDS
SCALLOPS } DS
- MUSCLE SAMPLES
2.45 54.4 0.62
3.64 28.0 0.31
2.06 55.4 0.55
3.64 50.2 4.06
2.06 50.9 0.81
4.64 50.6 0.90
INDIGENOUS BIVALVES - WHOLE ORGANISM SAMPLES
SCALLOPS MBDS 1 16.2 76.3 0.36 0.9 0.68 23.9
SCALLOPS MBDS 2 15.8 86.]. 0.32 0.2 0.58 22.6
3.19 273.
4.35 283.
OCEAN QUABOG
48.6 236. 1.26 5.80 28.2
3.46 15.3 1150
Ni Cd Mn Fe
Cu Zn
Cr Pb
INDIGENOUS SCALLOPS - MUSCLE
SAMPLES
SCALLOPS GB1&2 2.74 65.5
6.82 0.10
1.03
0.66
1.55
SCALLOPS GB3&4 3.77 60.1.
3.73 0.19
0.68
1.09
1.54
SCALLOPS GB7&8 4.14 70.8
4.24 0.16
0.38
1.26
2.79
SCALLOPS MB1&2 3.35 64.8
2.16 0.20
0.33
1.56
0.88
SCALLOPS MB3&4 2.99 80.2
3.52 0.26
0.60
1.10
1.56
SCALLOPS MB5&6 7.1.5 158.
50.42 0.30
0.32
1.18
1.13
34.6
22.2
53.9
56.4
61.2
43.0
108.
228.
135.
279.
126.
145.
0.27
0.39
0.17
0.79
0.27
0.29
0.69
1.23
0.56
0.93
0.57
0.71
1.22
0.64
1.47
6.51
2.29
3.09
2.54
3.01
1.90
7.21
2.34
2.74
58
-------
300 -,
250 -
200
150
/
/
100 /
/
50- --
/
0
Figure 1
PCB SUM IN LOBSTER MUSCLE
-S
z
OUINCY BAY
MASS BAY
COLLECTION SITES
-------
Figure 2
PCB SUM IN LOBSTER HEPATOPANCREAS
18000
16000
14000
.0
0 .
0.
z
0
I.-
I-
2
U i
U
z
0
C)
OUINCY BAY
MASS BAY
COLLECTION SITES
-------
Figure 3
PP-DDE IN LOBSTER MUSCLE
0 ’
30
25
n
6
z
10
5
0
OIJINCY BAY
MASS BAY
COLIECTION SITES
-------
Figure 4
PP-DDE IN LOBSTER HEPATOPANCREAS
/
/
OUINCY BAY
/
3000
2500
.0
2000
z
1500
1000
0
0
500
0
MASS BAY
COLLECTION SITES
-------
Figure 5
BENZO [ aJPYRENE IN LOBSTER MUSCLE
-o
0.
0.
z
I
5
4
3
2
1
0
QUINCY BAY MASS BAY
COLLECTION SITES
-------
Figure 6
BENz0raJPYRENE IN LOBSTER HEPATOPANCREAS
0’
1-
Li
c i-
z
0
60
50 -,
40
30
/
20- -
10
0-
QUINCY AY
MASS BAY
COLLECTION SITES
-------
Figurb /
PCB SUM IN FLOUNDER MUSCLE
OUINCY RAY MASS BAY GEORGES RANK
COLLECTION SITES
a’
400
350
300
250
200
I-
z
150
z
0
U
1
-------
Figure 8
PCB SUM IN FLOUNDER LIVER
.0
0 .
0.
2
1800
1600-
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
/
/
MASS BAY GEORGES BANK
COLLECTION SITES
-------
Figure 9
PP-DDE IN FLOUNDER MUSCLE
/
30.0
25 0
200
z
I
150
10.0-
5.0
00
OUINCY BAY MASS BAY GEORGES BANK
COLLECTION SITES
-------
Figure 10
PP-DDE IN FLOUNDER LIVER
z
w
0
z
0
0
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
MASS BAY GEORGES BANK
COLLECTION SITES
-------
FIGURE 11
WINTER FLOUNDER
30-
.
25 NBH
B
15• BRH
10
SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
Benzo (a) Pyrene ( g/g)
-------
APPENDIX E
EPA’S REQUEST FOR A FEDERAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
-------
tO SJ 41
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
1 4 J.F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02203-nil
July 2, 1992
Mr. Jeffrey Benoit, Director
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Coastal Zone Management Office
100 Cambridge Street, 20th floor
Boston, MA 02202
Dear Mr. Benoit:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is completing actions necessary for the
proposed final designation of a dredged material disposal site in Massachusetts Bay.
