)LU(
,
THE
COMMONWEALTH
OF
MASSACHUSETTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT
ON
SITING OF
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES
FOR
BOSTON HARBOR
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 1
JFK FEDERAL BUILDING
BOSTON MASS. 02203
-------
ABOUT THE COVER
The photograph on the front cover shows an aerial
view of Boston Harbor and the islands on which
the siting studies concentrated. Logan Airport
can be seen to the left of center, Downtown Boston
is in the lower center, Winthrop is in the upper
left, and Quincy is to the upper right. Cape Cod
is visible along the horizon.
Photos on the back cover show Deer Island, Long
Island, and Nut Island which are the alternative
sites being considered for new wastewater treat—
inent facilities.
Inside the back cover is a map of Boston Harbor
and vicinity showing place names used in the
SDEIS/EIR.
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ON
SITING OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES IN
BOSTON HARBOR
VOLUME 2
fl;:
Prepared For:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION I
And Submitted By The
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION
To The
MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
/ JJJ1,L &12 / 3// L /
MICHAEL R. DELANO Date
Region i1 Administrator,
U.S. EPA
Prepared By:
CE MAGUIRE, INC.
Arctitects En eers • P’anners
One Davo Saiare, Provdence,
02903
Secretary, Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I Page No .
SDEIS/DRAFT EIR TITLE PAGE: Joint U.S. EPA and
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Project Review none
PROJECT ABSTRACT none
[ EXECUTIVE SUHHARY: Summary Report is being
distributed under separate cover)
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES vii
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
1.1 Problems Caused by Wastewater Treatment Plant
Discharges 1-1
1.2 Actions Resulting from the SDEIS 1-6
1.3 Other Pollution Problems in Boston Harbor 1-8
1.3.1 Introduction 1-8
1.3.2 Problems Caused by Sewer System Overflows 1-12
1.3.3 Problems Caused by Stormwater Runoff 1-13
1.3.4 Other Pollutant Sources 1-14
1.4 Actions Necessary to Achieve Water Quality
Improvements 1-15
1.4.1 Introduction 1-15
1.4.2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent and
Sludge 1-16
1.4.3 Sewer Overflows 1—18
1.4.4 Other Actions Necessary For a Clean
Boston Harbor 1-19
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1 Reason Why No Final Preferred Alternatives
Are Recommended at This Time 2-1
2.2 Selection Process for the Alternatives 2-1
2.2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2.2 Initial Consideration of Twenty-two
Options 2-2
1
-------
Page No .
2.2.3 Selection of Eight Alternatives for
Detailed Study 2-3
2.2.4 Screening of Eight Alternatives to
Seven 2-6
2.3 Conditions Placed on the Remaining Alternatives 2-10
2.4 Detailed Descriptions of Seven Remaining
Alternatives 2-12
2.4.1 Four Secondary Treatment Alternatives 2-12
2.4.2 Three Primary Treatment Alternatives 2-17
2.5 How Sludge Siting Relates to the Treatment
Plant Siting Decision 2-21
2.6 How the Final Screening and Selection Decision
Will Be Made 2-23
2.6.1 Harbor Enhancement 2-26
2.6.2 Effects on Neighbors 2-27
2.6.3 Effects on Natural and Cultural Resources 2-28
2.6.4 Implementability 2-30
2.6.5 Cost 2-30
2.6.6 Reliability 2-31
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIR0N 1ENT 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Boston Harbor Environmental Setting 3-1
3.2.1 Harbor Overview and History 3-1
3.2.2 Recreational Uses and Activities 3-5
3.2.3 Water Quality and Marine Life 311
3.2.4 Air Quality and Odors 3-15
3.2.5 Visual Quality 3-15
3.2.6 Land Use Patterns 3-19
3.3 Community Profile 3-21
3.3.1 Winthrop 3-21
3.3.2 Quincy 3-26
3.4 Site Characteristics 333
3.4.1 Deer Island 333
3.4.2 Nut Island 3-40
3.4.3 Long Island 344
13.
-------
Page No .
4.0 ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS 4-1
4.1 Secondary Treatment Alternatives 4-1
4.1.1 Impacts Common to All Secondary
Treatment Alternatives 4-1
4.1.2 Impacts of the Individual Secondary
Treatment Alternatives 4-3
4.2 Primary Treatment Alternatives 4-46
4.2.1 Impacts Common to All Primary Treatment
Alternatives 4-49
4.2.2 Impacts of the Individual Primary
Treatment Alternatives 4-49
4.3 Mitigating Measures 4-85
4.3.1 Land Use Considerations 4-85
4.3.2 Traffic 4-87
4.3.3 Recreational Resources 4-92
4.3.4 Archaeological and Historic Resources 4-93
4.3.5 Engineering Considerations 4-94
4.3.6 Financial Impacts 4-96
4.3.7 Visual Impacts 4—97
4.3.8 Construction Impacts 4-98
4.4 Conformance with Federal, Regional, State and
Local Plans and Policies 4—99
4.4.1 Federal Plans and Policies 4-99
4.4.2 State Plans and Policies 4-100
4.4.3 Regional and Local Plans and Policies 4-100
4.4.4 Other Plans and Policy Considerations 4-101
4.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of
Resources, Energy Requirements, and Conservation
Measures 4—101
4.6 Adverse Effects Which Cannot be Avoided 4-103
5.0 UNRESOLVED ISSUES 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Sludge Disposal 5-2
5.3 Off-Site Transportation Facilities 5-3
5.4 Disposal of Potentially Contaminated Harbor
Sediments 5-4
111
-------
Page No .
5.5 Tunnel Versus Pipeline Construction 5-5
5.6 Control of Growth and Future Wastewater Flows 5-6
6.0 COORDINATION 6-1
7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 7-1
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 8 -1
iv
-------
VOLUME 2: APPENDICES
9.0 PERTINENT STATE LEGISLATION
o Chapter 742, Acts of 1970
o Chapter 296, Acts of 1977
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
10.1 Statements by Involved Parties
10.2 Public Participation Program Summary
10.3 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Recommendations
11.0 PERMITS AND MARINE RESOURCE IMPACTS
11.1 Federal and State Permits Checklist
11.2 Actions Requiring Permits Under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act, and Section 103 of the
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
11.3 Water Quality Impacts
[ Boston Harbor Water Quality Baseline Report
Available Under Separate Cover)
12.0 BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS AND IMPACT ANALYSES
12.1 Land Use and Demographics
12.2 Traffic and Access
12.2.1 Baseline Traffic Report
12.2.2 Traffic Requirements of Construction
and Operations
12.2.3 Traffic Impact Analysis by Alternative
12.3 Recreation Resources and Visual Quality
12.3.1 Baseline Recreation Resources Report
12.3.2 Visual Quality Considerations and Criteria
12.3.3 Visual Impact Analysis by Alternative
12.4 Engineering Cost Estimates
12.5 Financial Impacts by Alternative
12.6 Noise Analysis
12.7 Odor Analysis
12.8 Area Geology
Page No .
9—1
10—1
11—1
11—1
11.2—1
11.3—1
12-1
12.1—1
12.2—1
12.2—1
12. 2. 2—1
12. 2. 2—11
12.3—1
12.3—1
12. 3—34
12. 3—38
12.4—1
12.5—1
12.6—1
12.7—1
12.8—1
V
-------
Page No .
12.9 Sludge Disposal Overview 12.9—1
12 l 0 National Historic Preservarion Act (NE-IPA) 12.10—1
Review Process Summary and Archaeological
and Historical Resources Report
12.11 Legal and Institutional Constraints on Long Island
and Deer Island 12.11—1
12.12 SDEIS Screening Report 12.12—1
SDEIS Reports Printed Separately and Available from EPA :
o Evaluation of Satellite Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Facilities (May 16, 1984)
o Boston Harbor Water Quality Baseline
o SDEIS/EIR Summary Report (December, 1984)
vi
-------
L LrJz r :!
U OL U
9.0 COPIES OF PERTINENT STATE LEGISLATION
o Chapter 742, Acts of 1970
o Chapter 296, Acts of 1977
-------
Chap. 742. As A( l’ l ’IIOV 11)1 NO I OI( TI! K M ‘QLJ l l’l’O N or rI! K 1Sl.A NI)S
IN II ! 1511)5 IIA1LIIOIL flY ‘I’ IlK i)EPA lt’I’II KS’!’ ()I ’ NAIl! hA L RE—
NIIIII1CES lOll TIlE PUIII ’OSKS OI.’ RECREATION ANI) CON—
SHIVATI ON.
He ii emu’frii, ete., as follows:
S hO i’ll. N I ii te diJ etrtnie,i L of ii ito ral resources, herci I iaft.cr re—
fl’rl ’ I to 115 Liii’ neqi ii 0 jig 14 C1iCY, is ii eri ’hy no Liii ,rize I in tile nttne of
the Coil! ru ’ II I wonIl ii to Lake by CIlli Ileilt (10001111 III1(Ie I the proviSiOnS (If
cii a pLi ‘r seven t.y l ii lie I ,r ci iapter eighty A ol Li I !’ (eii era! I saws, or acquire
by gilt, h)lIrcIlaSe or otillirwise, the fee or any teRser interest, for the pur—
J)oses of r(’rreatiori arId cons.irvatiiiti itieler a )rogriLnu itescribed in SOC—
ti in Ill ri s ’, .qi id I ,rivati ‘lv oW lO d isI:u Is or porfi oils of iSl1LtldS as are
Il 4rei,l;Lt LI ’ !’ rlarI,csl and such other propu rty a.s may be tlect’ssary or (ix—
JIll Ill’! it Lilerelt It ’ l’Ii lii p 50 1 1, S 1 )ect i ’I e, I’(s Idne k s, ( a lii Ills, B o iui pkin,
( ,reati’r Ilrewst,er, \1 itille Brewster, Outer Brewster, Calf, t ittIi ’ Call,
reel , I aee siji, 11:1 11 golan, ( rape, Slate, S I lI’eJ) together with islets,
rocks, :uol fiats :VljaeI tit thereto, provuletl that existing priv :tte uses
iiia ititojisistetit itii tIi purposes of thj act may he permitted to con—
tiii ie SIII)jl1rt Lii periodic review.
Sai , I :uql lilt! l ag!! ii’v is fu rUier authorized ii ’ :Le( i’ lire by gift or
ot.I ii•ra jM ! ! :LIi V isla, ul, i Tet, nicks, fiat land or or Lion LI terci 1 iii kston
II :u-b , ir w iii i I liv ai ’ city ot Li Iwn or ;tgeilm:v of till’ federal govi ’riiinent.
‘i IllS 2. ‘l’I ie :n’i liii ri i ig :Lgclicy SI fill I desigi iate SI IC )! I:uii IN I( saited
in, III I ,ll ’I’ or iso-ililiug ltostoii 1 Farhor south of a line drawn from Castle
isi iii’ I to lii,’ iii’ek of I ). ‘rr 151:0 111 iv huieli are ownl Si i r ii wh ’r the control
of :uiv u!l ’JflLrt,IeOiit., eiiiiituiisau ,r or :Lgi ’nry (If till ( ‘l),ll,nilIlweaitll and
w 1 1 1i11 1 ale not, actiedly i)eiiig IlsisI as Liii: site of : J)OI1IIC faeilit,y, to be
thtrr( ’:Lttrr uiIl(Icr Lhit (Silitrol of tIii1 UCljiiirillg agency for the PU POSCS of
tillS ;u:t.
Su ’iji, t. I 1111115 :lc( 1 ulired by or transferred to the acquiring agency
si 11111 he I iel I :tIo I i nai ii mi ned for Li ic pulJ ioses of LI I is act under a pro—
gr :Lmil 01 II ,:ul iti ‘li :l lice 1111(1 i nipr( IVeil tell t pIndi ng ti I C completion :tiiil ap—
WI I ‘al of a ii ! 1111110 ‘II ’ ! isive i iaiu for the area are I its approval by the
gi’iil’ ( iii e flIrt., mini I lii i’ fill! itring ;lgeney ln;ty CX )i’fl(l Si 1CI I .511 1115 11.5 may
be pi-i iv liii ii by s. ’t,ii i i fj In r of tillS act for the iii :v cli ipi itcilt, rei levelop—
lilI llt, 0 ,llSt,rlj, :l ion :ttu I inhI)rovenieIIt. of outdoor recri:atioil areas and
as.sociateil facilities on lands aequireil or transferred to it under this act.
Atm, 1970. —- UnA1’. 742.
SECTION I. ‘Iii ” aeqmlirilig agency is hereby authorized and directed
to t’Npl ’lId a 511111 iiot li i 0 54 5:4 51 three million five hundred thousand dol-
lars to carl’l’ 11111 lI, ’ irI’ ’lsi(ilIs of ectionu one, three and six of this act,
neIumthirig 1111 l :xpeIlMI ’s Ill CoIl IIi ’CtiOfl therewith. ‘l’o meet the expendi-
tures necessary in carrying out tile provisions of this act, the state
treasurer slillIl, i pori request of the governor, issue and sell at public or
private sale bor lm of tile commonwealth, registered or with interest
COIIJ)O1I 5 :ltt:LcherI, as lii : TIIRy deem best, to an amount to be specified
by till’ g(lVerIIoi fr-aol I 11) 11’ to time, but not exceeding, in the aggregate,
tile 50111 of tllri ’i: lflihIli )ll live hundred thousand dollars. All bonds issued
by Liii’ (S)litlllllllW(’1 IIlil, u.s aforesaid, shall be designated on their face,
IIOSIA)Ii lIa i’hs,r isl:uluIs Acquisition, Act of 1970 and shall be on the
serial pay mini- 111:11 1 11)1’ such maximum term of years, not exceeding
twenty years, mis the governor may recommend to the General Court
puIrsIlalut tI Secton 3 of Article LXII of the Amendments to the
Constitutio,i Id th ( ‘ommnonwealth, the maturities thereof to be so ar—
raIlgish that. liii’ :LiillllimItS payable in the several years of the period of
ftmotti7.at .i(fli oilier tI ui tile final year shall be as nearly equal as in
the opinion of the state treasurer it is practicable to make them. Said
hi4,tills ll:lII I Oil’ iiibi’i’st selni:(nnually at such rate a.s the state trea—
51115: 1’, with iii’ ;illJI’li II (if till’ gilvelnor, sii :ill fix. The initial maturities
of slId! 1)010 15 SIlall be payable not later than one year from the date of
issue t,llercof, and tiit’ eiii.iri ’ issue not later than June the thirtieth, nine—
tC(’il hundred :uu’I rIin ”tV—rnine. Seventy—five per cent of all interest
payments nut! Ii: i.Vrlit’ilIs on account of principal on such obligations
-------
shaH 1w paul f,ui,,i tl’ iiu’tnapo)it.an parks district fund, to be assessed
by ,iirt.hxls fixed by l:tw, and the balance shall be paid from the State
ltcere:itiw, Areas l’ umt, to be s esaed by methods fixed by law.
SSTION F. ‘l’tie aequiritig agency shall have authority to contract
with ngrneir of the federal government for the receipt of funds.
SECIioN 6. i’m’ :ieqwrtng agency shalt prepare comprehensive plans
to carry out the purpose of this act, may engage such consultants as are
nece sary and shall submit the results of its investigation, study and
planning to the gexieral enurt.
S CFiON 7. The provisions of this act are hereby declared to be
severable anal if any such provision or the application of such provision
to any pcrsl)Il or cireumst.aiiccs shall be held to be invalid or unconsti-
tutional, such iiwalidit.y or unconstitutionality shalt not be construed
to affect (lie validity or constitutionality of any of the remaining pro-
visions of said sections or the application of such provision to persons or
circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid. It is
hereby declared to be the legislative intent that said sections would
have been adopted had such invalid or unconstitutional provisions not
been ii,cludcd tlicrvi,,.
SF.titoN S This act shall not be construed to limit the power or
authordv of any department, board or commi on of the common-
wealth or of any political subdivision thereof or any public authority
except where exjirrsslv provided otherwise herein; provided, however,
that in, under or bordering Boston Harbor there shall be no acquisition
of lanai by any :;neh public agency or instrumentality other than the
acquiring :agosiey without the approval of the acquiring agency, and
no public fa,ait am or bordering said area may be sold, leased or used as
a dump or refuse 4 isposai area, and no sand, gravel or soil may be re-
,,ia,vcal the relpnii or ilrpu. . .iteai tliar saia, asid no structure umy be built.
ae. in, w itt ii ii it t I ii :t in ‘vat iii U ae neq niri ug ageiac
So iuN ¶J. t’ur ti .. f ,IirI ,oses of tInS . :ut., )Iae.tani I l:irbor shall be de-
li ,. ‘‘al as il.: , I s .it.nns of i he body iii tv:ttir ot n a ,,i ‘ . iizU1 216, :t2d ed
hi). 21., I NiS, lt 1 J , 11 Itarisit ‘‘, (! S. ( ‘a .t aini ( ;e .Hia ’tle 4 urvev,
w4nah , ‘ ‘ I , tiw wa’ J. iii a Ii lie Is 111,11 ig at It i i, I .. ova r eli AU rrtoii II ill
it, Llu I .wt, iii haul, lii.gpee ,uiu,,unt I. . , ii .. a ’:istrr ,i iuost poini. am Outer
I trew —IA a- •,.Lttad riii,In . Lii liii ’ ( ii V a ’M light t ia uitse, ain’t which lies
( t a U a.’ a mutt, iii a Ii iii’ hegu a, nit ig a I . I I.e ( rave. I ugh LIaou.ie, thei ,c run—
i .in t im ii ,,n , t ,nmrllmiveste,l v ii vat. iii I )aa r tsl:uia I , titetace rttIuu,ig (4)
liar , ,. . 4 ii i irIl nat ;i. .tn I ‘at ‘ f a. t ’ I at’ te usi:uul, tIaa ’inr ri liming to the
i ii . tatatia a. iii. . iii Lime s ii irthra..trrlv si a. ira • at. F ’ort. hula k lI( i(YIICC, Castle
iii tile ‘. .uit)i l ( . ,.44)i , (lLstflCL .aI i ii . city amf I .e.stoii.
Appa-ovaaL .4u4Ju.sL 2.?, 1070.
(.i*ap. 296. AN Acr I OIUBITINC TUE CONSTRUCtION OF ADDI-
TIONAL SE ’ .’ ERACE FACILITIES O Il ANY LANDFILL OPERA-
TIONS AT Ni r ISLAND IN TUE CITY OF QUINCY.
Be U enacted, etc., as olluus:
Notwithstanding an provision of law to the contrary, neither
the metropolitan distil t commission nor any ijioflulcal subdivi-
ab a of the commonwe lth may construct an additional sewerage
treatment plant or exp. ’nd existing sewerage treatment facibtics
at the existing Nut Islat ii facility in the city of Quincy in * Iu*fl-
ner which Involves any landfill operation or the filling in of
Quincy bay.
Approved Juiae 14, 1977.
-------
U DL LLJC
/ L Lr UCH E L L1U© U
L / \E áfl
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAFI
10.1 Statements by Involved Parties
10.2 Public Participation Program Summary
10.3 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Recommendations
-------
10.1 Statements by
Involved Parties
-------
INDEX TO:
10.1 STATEMENTS BY INVOLVED PARTIES
Date Statement Made By: Submitted To :
10/25/84 S.F. Cole, Director, J. Gutensohn, Commissioner,
Boston Redevelopment Massachusetts Department of
Authority Environmental Management
9/5/84 D.R. Cochrane, Winthrop N. Deland, Administrator
Board of Selectmen U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region I
8/14/84 J.E. Falbo, Winthrop Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
Planning Board
8/2/84 A. DeFronzo, Chairperson, R. Manfredonia, Chief,
East Boston Land Use Environmental Evaluation
Advisory Council Section, EPA Region I
7/26/84 R.L. Flynn, Mayor, City M. Deland, Administrator,
of Boston EPA Region I
6/21/84 M. Deland, Administrator R.L. Flynn, Mayor, City
EPA Region I of Boston
6/18/84 M. Deland, Administrator Letters to the Editor,
EPA Region I Boston Globe
6/15/84 H. Deland, Administrator J.F Timilty and J.F. Cusack,
EPA Region I Chairmen, Joint Committee on
Housing and Urban Development
5/20/84 EPA F.H. Tosches
4/6/84 H. Deland, Administrator R. Flynn, Mayor, City of
EPA Region I Boston
4/5/84 L. Chretien, Aide to Barry Lawson Associates
Rep. T.F. Brownell
4/3/84 F.X. McCauley, Mayor J.S. Hoyte, Secretary,
City of Quincy Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs
3/22/84 N. Deland, Administrator, F.X. McCauley, Mayor,
EPA Region I City of Quincy
3/1/84 F.X. McCauley, Mayor, H. Deland, Administrator
City of Quincy EPA Region I
-------
Date Statement By: Submitted To :
2/22/84 H. Deland, Administrator, R. Noonan, Chairman,
EPA Region I Winthrop Board of Selectmen
1/30/84 South Shore Chamber of Newsletter
Conine rce
1/9/84 T.C. Mcflahon, Director W. Newman, Acting Chief,
Division of Water Environmental Evaluation
Pollution Control Section, EPA Region I
1/9/84 J.S. byte, Secretary, H. Deland, Administrator,
Executive Office of EPA Region I
Environmental Affairs
11/30/83 R.E. Noonan, R.A. DeLeo, M.R. Deland, Administrator,
R.V. Vecchia, Winthrop EPA Region I
Board of Selectmen
10/fl/83 EPA Region I (Final Scope of Work for
Preparation of a Supplemental
Draft EIS on Boston Harbor
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Siting)
9/9/83 J.S. byte, Secretary, (Environmental Notification
Executive Office of Form)
Environmental Affairs
4/27/76 C. Corkin II, Chief, W.A. Garrity, U.S. Federal
Environmental Protection District Court
Division, Massachusetts
Department of the Attorney
General
4/26/ 76 J.A.S. llcGlennon, E. Murphy, Secretary,
Administrator, EPA Region I Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs
3/26/76 P.E. Dunn, Director of E. Murphy, Secretary,
Development, City of Boston Executive Office of
Penal Institutions Environmental Affairs
Department
-------
Boston
Redevelopment
Authority
Slephen F. Coy1efDirec1c
October 25, 1984
Commissioner James Gutensohn
Department of Environmental Management
100 Canbridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
Dear Commissioner Gutensohn:
I am writing to confirm understandings arrived at between
you and representatives of the City of Boston to the effect
that the Flynn Administration places the highest priority on
integrating Long Island into the Boston Harbor Islands State
Park.