Potential impacts associated with this action are discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (“DEIS”) and the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“SDEIS”),
which were sent to your office for review on September 15, 1989, and June 29, 1990,
respectively. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) will be sent to your office
in approximately one week. These EISs were prepared by EPA, in cooperation with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“COE°), the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”),
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”). EPA has completed a preliminary
consistency evaluation under the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 USC §1456 (“CZMA”),
as part of this program and has determined that the designation of the proposed site is
consistent with the approved coastal zone management program of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
EPA has evaluated designation of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (“MBDS”) according
to the requirements of the Marine Protection, Research. and Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC § 1403,
which prohibits ocean dumping which would “.. .unreasonably degrade or endanger human
health, welfare, or amenities, or the manne environment, ecological systems or economic
potentialities....” Specifically, EPA applied the five general and eleven specific statutory
criteria for site designation set forth at 40 CFR § 228.5 and 228.6. EPA’s site selection
criteria relate to major marine ecosystem concerns. These concerns are substantially
equivalent to those found in the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (“MCZM”) office
Policies with respect to protection of living marine resources. For example, both the State
Plan and EPA’s site selection criteria aim to protect sensitive marine areas such as those used
by living resources for breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage. After
consideration of the criteria, EPA has concluded that final site designation will be protective
of the marine ecosystems and water quality in Massachusetts Bay. Final designation of the
MBDS will provide an environmentally acceptable alternative for the disposal of dredged
materials that meet the Ocean Dumping Critena. If ocean disposal is selected as the most
feasible option for a particular dredged material disposal project, this site designation ensures
that art ocean disposal site is available in the area.
R NTEO ON RECYCLED PAPE
-------
In completing the preliminary consistency review, EPA evaluated whether the designation of
the proposed site will either directly or indirectly affect the coastal zone of Massachusetts,
and EPA determined that the action of designating the proposed MBDS for dredged matenal
will have no such effects. However, EPA has made CZMA consistency review for site
designation a matter of standard policy. This policy reflects EPA’s efforts to maintain
cooperative federal and state environmental regulatory processes that are mutually supportive.
In addition, any direct or indirect effects of the actual disposal of dredged material at the
MBDS on the coastal zone will be consistent with the policies of the MCZM office. The
reasons for this preliminary determination are discussed below.
1. EPA’s designation of the MBDS is not an authorization for the disposal of
any particular dredged material at the site. Disposal cannot occur until the
COE issues a permit or follows its regulatory procedures under § 103 of the
MPRSA. It should be emphasized that final designation does not denote
EPA’s approval of particular dredged material disposal proposals at the site.
EPA and the COE jointly conduct an environmental review of each proposed
ocean disposal project, with input from other state and federal resource
agencies including MCZM. This review includes a review of the suitability of
the materials for ocean disposal as well as an assessment of the need for ocean
disposal. Thus, the proposed designation of the MBDS is consistent with
MCZM policies.
2. It is only the actual disposal of dredged material, as authorized by the
COE, that conceivably could directly affect the coastal zone. Moreover, EPA
does not believe that dumping at the proposed MBDS may reasonably be
expected to result in any direct or indirect impacts on the Massachusetts
coastal zone that are inconsistent with MCZM policies. First, since the MBDS
is not in the coastal zone, use of the site will not directly impact the coastal
zone. Second, the MBDS is located approximately 15 nautical miles from
Gloucester, MA. Field surveys have shown that bottom currents at the site
move primarily in the southeast direction. EPA believes that the MBDS is a
ôntainment area. The DEIS presents site-specific resuspension and water
qüálity-anàl’yses which support this determination. Therefore, dredged
ñ áteria1 disposed at the site would not travel into the coastal zone. Third, as
discussed 1 in detail in Chapter 5 of the DEIS and Chapters 3 and 4 of the
FEIS improved site management techniques are expected to prevent any
unacce’p able! environ mental impacts in or outside the coastal zone. The
revi”sed dredged material testing protocol, relocation of the reference site to a
cleài er area, and jtoper site monitoring and management will, in part, enable
EPA th minimf e foreseeable adverse impacts to the marine environment.