The approximately 160 acres of the Island not occupied
by the Long Island Hospital have the potential to offer
unparelleled recreational opportunities to residents of the
City and region. The Mayor has asked me, as part of the
Harborpark planning initiative to begin discussions that will
lead ultimately to the use of the undeveloped portions of the
Island for park and recreational development.
It is my understanding that you will be seeking capital
funds for development of the Island as part of your fiscal
year 1986 capital outlay request, and it is therefore necessary
to expedite these discussions.
The City of Boston looks forward to working with you on
the development of Long Island as a major center in the Boston
Harbor Islands State Park.
SC/ecrn
c o s cie
cn 022J1
¶ ‘7 722-LSJO
Sincerely,
y r - Txr A 4 rry r i:: cxx r -
-------
—
— — — - , •
d nber 5,
r. ichael Deland
Fecion I A ininistrator
Environmental Protection Agency
jo:rrn Y. :-:enmeay Federal Building
Boston, XA. 02203
F: ::Dc astewater Treatment Facilities Planning
lear r. Deland:
: am resident of .inthrop. : aving reviewed the roocsed
“mitigative measures” section of the handout given at the
.ucust ..orksho: on Siting Alternatives, I wanted to reiterate
concern regarding the proposed mitigative measur’e of barzinz
cny construction materials to the leer Island site. I an
tru.v of the belief t-: - -. i:ow eauicnen: rd construction
wor rs to travel to leer l5i nd by road would be e gra - nis—
:a e on the :oart of the project planners and designers. That
stcment is intended to include the proposed mitaRative mea—
sures of busing workers to and from the site. The only reason—
able mitigative measure which I cam conceive of as being
acce:taO.Le to the residents of intmrop woulo cc a construction
contract condition that requires all workers, vehicles, ecuip-
ment and materials to be transported to and from the project
site by means of water or air. This condition would also have
to include cash penalties to be paid by the contractor to
the Town of winthrop for each violation . I would suggest a
.P,300 per violation as a reasonable penalty. In some emer-
gency cases it may be worth it to the contractor to pay the
enalty, but for the most part, I would think a S1,000 fine
ocr violation wculd be suffloi n: deterrent. • orkers
residing in ‘ inthrop could be excluded from the requirement
since they must drive through the town streets in either case.
believe the above requirement is necessary for the pro-
tection o: the. .oves an Jim s of tne resoaents of :ntflrop
and the construction workers as well. The Town’s roads were
simply not designed nor built for commercial traffic.
has no through traffic, other than that effected by
the eer Island Treatment Plant and Prison. In recent years,
ne traffic associated with these two facilities has become
cuite significant. I mow you must be aware that the proposed
trucking and worker busing route through inthrop is saturated
with residential and light commercial development. Along the
route, sidewalks are narrow and many of the homes and businesses
re .ocated close to the street. The town has at least its
n oe of children, dogs, bicycle riders, elderly and joggers
-------
—
:zCV ic about on the sidewalks and crossing the roadways.
.hene er a moderately—Sized truck comes into the town to make
delivery, its presence often results in blocked intersections
a d the creation of temporary one—way trafi’ c , es ecialij in
the light commercial zones where there s 3 ust oarely enougn
room for opposing passenger cars to pass under ordinary ci i ’-
cunstances. Add to the above the unique traffic problems
related to the State Public Boat Landing. The landing is a
major recreational facility and one of a very few in the
etropo1itan area. Its use is year—round.
Traffic in winthrop becomes especially heavy in the sunmer
months as out—of-towners head for, not only the Landing but
also Winthrop’s M.D.C. Beach, Yirrel Beach, Grandview Avenue,
and the five marinas. In spite of all this current traffic,
safety has not been a major problem in Winthrop. 1 am afraid
that with the introduction of construction-related traffic
that picture will change completely. Commercial traffic is
very different from residential and recreational traffic.
There is an urgency about it, politeness is lost in the rush,
drivers are not so cautious when they are on the clock. The
constant congestIon at intersections anc a.tong narrow rocoways
will cause further aggravation not only to resients but to the
workers and contractor as well.
For everyone’s safety, I urge you to consider as a miti-
gative measure, a proposal that all men and ecuipment be trans-
ported to and from the Deer island site by air or water and
that a penalty clause be included in tne construction contract
for direct pa aent to the Town of ‘ inthrop for each violation.
Sincerely,
avid R. Cochrane
cc: Winthrop Board of Selectmen
Edward lonata, P.F.C.
-------
PLANNING
BOARD
INm .op, M c tv 1-rs 02152
-
August 14, 1984
Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 648
Concord, MA. 01742
Attention: Edward lonata
Re: Wastewater Treatment SIte
Dear Mr. Ionata
The Winthrop Planning Board wishes to be recorded as being
adamantly opposed and irrevocably committed to stop all
further expansIon of sewerage treatment facilities at the
Deer Island Treatment plant. Our position is and has been in
the past, that all further expansion be it primary and/or
secondary treatment be located on Long Island. However, we
do support improvement in maintenance to increase the
effectiveness of the present sewerage disposal operation at
Deer Island. In essence, we do not support any increase in
sewerage disposal operations but support improvement of the
present capacity level.
under the provisions of Chapter 40A and local zoning by—law,
the Planning Board is called upon to give its opinion
re.ative to any change or INCREASE in a particular use of
land which represents a potential hazardous effect to the
community.
Throughout the several years that the issue of sewerage
treatn ent h is confronted the Town of Winthrop, the Planning
Board has ncit been persuaded by the arguments raised by the
proponents ‘he pri iary and secondary updated treatment
facility at eer sland. e have heard that the cost factor
c ‘oca e such a faci’ity at Long Island is prohibitive; that
eer Island is already “institutionalIzed”; that the
-------
opposition by the City of Boston to a location at Long Island
is nsurmountab1e and many other arguments. We have recently
reviewed the eight alternative wastewater treatment siting
options as provided to us in the BOSTON HARBOR UPDATE II
dated July, 1984. We have not been persuaded to alter our
strong opposition to increasing the sewerage disposal
capacity at Deer Island in any manner.
Our Board believes that the need to protect the health arid
welfare of our residents as well as improve and maintain
property values is of greater importanance than to cut back
costs relative to re—locating the facility to Long Island.
Unfortunately, the Town of Winthrop is long accustomed to
hearing the words “cost factor” concerning expansion and
progress from quasi Governmental agencies such as the Deer
Island Sewerage Treatment Plant, the Deer Island Penal
Institution and Logan International Airport. We cannot
consider a qualitative comparison between dollar values and
human suffering. Dispite the consideration as to cost factor,
Long Island is institutionalized by reason of its hospital
facilities and is located approximately 5 miles from the City
of Boston. The Deer Island Treatment facility coupled with
the other Governmental agencies threaten to destroy the
residential quality of Winthrop. It must be remembered that
the sewerage treatment facility Is located a few hundred
yards from a substantial portion of the Town of Winthop’s
overall population of approximatly 22,000.
We accept the concept that strong opposition should have been
made to the original construction of the sewerage treatment
plant some 25—30 years ago. However, at the time of the
orIginal construction, the majority of home owners in the
Point Shirley area of Winthrop were summer residents who were
unable to vote or participate in the fate of our community.
That temporary resident status has all but vanished as the
entire area has become a community of permanent residents.
Clearly, we are not concerned nor persuaded by the arguments
of those who would penalize the community of Winthrop for
allowIng the initial construction of the Deer Island Sewerage
Treatment plant to take place.
The Planning Board is also extremely concerned wIth the
secondary effect of a massive construction program at Deer
Island. The community CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be forced to
tolerate the additional problems of excessive traffic flow
and conjestion that will accompany the expansion arid new
construction of the sewer treatment plant. The construction
involved in updating end expanding of the Deer Island
Treatment facility will take yearshls community presently
wages a constant battle with noise, air pollution and the
-------
threat of expansion from Logan International Airport. The
populace of the Town of Winthrop live in fear of the
consequences of an overcrowded, understaffed and poorly
maintained prison facil±ty at Deer Island. The years of
inadequate maintenance and low staffing levels at the exising
treatment plant has caused a significantly poor water quality
throughout the Winthrop shores. The residents of the Town of
WInthrop CANNOT and WILL NOT endure fu ther environmental
abuses. Therefore, we cannot support any alternatives
relative to any wastewater sludge management or wastewater
treatment siting other than relocating facilities on Long
sland or some other location sufficiently removed from the
Town of Winthrop. Further expansion of sewerage treatment
facilities at Deer Island is unwarranted, unfair and
unconscionable to the inhabitants of the Town of W±nthrop.
Respectfully submitted for
TEr WINTHOP PLANNT OARD
B JEROME E. FALBO, MEMBER
cc: Edward Ionata, Public Participation Co—Ordinator
E.P.A. — Boston Harbor, S.D.I.S,
P.O. Box 1357, G.M.F.
Boston, MA. 02205
cc: Winthrop Board of Selectmen
cc: Representative Alfred Saggease
cc; Senator Michael LoPresti
cc: Paul Dawson, Winthrop Board of Health
cc: Planning Board members
cc: Margaret Riley
-------
2 UQL(St 1984
Mr. Ronald Manfredonia. Chief
Enviromental Evaluation Section
EP Re ion I
J.F.I:::ennedy Federal Building
Boston • Massachusetts o22o .
Dear Mr. Man-Fredonia:
The East Boston Land Use dvisorv Council (The Ccuncii)has several
concerns regardina the Boston Harbor Waste ater Facilities Sitina.
They are:
1. Conditions of Fresent facilities
2. ddition of new comnununities to the system
3. Future of Satellite facilities
4. Long Island
5. Impacts on the East Boston community
6. Mitigation
7. Water quality in Boston Harbor
Expanding on these points:
1. Conditions of Present facilites : The Council considers the
maintainance and operation of the present facilities to be of the
first priority. The existing sewerage treatment plants, combined
sewer overflows (CSO) and dry weather overflows ‘ DWO) must work
properly so that studies undertaken are started from a current
basis and do not project unrealistic conditions into the future.
-------
2. Addition of new communities : A moritorium should be
declared on the addition of new communities until the entire
system is working properly. It is senseless to continue to
degredate the Harbor. This violates the Clean Water Act as upheld
by the Ouincy Law Suit. The Council would also like to stress the
immediate importance of looking at new developments in the
communitjes already being served by the Metropolitan Distrist
Commission (MDC). The impacts of new developments should continue
to be monitored and plans developed how best to treat the
additional sewerage that will be added to the system.
3. Satellite_facilities : The Council corv 5i ier tne continuec
investigation of Satellite Facilities to be ot aramount
imoz rtance. It sees no sense ir dr zin1no our- iater uppIv from
our suburban watershed areas and un in tnis t i er in the oca n.
Our water resources must be protectEd. How soon will our
reservoirs run drvT The aquisition o-F land in tre rretropoiitian
area——for future expansion of the svstem——shouic be considered
immediately. No longer can the suburbs have the luxury of
flushing the toilet and not knowinq where the water goes.
4. Long Island : The Council sees no sense in degradating
another location in the Boston Harbor, plus opening up the
possibility of expansion of the system in an unsuitable location.
Although the upgrading and possible expansion of the Deer Island
plant will have severe negative impacts on our community as well
as Winthrop, we see no reason to expand these negative impacts to
new locations. Therefore, The Council recommends that Long Island
not be considered as an appropriate site.
5. p c s on the East Boston comp j : Traffic congestion,
noise and air pollution, and enviromental health factors as a
result of the airport and tunnel proximites are of ureat concern
to the residents of East Boston and Winthrop. Impacts from any
construction projects on Deer Island would augrevate already
intolerable conditions.
Another impact would be air pollution from incineration. The
Council strongly recommends against this option. should the waiver
for secondary treatment not be granted.
. Mitigation Whatever project ooes ahead the community
affected must be considered in every way possible.
Barging must be used whenever possible to
alliviate traffic congestion, noise and air oollution.
the possiblitv of rate reouction or
reimbursements must also be explored.
-------
Meetings with the community must occur be-fore
and during the project to ensure an open line o-f communication.
7. Water Quality in Boston Harbor Let it not be iorgotten that
the primary purpose of this entire project is the upgrading of the
water quality in Boston Harbor. This is most important with the
way the Harbor is developing as a recreational facility -for the
city 1 the state, and the nation. The Harbor and the Harbor Isands
are an economic and recreational resource that must be
protected——but they cannot be considered separately concerning
water distribution and waste disposal.
The East Boston Land Use Advisory Council considers it imperative
that the Metropolitan District Commi ssi on or ne i apencv reevaluate
the entire system as a whole and prioritize the steps necessary
-for a clean and healthy harbor be-fore cry action is tc :en.
Sincerely yours.
Anna DeFron:o, Chairperson
East Boston Land Use Advisory Council
cc: CE Maquire. Inc.
-------
S
-?-‘ ‘ - —.
CITY OF BOSTON• MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF ThE MA’ OR
RAYMOND L FLYNN
duly 26, 1984
Mr. Michael Deland
Recional Admin±strato
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
lohn F. 1 enr 1 edy Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr. Deland:
In response to your letter of June 21.. 1964, I would like
to restate my positior concerning the location of waste ;atcr
tre tr r facilities in the Boston ka: or. Be assured that the
1a k of ccrresnc’ndence since we last met is not indicative of
the City t s effort to improve the ccnd tion of the boston r arDor
and the oston Harbor Islands. Mv concern for the Boston Harbor
did not. begin when I was elected to the Mayor’s Office. For
the longest time, both as a State Legislator and as a City
Councillor, I have expressed my belief that the Boston Harbor
is vital to the economic and social well being of Boston and
the Boston Metropolitan area.
My administration is con’ nitted to doing :hatever possible
to improve the condition of the Boston Harbor. nd we applaud
the efforts of the EPA to find a suitable location for waste
water treatment facil ties. I would, however, like to re: terate
my unec ivocal position to siting the waste water treatment
fz c 1ity at Long Island. Long Iri. nd plays, and will contin ’e
to play an integral role ir 4 the City s effort to j ovi .e hasia
human services. I have repeatedly tatcd my co itment to the
Long Island Chronic Care Hospital and the Lono Island Shelter
for the homeless, which is the only shelter for the homeless
operated by the City. Since my inauguration, the nur.ber of
beds at the Long Island Shelter has been increased from one
hundred to two hundred; while the Ch:onic Car ! . pitz1 con-
tinues to serve over one hundred iifty pat o t;.
( — — I
— .__ 1 .—— S _ ¼_ - . - I . —
-------
Mr. Michael Deland
Page 2
In short, the future use of Long Island is of paramount
concern to the City of Boston. As an irreplaceable location
for sheltering the City’s homeless and the chronically ill;
and as one of the last remaining undeveloped areas in Boston,
the future use of Long Island should not include a waste
water treatment facility.
Mayor
L. Flynn
RLF/PW/amcd
-------
Juiie 21, 1984
onorable Raymond Flynn
!‘ayor of Boston
city Hall
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Dear Mayor Flynn:
On April 12, 1984, Secretary Hoyte and I r et with you and eT Thers
of your staff to discuss the clean—up of Bcztor. Harbor and pecifi—
cally your views of Long Island as a potential site for a waste—
water treatment facility. At our meeting you agreed to provide
EPA with documentation on the City’s long term plan for Long
Island as well as provide us with certain information which would
assist EPA in our environmental impact statement (FIS) evalua-
tions. Since several months have passed and we have not received
any correspondence from the City, I wish to bring this issue to
your attention.
I believe we both agree that a clean harbor is important to the
future economy and recreational opportunities for the citizens of
the Boston metropolitan area. EPA is working as quickly as
possible on decisions which affect the clean—up of the harbor.
Our ongoing EIS is evaluating eight alternatives for siting of
wastewater treatment facilities for the Metropolitan District
Commission either at Deer Island, Nut Island or Long Island. In
order for our EIS to be as comprehensive as possible as well as
to comply with the legal requirements of the National Environmen-
tal Policy Act, we r ust request that the City of F oston inforr
EPA of future plans for the long—term use of Long Island. This
information will assist us in thoroughly evaluating those waste—
water treatment scenarios under consideration for Long Island to
determine the compatibility of such facilities with those plans
set forth by the City of Boston. Without this information EP?
must make certain assumptions about Long Island which may not be
consistent with the objectives of your administration.
-------
: you can imagine, the final decision cn siting a wastew .ter
treatr ent facility in Boston Harbor will undergo trer endous
scrutiny and public review. Our recomr endations must be sound
and supported by adequate information. I would appreciate your
assistance in providing EPA with your view of the future of Long
Island and to provide members of my staff and our contractors the
necessary approvals for access to Long Island to conduct our E lS
investigations. Your assistance in providing EPA with this in-
formation will allow us to complete our EIS on siting waste—
water treatment facilities and move us one step closer to the
long overdue clean—up of Boston Harbor.
sincerely yours,
/2L’ ) L /z /
Michael R. Deland
Regional Administrator
-------
____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL P ROTECTlON AGENCY
REGION I
J. F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BL.flLDING, BOSTON, MASSAcHUSETTS O D3
June 18, 1984
Letters to the Editor
Boston Globe
135 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, MA 02107
Dear Editor:
Your series of three editorials on the need for Super Harbor was
constructive journalism at its best. The writer put a mass of
history and current planning, or the lack of it, into context and
made a reasoned plea for unified planning and adr inistration in
place of misrule by 125 government agencies, boards and departments.
Critical to the harbor’s future is adequate wastewater treatment.
Two avenues for progress in cleaning up harbor pollution now offer
themselves. One is the Governor’s pending legislation to create a
new Metropolitan Water Resources Authority (House Bill 5915).
This would be an independent authority capable of gaining adequate
funding and expertisefor construction, operation and maintenance
of a first—rate system in the manner of a public utility. I urge
you and your readers to support House Bill 5915.
The second opportunity already has been seized by many devoted
public officials and citizens who are contributing their wisdom
and expertise on siting of treatment facilities. A supplemental
environmental impact statement being prepared by EPA will examine
eight alternative plans involving Deer Island, Nut Island and Long
Island. A public hearing on the draft EIS will be held this fall
and the final EIS recommending the sites will be issued early in 1985
The public will benefit from the long sought harbor cleanup only if
there is a commitment to public access and appropriate shoreline uses
that capitalize on harbor cleanup —— uses such as parks, promenades,
restaurants, fish piers, boat moorings, and marinas. The MDC has an
opportunity to ac uire waterfront parkiand with $12 million earmarked
for this purpose in the capital outlay budget. The Boston Redevelop—
ment Authority can take the initiative to plan for compatible shoreli
uses.
(more)
-------
—2—
Speaking of waterfront amenities, wastewater treatment facilities
can be sited, designed and built to incorporate recreational and
aesthetic benefits and minimize community disruption. The Tailman’s
Island treatment plant in Queens, Long Island, N.Y., incorporates a
waterfront park, landscaped waterfront walkway and a public pier.
Major interceptors linking the Lowell Industrial Park and the Duck
Island treatment plant on the Merrimack River were constructed to
accommodate attractive walking and biking paths.
This is not yet the Globe’s vision of Super Harbor. The structure
to achieve this goal remains to be designed. The recent Boston 2000
Conference of mayor’s, planners and developers from Boston and across
the Nation began to form an alliance that could shape the future uses
of this priceless asset. We who love the harbor deserve nothing less.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Deland
Regional Administrator
-------
I
77 UMIED ST/.T Et It OPth NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
‘ REGION I
J. F. KE NE ( FE EF AL BUILDING. BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS O22 3
June 15, 1984
The Honorable Joseph F. Tiinilty
The Honorable John F. Cusack
Joint Committee on Housing and Urban Development
State House
Boston, iassachusetts 02133
Dear Chairman Timilty and Chairman Cusack:
I am writing to support the creation of an independent, professional,
adequately financed water and sewerage authority for the greater Bos-
ton area, as set forth in House Bill No. 5915. This authority is
needed to bring to an end the continuing discharges of raw and par-
tially treated sewage into Boston Harbor. The current discharges
from the Metropolitan District Commission system create the most
serious water pollution problem in New England and make the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts one of the worst violators of the federal
Clean Water Act in the country. The discharges regularly result
in beach closings, cause diseases in fish and other organisms and
threaten the public health to a greater extent than may be generally
realized. They cannot be allowed to continue.
House Bill No. 5915 would address the pollution problem first, by
creating a new agency with the administrative ability to undertake
the large clean-up effort required. The resolution of the pollu-
tion problem will require long-term planning. In comparison with
the MDC, the new agency should be better able to do this planning,
since it will have independent long—term financing. The resolution
of the problem also will require the undertaking of a long overdue
effort to expand and rehabilitate the sewage treatment system serv-
ing the Boston area. This will require a large construction manage-
ment effort. In comparison with the MDC, the new agency should be
better able to make the concerted effort required, particularly
since its top management will, not have the widespread responsibil-
ities of the MDC and will be able to focus on sewage treatment
projects. Finally, the resolution of the pollution problem will
require better operation and maintenance of treatment facilities.
An independently financed professional agency should be in a better
position to do this than the MDC, which has long been understaffed
and underfunded.
-------
—2—
EPA has positive experience around the country with independent pro-
fessional sewerage agencies like the one proposed to be created by
House Bill No. 5915. For example, the St. Louis area Metropolitan
Sewer District is widely regarded as among the leaders in water pol—
ju’cion control. Closer to home, the creation of the Narragansett
Bay Commission to handle the sewage from Providence, Rhode Island,
and several surrounding communities has been an important step in
addressing the pollution problem in Narragansett Bay.
The other key part of resolving the Boston Harbor pollution problem
is of course adequate funding. Currently, in contrast to many mod-
ern sewerage agencies, the MDC lacks the ability to issue revenue
bonds. It also lacks the ability to raise sufficient funds from the
users of its Services because its assessments have been capped at a
low level. In the absence of either a mechanism for raising suffi-
cient funds from its users or of supplemental appropriations, the
MDC facilities continue to pollute the Harbor and to violate pollu-
tion control requirements. If current funding levels and mechanisms
were continued unchanged, the Boston Harbor pollution problem would
never be corrected. It is time for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
to address this pollution problem by adopting a system which provides
for adequate funding. The Commonwealth is being asked to do no more
than what industry arid other governmental bodies have already been
required to do throughout the country.