3. The distance from the site to the nearest beach is great enough so that
impacts to the shoreline,resulting from dredg . material disposal cannot
re ónabl ’ beariüci a 4. Past use of the s e,has. not resulted in any
interf reh é ith edch and shore activities in Massachusetts. Monitoring
surveys at the site will continue to evaluate the effects of disposal. In the
-------
event that significant movement of the dredged material towards any amenity
is evident, use of the site may be modified or terminated (see Chapter 4 of the
FEIS). The site evaluation presented in the EISs applied the site selection
criteria at 40 CFR § 228.5 and 228.6 which account for effects to the coastal
zone, and this analysis bolstered the conclusion that use of the MBDS for
dredged material disposal is consistent with MCZM policies.
4. Possible localized effects associated with the use of the MEDS are local
mounding, temporary increases in turbidity and the smothering of benthic
organisms. As the DEIS indicates, disposal of dredged material may result in
the smothering of the benthos within the designated site and possible habitat
alteration of the site. The low energy environment in the disposal area and
recolonization ability of bottom-dwelling organisms will tend to mitigate any
adverse effects from smothering. The ability of these organisms to recolonize
in similar sediments renders this impact short-term and insignificant. Evidence
of this is found in surveys at the site which have detected no significant
differences in the infaunal community between the site and a reference area.
Also, these insignificant effects will all be outside the coastal zone. In
addition, use of the MBDS would not have a sigmflcant effect on commercial
or recreational fishing in the area. Most commercial and recreational fishing
activity in the vicinity is concentrated in inshore and nearshore waters, the site
does not represent a unique habitat for any of the important commercial or
recreational fisheries and the species that are harvested at the MBDS are not
generally confined to a single habitat and could therefore withstand the small
loss of benthic food sources in the disposal area. Therefore, no impact Ofl:
commercial fishing operations resulting from dredged material disposal at th
MBDS is expected.
5. The transport of dredged material to the MBDS by barges during actual
disposal operations may result in minor effects, such as noise and turbulence,
on the coastal zone. Additionally, small amounts of material couidjealc, from
barges during transport to the disposal site. However, any such leaicaae .can
be expected to be effectively dispersed in the turbulent wake ot tt e) paxge, , d
its impact on marine organisms can be expected to be negligible nis minor,
leakage has not been an issue of MCZM in the past. In adc1itiqn, pproppate
permit compliance monitoring can be expected to minimize y ucb spi lag
to very minor levels. In a ddition, the MBDS is located aqj. cent tc 13ostqç :s
major shipping lane, thereby minimizing the effects assoc ate4 ith dred d.
material disposal with respect to the overall traffic scheme. - X1 js, onc aga1rr,
the site designation and ultimate ise of the site are consistent wu.n MCZM
policies.
6. The USFWS and the NMi S iave concluded that jol ie site ilL ot.
endanger the endangered ór’ threatened species which b t r n yicy,
the site.
-------
7. Any material proposed for ocean disposal must meet the criteria given in
40 CFR §227. Turbidities resulting from use of the site will be temporary as
the predominance of the dredged material will fall to the bottom. EPA and the
COE will continue to monitor the MBDS as long as it is used to detect
movement of the material and any associated impacts. Thus, no significant
negative impacts are expected he site or in the coastal zone.
Since 1975, approximately 3.2 million cubic yards of dredged material have been disposed at
the interim MBDS with no indication of adverse environmental impacts. The MBDS is
currentt r classified under EPA Impact Category II, meaning that no significant unacceptable
effects have been identified as a result of dredged material disposal (40 CFR §228.10). The
proposed site is centered at 70° 35.O’W latitude and 42° 25.1’N longitude with a diameter of
two nautical miles. This site is located approximately 21 nautical miles east of Boston, MA.
Through its policies, the State Plan recognizes both the need to protect coastal water quality
through proper control of dredge and fill operations and the need to maintain navigation
channels and improve harbors to increase the movement of waterborne commerce. EPA has
approached the MBDS designation in this spirit and finds the action consistent with MCZM
policies. We therefore conclude, based on the information presented in the DEIS, SDEIS,
and FEIS, that the proposed designation is consistent with the policies of the MCZM. We
are hereby requesting that you determine whether MCZM concurs with our preliminary
findings. We would appreciate a written response within fourteen calendar days as we plan
to proceed with final designation in the near future. If there are further questions regarding
this consistency determination, please do not hesitate to contact Kymberlee Keckler of my
staff at (617) 565-4432.
incerely,
G. Manfredonia, Chief
Water Quality Branch
cc: William Lawless, USACOE, Waltham, MA
Thomas Fredette, USACOE, Waltham, MA
Judith Pederson, MCZM, Boston, MA
Bradford arr, MCZM, Boston, MA
Christopher Mantzaris, NMFS, Gloucester, MA
Veinon Lng, USFWS, Concord, NH
------- |