House Bill No. 5915 would address the funding problem by giving the
new authority the ability to issue revenue bonds to pay for capital
projects and the ability to raise adequate funds through user charg-
es to residential, commercial and industrial users of its services.
While this could be expected to lead to manageable increases in sew-
er user charges, it is of course not the new authority that would
bring about the need for increased user charges, but rather the need
to stop pollution and the violations of the law. As set forth in a
recent study by the Bank of Boston, sewer user charges in the MDC
system currently are far below those in most other areas around the
country. Because funding levels have been below the levels necessary
to pay for sewage treatment, the MDC system has not been properly op-
erated and mairtajned and has not been expanded and updated. Major
metropolitan areas that have increased sewer charges such as Phila-
delphia have made considerable progress in addressing their pollution
problems. The MDC system, with its low user charges, stands out as
among the systems that have made the least progress.
It also should be emphasized that a failure by the Commonwealth to
address the pollution problem is not likely to result in a CofltiflU—
ation of the MDC system’s low user charges. EPA cannot allow viola-
tions of federal law to continue and believes that it is time for
-------
-.3—
the MDC member corn unitjes to accept the responsibility for paying
for the full cost of sewage treatment. EPA is confident that it can
prevail in any necessary federal court action. Moreover, any delay
in addressing the pollution problem could actually cost the Common-
wealth money. EPA is currently administering a sewage treatment
grants program, which has already provided alr’ ost $1 1/4 billion to
Massachusetts projects and which is available to help fund the clean
up of Boston Harbor. But this grants program cannot do the job alone
and will not be continued forever. Should the Commonwealth delay in
creating the administrative structure and funding mechanism needed
to address the Boston Harbor pollution problem, the Boston area
could end up building its new treatment facilities after the federal
program expires, thus being one of the few areas in the country re-
quired to build the treatment facilities without federal assistance.
In addition, Congress has mandated that sewage treatment grant ass is—
tance may not be given to areas which lack user charges sufficient to
pay for the costs of operation, maintenance and replacement of their
treatment systems. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the
MDC system lacks sufficient user charges, placing continued federal
assistance to the MDC and its member municipalities in jeopardy. In
a similar situation, EPA this past year cut off grant assistance to
the five communities in the South Essex Sewerage District until they
agreed to pay for the full cost of sewage treatment.
I call upon the Legislature to act on H. 5915 as a matter of great
urgency. A full—scale effort to clean up the Harbor is long overdue.
Moreover, if new legislation is not adopted, the pollution problem
could actually get worse as funding restrictions lead to further ser-
vice cutbacks and breakdowns. None of us should sit back as this
major pollution problem remains unaddressed and violations of the
law continue.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Dc2.and
Regional Administrator
cc: The Honorable Michael S. Dukakis
Secretary James S. byte
-------
8 Lakewwod Drive
edfield, ! ass. , 02052
May 2.0, 1984
Dear EPA,
I would like to comment on the proposed site options
for wastewater facilities in Boston Harbor.
I feel the existing facilities should be rehabilitated
and upgraded to advanced primary with decreased flow; that
several satellite facilities should be constructed and that
all outfalls be designed for deep ocean.
Serious consideration should be given to decreasing the
amount of inflow to the Nut and Deer Island facilities, by
removing several towns from the sewerage system. The towns
hosting the Southern System of the MDC are closely surround-
ed by towns with existing wastewater facilities. Several of -
these towns could be joined to nearby plants such as Hingham
to Hull, Weymouth to Rockland, Walpole to Abington. There
are not as many facilities on the North Shore. This is
where two or three secondary satellite facilities could
be utilized, not exclusive to the Northern Line but
involving such large areas as Framirtham and Natick.
If the burden of the present fa ilities at Nut and
Deer Islands were decreased, they would be able to deal with
wet weather flows more easily.
Satellite facilites, although costly, are the best way
to stop polluting Boston Harbor. Towns that are not on the
MDC system have developed sound methods of constructing and
maintaining their plants. With the proposed change of the
Water and Sewerage Divisions of the MDC, this is the time
that alltowns and communities be responsible and accountable
for their waste.
I firmly believe that there should not be future growth
of wastewater facilities in Boston Harbor, particularily at
Long Island. The Harbor cannot tolerate any more pollution,
adding more poor quality effluent will only add insult to
injury.
Upgraded primary with decreased flow and secondary
satellite facilities will help to insure health to ourselves,
marine life and our water.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
- ,
Frances H. Tosches
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PRO s ECTION AGE .(CY
Honorable Raymond Flynn 4— ’—bk
Mayor of Boston
City Hall
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Dear Mayor Flynn:
EPA, Region I, has undertaken the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement for wastewater treatment facilities proposed by the MDC
in Boston Harbor. This environmental review is currently examining
eight final options out of eighteen that were initially proposed to
determine a preferred alternative for treatment plant siting. The
remaining options being evaluated involve facilities to be sited at
either Deer Island, Long Island or Nut Island.
While we recognize the very serious concerns and potentially adverse
impacts of proposed siting at Long Island, it is EPA’S mandate to fairly
and fully examine the comparative impacts and benefits at each of the
proposed sites. Such an an 1ysis will serve to establish the factual
basis for a comparison of impacts at Long Island and the other sites,
as well as provide a basis to evaluate associated siting issues of
concern to the City such as elements involving Long Island Hospital,
the bridge, or the Deer Island Rouse of Correction. Because of
the previous City administration’s opposition to any such facility
siting at Long Island, current data on Long Island is least adequate
and not up to date.
In order to facilitate this analysis within the time frame established
by EPA and the State (EOEA) I am requesting your assistance to give
our consultants and staff access to Long Island and to information that
may be available from various City Departments. A list of these data
and access needs is attached. If possible, we would like to initiate
this site access and information review within the next two weeks in
order to meet our established deadlines.
I look forward to meeting with you on April 12, 1984, and I appreciate
your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Michael R. Deland
Re 2 lona]. Administrator
-------
List of Data Needs
1.. Authorization to conduct preliminary site analysis on Long
Island. This will entail site visits by small groups of EPA
staff and consultants to view the areas on the island including
the hospital grounds, take soil samples, and inventory the
is1and s features. Such visits would be during daylight hours
and would not disrupt any of the island’s present uses or ac-
tivities. We anticipate approximately six visits over the next
two months to acc plish the variety of site viewing and analysis
tasks.
2. Access to information prepared by other City Departments re-
garding elements of Long Island s or Deer Island’s use. The
following are key pieces of such information:
a. Inspection of Long Island Bridge—-information received
frc Paul Donahue of the Public Facilities Department (725—4862)
indicates that an inspection of the Long Island Bridge was to be
carried out by a contractor to the City, any information obtained
to date would be helpful to the EIS review.
b. Studies of reuse of Long Island——any studies involving
reuse or relocation of hospital services and facilities for both
short—term and long—range time frame.
c Studies of reuse of DI House of Correction—-information
received from Peter Scarpigrtato, Public Facilities Department,
indicates that rehabilitation and/or rebuilding of the prison is
pending availability of funds. Any feasibility studies or other
assessments are requested, including studies of possible reloca-
tion of the prison.
d. Recreational uses of Long Island——any plans by the City
to develop the Island’s recreational uses would assist In broad-
ening our analysis of the site. ‘ e already have incorporated
State recreational plans.
e. Other development plans——any other plans to develop the
island for cczrmercjal or residential uses would be useful in
establishing the sites future potential.
-------
‘--- ‘
27 ( 2 .7/
T // e L)o//t,1/o//f1 e 7/ ( o/ /‘(7JJac, ’eJ’/
/
. -
/(ouJe c/ e 7’Ø eien/(I/,( e.,
4
THDMAS F. BROWNELL Coffimitt s 0 i
A..ST. MAJORITY LEADER
2 D NORFOLK DISTRICT OXot.Ofl
5 MORELAND ROAD TranlpDrtation
QIJINCY. MA 02169
OFFICE - 722.2A30
ROOM Z36 STATE HOUSE
BOSTON. MASS.
TO: BARRY LAWSON ASSOCIATES
FROM: LARRY CHRETIEN, AIDE TO REP. THOMAS F. ROWNELL
SUBJECT: MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SDEIS
DATE: APRIL 5, 1984
The mitigation measures we now recommend relate heavily to those that we outlined
in our statement for the public meeting in January. You might want to reter to that
letter, dated January 18th. Other ideas we have have grown out ol subsequent discussions
and study, including that of the CAC meeting on April Jrd.
First and foremost, we are in favor of secondary option la and primary option 4a. 2.
Under these options we recognize the impacts on Winthrop and the need br mitigation.
Consequently, we recommend that the following actions be taken:
1. A moratorium must be continued on expansion 01. the district.
2. Host communities should not be assessed sewer charges. In fact, they should be
financially compensated for carrying the burden of hosting wastewater treatment facilities.
A comAiunity with a secondary facility would receive the most, a community with a
headworks would receive a lesser amount.
3. The Metropolitan Water and Sewer Authority must be established. Without the promise
of depoliticization and sufficient funding, host communities still would have to expect
dangers due to inadequate pre-treatment and excessive wastewater flows from i/I and CSO’s.
*This office has fi)ed the legislation necessary to carry out those proposals.
-------
In terms of on—site mitigation at Deer Island, we o 1er tt ese suggestions:
1. It s doubtful that the prison could ever be moved, hut it snou C tie looked into and a
judgement should be made prior to the facilities siting.
2. During construction barge in materials and bus n workers. Any large vehicle movements
on the streets of Winthrop should be scheduled around the need br public satety. II
necessary, a police escort should be provided.
3. Substitute sodium hydrochiorite or another means 01 disintection br chlorination.
Regardless of the cost, chlorination is not acceptable.
4. Provide State of the 8rt odor and noise control equipment.
5. Provide a considerable degree of aesthetic improvements, sucri as landscaping.
*Frankly, we have not had the time to do an exhaustive study 01 possibilities br
mitigation. But we do support any well-reasoned proposal to alleviate local impacts.
Costs of maintaining public safety, water quality and the like should be internalized into
the sewer assessments. We shouldn’t sacrifice n eigflborhoods or environmental quality br
the sake of cutting budgetary corners. We should pay the price br wnatever is necessary.
It is the obligation of the MDC (MWSA), the Commonwealth fld the 1 F’A to determine
exactly what is necessary. But we do appreciate these ettorts to include citizens and
elected officials in the planning process. If you have any questions or comments atout
our position, please feel free to call us at 722-2430.
-------
o/c uincy ZJU
(4 ll
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RAMCIS X. McCAULEY
April 3, 1984
Hon. James S. Mbyte, Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
Dear Secretary Mbyte:
I wish to express our appreciation for the attention
given by the Boston Harbor Quality Committee to the
presentation by our representatives on Wednesday,,
March 21, 1984, and to assure you their statements,
including those concerning priorities, are reflective
of my position. We regret we had not better under-
stood the format for this meeting or what was expected
of the City.
In addition to the points made in the statement offered
by Mr. Colton, a copy of which is attached, the City
reiterates its statements previously given either at
open forums or in communications to you, and the observa-
tions which were made at the aforesaid meeting by its
representatives are set forth in the attached “posi€ion
paper .“ I anticipate you will assure its distribution
to the Committee.
Sincerely,
Francis X. McCauley
Mayor
-------
March 2 198L4
Boston Harbor Water Quality
Position Paper on Facility Siting
Presented to the Boston Harbor Water Quality Committee
A r .ajor objective of any pogratl., an aLsolut minimum reqL’irerner t for any
faci ity, must be that it is a good noghbor. This means an environmentally and
aesthetically sensitive design, a facility that not only meets the test of long-term
operability but is as redundant as necessary to ensure compatability. and a bud-
getary commitment and manaqement structure which assures those goals can be
attair.ed and maintained. It means also a commitment to continued vigilance by
oversight agencies and a determination to take vigorous enforcement action where
n ed d; a dedication to prompt and effective actions to protect th riqhts of
neighbors and the quality of the environment and to assure that agreements and
stipulations are rigorously honored.
It is not our intention or wish that environmental problems be “dumped’ on
some one or other location or group of people. However, it must be recognized
that a metropolitan sewaoe treatment facility is inescapably industrial in nature,
r d must be operated continuously. It represents a dedication of a substantial
tract of land to that function; it wilt be visible; it must be serviced. It is also
absolutely essential that the current MDC facilities be upqraded and replaced on
a most expeditious schedule. Strong and careful consideration must be qiven to
land-use impacts of any siting decision.
The siting decision must provide for an efficient arrangement. The sensible
requirement for cost-effectiveness should, of course, include the requirement
for public health protection and recognize potential social and aesthetic impacts,
as well as addressing water quality goals and standards. Certainly, any .impaCts
during construction and demolition of facilities which are unavoidabfeor cannot
successfully be mitigated must both be factored into the siting decision and be
compensated for.
-------
i-ch , 1984
Page 2
We recognize that the preliminary assessment and estimates of impacts, benefits,
and costs that are presently before us are subject to considerable refinement. Some,
wilt, of course, remain subjective or intangible but are nevertheless important - it
is the task of your Committee in part to weigh such factors. Nevertheless, we
firmly beli ye some facts and considerations will not change. It is clear that Nut
Island cannot support additional facilities, and that any facility at that location will
be the most proximate to habitation and have the most difficult (and impacting)
iand access. Combined facilities on De er Island will have significantly lower capital
and operating cost, and present the most efficient operational and management
situation, of all the options available. This option minimizes the number of facilities
that must be manaqed, operated, and maintained. It takes inaxirrium advantage of
existing facilities, especially pumping stations and tunnels, and requires only a
new conduit from Nut Island. It limits the volume of and distance over which liquids
must be pumped. The extended outfall length is minimized.
None of the proposed siting options would have any significant direct environ-
mental, aesthetic, or construction impact on the City of Boston (save, possibly,
for the impact of construction staging facilities common to each). In our opinion,
therefore, potential economic benefits to that City should not weigh in the decision
process. When comparing Deer Island and Nut Island, it must be recognized that
both Deer Island and Nut Island under any option will always have at least a
“headworks” facility; that demolition and removal of facilities abandoned at either
Deer or Nut Island will be required along with restoration of the sites; that the
recreational and public use potential and value of Deer Island, even with extensive
renovation, can never approach that of Long Island atits current state. Further,
in the absence of a clear, workable, funded commitment to the contrary, the decision
process cannot assume the relocation of any Boston facilities currently in use on
eiiher island.
-------
arch 2,
Page 3
Further, it is regrettably clear that any treatment works must have an emer-
genc,y bypass which will function to protect both ‘upstream areas and the facHity
itself, under loss—of--power situations amonq others. (Major efforts and facilities
must be incorporated to reduce this potential need, of course.) The facility
must be so located and constructed as to di charue untreated wastes undar those
conditions to the location which will minimize impacts. Deer Island and the Pres-
ident Roads channel best meet this requirement, and are perhaps the only locations
which do. We consider this to be a significant factor in the analysis of environmental
and public health impacts, given our past experience with Nut Island.
It is our position that use of Harbor islands for treatment of wastewaters from
the metropolitan area is an undesirable use of those lands which has evolved from
practices, priorities, and commitments of the past. We believe that any further
expansion of the contributing system must not increase flows to harbor faci!ities
which would necessitate any increases in their capacities, increase the probablity of
overflows or bypass, or reduce the effectiveness of treatment. We also believe that
additional areas of these islands need not be used for management or disposal of
sludge, and insist that other locations of lesser public value be utilized for that purpose.
In summary, we believe a factual and comprehensive analysis, evaluation, and
weighing of all relevant factors will establish that combininq all facilities on Deer
Island is far and away the most appropriate resolution. Upon reachinq that conclusion,
it would then be very appropriate, in fact mandatory, to provide compensatory mit-
igation to residents and the Town of Winthrop. Even though the facility must not
create odor, noise, water pollution, significant aesthetic impacts, or traffic impacts
under normal conditions in Winthrop, its presence still will have unavoidable effects.
The City pledges its vigorous support to that Town in this matter.
-------
U flTED STATES E VlRONMENTAL PROTECT O AGENCY
Honorable Francis X. McCauley 3/2z/ 4
Office of the Mayor
City Hall
Cuincy, Massachusetts 02169
Dear Mayor McCauley:
Thank you for your letter of March 1, 1984, expressing concern
relative to the use of Long Island as a site for an ‘DC waste—
water treatment facility to serve the metropolitan area.
EPA and the Commonwealth o Massachusetts are jointly preparing
an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
(EIS/EIR) on the siting of wastewater treatment facilities in
Boston Harbor. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process requires that EPA*s EIS evaluate all feasible alternatives
on siting wastewater treatment facilities before a final recom—
rnendation is made. The evaluation of the eight remaining options
for Deer Island, Nut Island, and Long Island will take into con-
sideration all social, technical, economic, environmental, legal
and institutional factors. Once this information is available
and carefully analyzed, I believe EPA and the Commonwealth will be
in a position to make a final recanmendation. To foreclose Long
Island options at this stage in the process is premature and unfair
to the concerns expressed by the Town of Winthrop.
I thank you for your interest regarding Long Island, and I welcome
the opportunity to meet with you to discuss issues and concerns
pertaining to locating wastewater treatment facilities on either
Long or Nut Island. I can assure you that your concerns will be
given special attention, in our EIS analysis.
Sincerely yours,
I ichael R. Deland
Pegional Administrator
-------
/
- JI
— (f/ C; . (Ui/(’ ( - -‘
- /
OFFICE OF E
F A\C S X. MCCAULEY
March 1, 19 4
Mr. Michael Deland
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Rgency
3. F. Kennedy Building
Government Center
Boston, MA OZ2O 3
Dear Mr. Delard:
We have earned, indirectly and to our c’ nsiderable concern, of a
recent preliminary decision ot yours concernirlg the Boston Harbor
SDLIS. We understand that despite the ur inas of L ty arc State,
despite the fiscal realities, you are optlnQ for continued considera-
tion ot Long Island as a site for primary or secondary treatment of
M.D.L. sewage. his would represent support for violation of che
environment of Long Island, for permanent interference with its
extraordinary recreationa and open-space otentia , tor ne ’ y
impactinq trie Squantum area, and for needlessly squandering capital
resources c -f the region -- a further arc pointless taxation of the
people r the area. You risk extendinG arc refocusinc the contro-
versy over facilities siting, and render any sludae management option
less attractive.
I strongly urge you at tnis time to face the hard crioices, to limit
the options to tnose both feasible and reasonable, and get on with
the task of cleaning up the harbor.
Sincerely,
Francis X. 1 cCauiey
Mayor
FXM: jr
CC:Commr. Anderson
-------
- s7 4 ;
____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
.1. F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING. BOSTON, MASSACHUSET1S
February 22, 1984
Mr. Robert Noonan, Chairman
Winthrop Board of Selectman
Winthrop Town Hall
Winthrop, MA
Dear Mr. Noonan:
Re: Screening of Alternatives for Further Study in SDEIS
As I had promised at the Public Information Meeting on the Supple-
mental Draft EIS in Winthrop on January 19, 1984, I have given a
thorough evaluation of C.E. Maguire’s recommendations to EPA regard-
ing the final set of alternatives that the SDEIS will include for
further study. Based on my own evaluation of the consultant’s work
and based on the citizen input received during the public c nment
period, I have reached some conclusions that I would like to
c nmunicate to you.
First, the SDEIS will evaluate alternatives 2b.1 and 5b2. These
options, as you know, place all treatment works for either a pri—
mary or secondary level of treatment on Long Island, converting
both the present Deer Island and Nut Island sites to headworks
facilities. I have directed our consultants to include these
alternatives for further study in the SDEIS and to give them full
and equal attention with the other alternatives recommended for
further evaluation. These alternatives clearly would provide a
benefit to the Town of Winthrop.
The second thought that I would like to convey to your canmunity
is that any of the alternatives for long—range planning will not
be implemented for at least 10 years. In the meantime, immediate
improvements are absolutely necessary to alleviate the most critical
chronic problems which have plagued the Deer Island treatment plant.
EPA will participate in the funding of the Fast—Thack Improvements
and fully supports the concept of immediate improvement to both the
Nut and Deer Island treatment plants. Improvements to the Deer Is-
land facility will increase the reliability of the plant and thereby
reduce sewage overflows to Boston Harbor.
-------
—2--
Bowever, it must be noted our agency’s support of the Fast—Track
Improvements will not foreclose any of the long-term options
being considered in the SDEIS. We view the Fast—Track Program
as essential for improvements to water quality and as necessary
to provide reliable primary treatment for the intervening period
before any long—range solutions for Boston Harbor are implemented.
I urge you to continue to support both the current evaluations
being performed under the SDEIS and the Fast—Track Improvement
Program. If you have any further questions or concerns, please
feel free to contact Bob Mendoza of my staff at (617) 223—3916.
Sincerely yours,
Michael R. Deland
Regional Administrator
cc: James Hoyte, Secretary of Environmental Affairs
William Geary, Commissioner, MDC
Russell Hughes, Town of Winthrop
-------
SOUTH SHORE CHAMBER OF CON!’ RCE
TAKES FOR1 AL POSITION ON WASTE WATER SITING
The South Shore Chamber of Commerce has voted unanimously to support
City of Quincy officials on the siting of Waste Water Treatment facilities.
The Chamber Board of Directors has voted to give its support behind
what is commonly known as option 4A2. That option would provide for the
conversion of the present primary treatment plant at Nut Island to a
pumping station. The p -lan, according to Community Development Vice-President
Warren Noble “provides for construction of a headworks on Nut Island, an
underwater pipe to take the sewage to Deer Island, a new prirna y treatment
plant at Deer Island and a deep ocean outfall between 10 and 12 miles long
for the discharge from the Deer Island Plant.”
Noble says “while it would be nice if the problem would just go away,
it’s a problem that impacts everyone along the South Shore coast and time
is running out to do something about it.” Noble goes on to say “option
4A2 represents the best of the Limited options available to us. TM
Three months ago there were over 20 option plans being considered.
A month ago those options were narrowed to six. Noble explains, “although
the Chamber Board did consider option lÀ which would have provided for
secondary treatment at Deer Island instead of a deep ocean outfall, it was
our opinion that it would provide too much of a negative impact on the towr
of Winthrop, and would have less chance of approval in the long run.”
The Environmental Protection Agency, the Metropolitan District
Commission and local groups have all been working to come up with a long
term soaution to the problem of waste water treatment. The cost for
option 4A2 is estimated to be 760 million dollars.
FROM
P.O. Box 488
Contact
SOUTH SHORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
36 Miller Stile Road
Terry N. Fancher, Manager
Community Development
For Release Immediate
Quincy, MA 02269
479-1111
Home
2fl 1O L
-------
53 L 1 c7zQnoQuoea& /L/ ’ e
I &ecattve ( 3j ce of ‘ &i menIa7
of n e z/ aL y ee
of
ANTHONY 0. CORTESE, Sc. 0.
Commissioner One ;;u ’:e ,e eee 02108
January 9, 1984
Walter Newman, Acting Chief Re: MDC
Environmental Evaluation Section SDEIS, Siting of
Environmental Protection Agency Wastewater Treatment
J.F.K. Building Facilities
Boston, Ma 02203
Dear Mr. Newman:
In response to your request, the Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, Division of Water Pollution Control submits the following
documentation in support of your tentative determination to maintain pri-
mary treatment facilities for North System flows at Deer Island. As has
been stated previously by personnel from DEQE, our Agency was extremely
concerned about EPA’s initial inclusion of SDEIS Options 2b.1, 5b.1 & 5b.2
which provide for the construction of treatment facilities on Long Island
with the elimination of all treatment works at Deer Island. Our major con-
cerns are as follows:
1) DEQE and MDC are developing a phased program for fast tracking
over $37 million federal dollars worth of critical construction work for
the Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Facility (1.2 million federal dollars
of which is contained on the State’s FY 84 Construction Grants Priority
List and the remaining to be included on the FY 85 and 86 lists). This
work consists of immediately needed improvements to the facility such as;
power distribution, sludge thickeners, pump station/power supply, disinfec-
tion system, remote headworks renovations and odor control. The construc-
tion timing for Phases 1 and 2 of this work would extend over a 1 year
period and would not be completed until approximately January 1987. One
major part of this work is the electrification of the Deer Island Pump
Station which includes the laying of a trans-harbor powercable by Boston
Edison (at their cost). Boston Edison plans to recoup the cost for this
work through long-term power charges to the MDC. Boston Edison has
already indicated to MDC and their consultant that they do not intend to
proceed with the necessary environmental and alternative analyses for the
cable laying until they have received commitments from both the MDC and
DEOE that the long—term plan is to electrify Deer sland and that grant or
-------
Walter Newman, Acting Chief January 9, 1984
Environmental Evaluation Section
Envf ronmental Protection Agency
Pa e 2
state monies are available to the MDC for reconstruction of the pump sta-
tion. DEQE has recently met with the MDC to develop a strategy to provide
Boston Edison with these coi nitments. If the long—term treatment plan does
not include a major power user at Deer Island, Boston Edison would cer-
tainly rethink their plan for laying the rnultimillion dollar cable. Even a
delay of six months by Boston Edison for initiation of the environmental
and alternative studies could cause the fast—track program to be delayed
beyond our target dates for funding of this project. This is due to the
need for a MEPA filing by Boston Edison on the cable laying with its pro-
bable requirement of an EIR and incorporation of that document into DEQE’s
FNSI for the fast—track projects.
2) The residents in Winthrop who have attended the various Deer Island
Fast—track hearings held by MDC are opposing certain portions of the pro-
ject, in particular the temporary wharf, to ensure that no new project will
be constructed at Deer Island which will impact the possible revision of
Deer Island to a headworks facility. Therefore, tne longer the possibility
exists for turning Deer Island into a headworks, the more difficult it will
be for MDC, DEQE, and EPA to adequately upgrade the treatment facilities.
The turning of Deer Island into a headworks facility after making the fast
track and/or sludge improvements would only allow for the use of these $40 and
$80 million facilities for seven years in the case of fast track and four years
for sludge incineration. This assumes cornpl,Stion of Phase 1. and 2 fast
track facilities in January 1987, sludge inceration in January 1990 and
full treatment facilities in January 1994.
3) Not only could the $40 million for the Deer Island Immediate Upgrade
be jeopardized, but the planned sludge management program at Deer Island ($80
million for primary sludge incinerators) would-be severely impacted if the
possibility exists for relocation of the primary treatment plant.
4) If EPA indeed planned to examine the feasibility of removing all
treatment facilities from Deer Island, the EIS should be expanded to exa-
mine alternative tunnel arrangements from the three existing main headworks
facilities and the possibility of completely reconstructing and redirecting
system flows between the North and South Systems. This would require that
all existing MDC, BWSC and Winthrop sewer projects be held in abeyance
until such an analysis is completed. This certainly would add significant
delays to the siting process but would be the only logical action to take
since the entire backbone of the MDC system would be called into question.
-------
LCi fl Yy,,,UII / LL I I I JI I ‘
Environm ; tal Evaluation Section
Enviy’onmental Protection Agency
Pe 3
Therefore, DEQE strongly supports EPA’s tentative determination not to
include alternatives which would examine the removal of primary treatment
from Deer Island.
Very truly yours,
Thomas C. McMahon,
Director
TCM/SGL/bd
cc: David Fierra, EPA
Noel Baratta, EPA
Marjorie, O’Malley, EOEA
Steven Lipman, DEQE
Commissioner Anthony D. Cortese, Sc. D., DEQE
Commissioner William J. Geary, MDC
-------
“ cc c C r , // Ci ’ ‘ u
• /7
/ / •/ (.7
; /00 ( 2am-?cZ y d
/ a e L O 2O2
S. DUKAKIS
GOvZR OR
JAWES S. HOYTE
SECRET PY
January 9, 134
Michael Deland, Regional Administrator Re: MDC
Environmental Protection Agency SOEIS, Siting of
J.F.K. Building Faciiiti Treath ent
Boston, Ma 02203
A:tn: Walter Newman, Environmental Evaluation Section
- r i.
i . e n
In response to your request, the Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs (EOEA) submits the following documentation detailing the extent and
nature of work being performed by my Agency which complements and supports
the ongoing Site Option EIS.
1) MDC Reorganization —
I have officially requested that Governor ichael Dukakis support
and file le islation for the formation of an independent ‘1etropo1itan Water
and Sewer Authority. My Agency is currently draftino the basic legilative
documents and one majDr aspect of the plan will be to provide the new
Acency with the financial and administrati ’e capability to issue Revenue
bonds and develop a staffing and budgetary plan based upon providina ade-
quate O&M monies and personnel to ensure the necessary preventive main-
tenance for all existing and proposed treatment and transmission
facilities.
In order to ensure the proper development of this Authority I have
retained the Bank of Boston to develop the financial plan for the Authority.
is anticipated that the Authority will beg n transition operation on July
1, 93 and be ccr pletely independent by January 1935.
-------
/
yTh
£i •J .c iflO —
Consultants for the MD have recently compietec staffing plans for
both the Deer and Nut island Treatment Facilities. The plans call for
increasing staffing at Deer lsiand by 93 people over its current la5or
force nd ut Island by Ii. This additional staffino will allow the MDC to
institute the needed preventive maintenance plans for both facilities and
should significantly increase the reliability and efficiency of the plants.
I have requested funding for an additional 142 people for the MDC S€wer
Division in a FY 84 Supplemental Bua et Reauest and have teen assured that
the positions will_be funded.
3) The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) has
filed leoislation to provide S1OD mil lion fcr a Grants Pro rarn to fr nd up to
9O or the cost of In iltration/Inflow (i/i) Reduction by the DC and zs
member municipalties. If passed, this woulc prov de my oency witn the
necessary monies to nstitute innovative tecnhiques CT £11 reduct n and
is will complement the overall boston raroor Clean-up/ Infrasructure
Plans.
4) The MDC and DQE are developinc a sequencing an implementation
plan for the design and construction of :hirty additional Combined
Sewer DverTlo (CSO) Projects which ex s: in the se er systems serv ng the
Municipalities of Boston, Chelsea, Cambre, Soniervifle andBrookiine
Concurrently trie MDC and DEQE are compieLinc Lhe design end associated
environmental revic. s for three additional B SC CSO’s which dischar e onto
MDC Beaches and will be applying for funding from EPA - ashington through
a Special Marine CSD Approprieti n.
5) MDC, DEQE, and EPA are attemptinc to develop an integrated slud e
management plan so that the existing mathod of harbor dis osai of dicested
slud e on outgoing tides can be eliminated. Extensive personnel effort arid
monies are currently being allocated to this project ar. it is planned to
integrate the various sludge treatment proposals under review into the
ongo ng siting opertions being developed tnrough this E S process. In addi-
tion, MD nas recentiy in t ated construct cr on a S .5 i’ llion pilot
demonstration compost facility at Deer Islend.
6) MDC has retained a consultant to :srform a hydraulic analysis of
the BWSC Calf Pasture Pumpinc Station and the currently e andoned on
island Holding Tanks to determine pot nt al utilization cf the facility to
reduce periodic bypasses of partially treated sewage to rner Harbor Areas.
7) The BWSC has recently installed chlorination facilities at their
Calf Pasture Punpinc Station to ensure that all dry weather sewage fI ws
thr uoh N ocn Island are chlorinated prior to discharge 0 the Harbor. The
DC reir 5jrses the E :SC for all chlorine tiiizeo at this facility.
8) EC .A is in tre - rc:ese f d ve r: a thres-;e r \‘irontEi
:- tor o an f r Eost: a tt hic in:i c colunin, o :i—er’t
n ti:S E t o :hcut th —:: . n :crinc prc ani
to c ace t e cnar•:e t - :ac:o cr:cir: clear:—
the :oe c ;i: T p’-:--
-------
5) EQE has been and is continuinc to t :s a:tIvC rc le r,
evc nc an inteorated sewer maraoemeflt pIer cr zre entire Se er
system and as a part of that plan is strcr.cly pes inc JIl l
reduction and rehabilitation in member co mmunities. All meober cocr inities
have either already initiated I/I progra ns or have been informed in writing
by the Division of ‘Water Pollution Control that they are being required to
initiate the subject work. DEQE is also forming an interdisipliraary
Techincal Adivsory Group to work with the Aoency to develop an intecrated
plan of action. DEQE has also convinced EPA to hold a regional two—day
Seminar in Boston durinc March titled Concepts in I/i Rehabilitation to
which all MD communities will be invited to participate. As a necessary
adjunct to this I/I work, MDC has re ained Black and Veatth to examine the
revisions to the MDC’s assessment procedures so that sur harges might be
placed upon municipalities discharging excessive Ill into the 1DC Sewer
System.
10) 331(h) Waiver — EDEA has established an independent technical peer
review cc: ittee with representatives of environmental c—cups and several
experts in various disciplines to assist the state in reviewing the plan of
study for the waiver reapplication and in reviewing work tasks as they are
completed.
11) Many of the initiatives I have outlined move the state forward in
cleaning up Boston Harbor. We are taking the initi tiv on many frcr ts and
need to cain a level of consensus on these acticns. I m ist point out
however, that many of our efforts are expensive and we are looking for the
federal government for increased funding. We have becun to work with the
congressional delegation to lobby for increased levels of funding to clean-
up Boston Harbor. We hope the federal covernment will back—up its verbal
commitments to clean—up Boston Harbor with the financial cccrnnitment to carry
it out.
Th a5cve listing is by no means a complete cc ilation of ongoino
work by EOEA Agencies regarding Boston Herbor/MDC, but should provide your
Agency with a reasonable idea of the extent of oncoir.o work and our level
of commitment to ensuring an integrated, complete and imple entable clean-
up proGram.
Very truly yours,
V I I
cc: Cc issioner Anthony C. Cortese, Sc. C., DEQE
Cea y, :c
Secretary
-------
TOWN OF W(NTHROP
ROBERT E. NOONAN, Chairman
ROBERT A. DE LEO TOWN HALL
RONALD V. VECCH A WINTHROP, MASS. 02152
___________________________ 846-1077
MARIE T. TURNER, Secretary
OFFICE OF THE
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
November 30, 1983
Mr. Michael R. Deland, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2203
Boston, Massachusetts 02133
Dear Mr. Deland:
The Winthrop Board of Selectmen have reviewed the letter of
November 1, 1983 of the Special Commission on the Development of
Boston Harbor, signed by Joseph P. Walsh, Chairman.
We are concerned that a Comtnis sion such as this can take a
vote on such an important issue with no communication with an
impacted community. We are not aware of the makeup and membership
of this Commission, and would appreciate receiving this information,
in order that we may make them aware of the problems experienced
in this Community as the result of the location of the treatment
plant at Deer Island.
As you know, the Town of Winthrop has gone on record numerous
times in opposition to the Deer Island location, and stated our
firm and we believe well—substantiated belief that the permanent
long—range solution is to locate the facility on Long Island.
The Commission states they voted to recommend that options
previously considered and rejected ought not to he included in
the EIS. Our answer to this, of course, is that we feel Long Island
has not received sufficient study to warrant rejection, and should be
pursued as the long term solution.
We are also concerned that the options they support include
secondary treatment at Deer Island, to which we are unalterably
opposed.
We certainly agree with their wanting a true harbor clean—up
as soon as possible. Hopefully, the problem will be resolved
permanently . We are enclosing copy of the position of the Board of
Selectmen as presented at the Public Hearing in Winthrop on
September 29, 1982 relative to this matter. We stand on that position
and we feel we have excellent reasons.
-------
?age 2. : , i ;
ichael R. Deland,
e have led the fight for restoration of existing facilities
at Deer Island chich have been ailo ed to deteriorate sc badly, tbat
we ‘nave suffered all the accompa’nying adverse impacts.
As a Board, this Office has put forth more time and effort in
this problem than any other faced by this community in the past
twenty years or more.
The permanent long—range solution to sewage treatment and the
clean up of Boston Harbor must be accomplished. We feel that
permanent long—range solution is Long Island, and that solution
must be given proper study and evaluation through your final scope
of work .
We are forwarding a copy of this letter and accompanying
statement to the Special Commission on the Development of
Boston Harbor, with the hope they reconsider the vote taken
on October 25, 1983, and their position that other suggested
options are either impractical, controversial, or too time consuming.
The permanent long—range solution is too important to be
dismissed as “controversial or too time—consuming. t ’
Thank you for your consideration of our position in this
matter.
Very truly yours,
BOARD OP SELECTMEN
C
(/
Robert E. oonan, ,,,Cha, .irman
,/ /
D 2e ”
o aid V. Vecchia
k
CC:
Senator Joseph B. Walsh
Special Commission on the Development of Boston Harbor
State House — Room 15
Boston, 1assachusetts 02133
-------
FINAL SCOPE OF WORK FOR
PREPARATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS
ON BOSTON HARBOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES SITING
OCTOBER 21, 1983
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION I
WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION, ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SECTION
ROOM 2103, JFK FEDERAL BUILDING
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
-------
FINAL SCOPE OF WORK FOR
PREPARATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS ON
BOSTON HARBOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES SITING
A. Introduction and Objectives
EPA, with its consultant, CE Naguire, Inc., is now preparing a Supple-
mental Draft EIS (SDEIS) for proposed wastewater treatment facilities
siting in Boston Harbor. This EIS is being prepared in cooperation with
the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act Unit (MEPA) along with other state and federal
agencies. This Supplemental Draft EIS will also be considered jointly
under the state Environmental Impact Review (EIR) process. This joint
process will conclude the necessary environmental reviews in a timely
fashion and assure a complete evaluation of the issues involved.
Public participation is also an important element of the EIS/EIR.
Public participation has been applied during the scoping process to
assist EPA and the state in defining the issues of concern to individuals
and groups within the affected communities. It will continue to provide
important inputs to the study as it proceeds.
This final scope of work is designed to identify the options and issues
which will be evaluated in the Supplemental Draft EIS. It incorporates
previous environmental reviews and decisions made, and considers current
facilities plans and proposals being developed and implemented by the
MDC. The final scope of work has been developed after wide ranging
discussions and deliberations incorporating the comments and proposals
made during the series of scoping meetings held jointly by EPA and the
state. The EIS is intended to provide a full evaluation of the reason-
able alternatives being considered and array the impacts associated with
construction and operation of the proposed MDC wastewater treatment
facilities in order that a siting decision can be made by EPA.
In order that this process can move forward, leading to a commitment of
federal and state funds necessary for construction to commence, it is
necessary that all the project participants, including representatives
of the affected communities, involved agencies, and public at laige have
a complete presentation of the complex issues and their resolution
leading to a siting decision. The Supplemental Draft EIS is intended to
provide such a presentation at its conclusion to assist the federal and
state officials in reaching a final decision.
This Final Scope of Work is further organized into five sections:
1
-------
B. Background Summary
C. Scoping Process and Screening of Alternatives
D. Proposed Alternatives, Significant Issues and Scoping Comments
E. Agency and Public Participation Program
F. Appendix: Figures, Key Agency Comments and Public Issues
Raised During Scoping
B. Background Summary
The problems of pollution in Boston Harbor are not new. They have been
occurring with increasing frequency and have prompted a variety of
local, state and federal agency actions. These problems include public
health threats to use of beaches and fishing areas, odor and aesthetic
problems, issues of community safety, and impacts upon water quality and
marine life throughout the area of the Harbor influenced by the Deer
Island and Nut Island treatment plants. These two treatment facilities
operated by the MDC are not the sole causes of the pollution problems in
the Harbor; however, they further exacerbate problems through their
periodic incapacity to treat wastewater flows adequately and chronic
need for repair.
EPA, in cooperation with state agencies, has been evaluating the most
recent alternative treatment proposals put forth by the MDC in order to
reach agreement on an environmentally sound treatment facility and its
location in Boston Harbor.
The following discussion of the past efforts leading up to the present
SDEIS serves to highlight the past work associated with siting of harbor
wastewater treatment facilities. The related elements of sludge manage-
ment are being considered further by the state and will be incorporated
to the siting to the extent possible. Attachment 3 graphically portrays
these events in chronological sequence.
Beginning with the first Enforcement Conference in May of 1968, facili-
ties planning for wastewater treatment in Boston Harbor was a coordinated
effort among state, local and federal agencies. The efforts begun
continued through two additional Enforcement Conferences, organization
of a Boston Harbor Pollution Task Force, a variety of studies, and
agreements between EPA and state agencies responsible for pollution
control and waste treatment.
In 1976, the MDC and its consultants presented a comprehensive plan for
wastewater engineering and management in Boston Harbor for the Eastern
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area (EMMA). That plan made several recom-
mendations designed to achieve adequate wastewater treatment for the
communities in the EMMA study area and clean water goals for Boston
Harbor and its tributary rivers. The principal recommendations of this
study were for upgrading the existing primary treatment facilities at
Deer Island and Nut Island to secondary treatment, sludge disposal by
incineration at Deer Island, construction of two advanced waste treat-
ment (AWT) “satellite” plants on the Charles and Neponset Rivers, and
improvements to the MDC’s interceptor sewer system plus alleviation of
combined storm-sewage overflows.
2
-------
In the following year, EPA Region I began preparation of a Draft EIS
(DEIS) concluded in 1978 to consider and assess the range of environ-
mental impacts associated with those proposed wastewater engineering and
management recommendations made by the MDC in the EMMA Study. The EIS
focused only on those aspects of the MDC’s recommended plan that dealt
with the transportation, treatment, and ultimate disposal of municipal
wastewaters within the MDC’s Metropolitan Sewage District. The factors
considered by EPA in 1978 were:
1. Necessary interceptor system modifications;
2. Environmental and engineering feasibility of advanced secondary
satellite treatment plants;
3. Alternative secondary treatment plant sites and treatment facility
configurations in Boston Harbor;
4. Wastewater treatment plant effluent discharge locations; and
5. Alternative methods for treatment and disposal of secondary sludge.
Other wastewater treatment elements of the EMMA Study, including inf ii-
tration/inflow analysis, combined sewer overflow, and primary sludge
disposal were not considered by EPA in the 1978 DEIS. These other
elements were considered in separate studies, some of which are currently
underway.
Following the conclusion of the DEIS by EPA, in August of 1978, a public
hearing was held. The combination of critical comments received from
all sectors, as well as changes in the Clean Water Act allowing appli-
cation for waiver of secondary treatment, resulted in a hiatus in the
review process following the conclusion of the 1978 DEIS.
During this period also, agreement was reached by EPA and MDC to initiate
key facilities planning projects in a segmented fashion in order to
accelerate actions needed to remedy the chronic problems and inmiediate
upgrade needs of the MDC wastewater treatment facilities.
Also, during this period, following completion of EPA ’s wastewater
treatment DEIS, the MDC began its work on a 301(h) waiver application.
This entailed an extensive analysis of water quality in Boston Harbor
including assessment of further treatment facilities elements.
Concurrently, the MDC also developed more detailed wastewater treatment
facilities plans for Boston Harbor, presenting its first phase recommenda-
tions in the Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Planning
Project, Phase I Site Options Study (1982). This more detailed analysis
and facilities plan by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. concluded that upgraded
primary treatment at both Deer Island and Nut Island with local outfalls
was both environmentally sound and economically preferred.
3
-------
A separate Draft and Final Sludge Management EIS were also undertaken by
EPA and concluded in 1979. This document examined the MDC’S proposals
for sludge disposal and confirmed that incineration was the recommended
sludge disposal method. EPA issued a Record of Decision on sludge
management in 1980 which affirmed the recommendations of the sludge EIS,
but raised several questions to be examined further by MDC. Subsequently,
MDC issued a Sludge Management Update (1982) report which addressed addi-
tional facilities planning elements as raised by state and federal re—
viewers. Action on sludge management continues, aimed at answering
further remaining questions on the incineration option, while the state
is formulating its policy on sludge management. Additional environmental
reviews will be carried out by EPA, if necessary.
Additionally, a series of legal actions and state initiatives were insti-
tuted towards improving the water quality of Boston Harbor and coordinat-
ing the various actions being undertaken by state, federal and local
authorities. The City of Quincy instituted a lawsuit against the MDC
and other state agencies aimed at eliminating the pollution from the Nut
Island treatment plant to Quincy Bay. The Conservation Law Foundation
instituted a separate lawsuit against EPA and state agencies aimed at
overall improvements to harbor water quality which identified deficiencies
in administrative and regulatory reviews and decisions that are required.
EPA has also instituted a suit against the MDC which focuses on administra-
tive violations of the existing NPDES permit for discharges from the Nut
Island treatment plant. The court appointed Special Master in the
Quincy suit submitted his findings of fact in the case and the Court
recently issued its ruling outlining an agreement for a 10—year plan to
clean up the harbor. The schedule for completion of the EIS process
conforms with this plan.
on a related course is the work of the Sargent Committee empowered by
Governor Dukakis to examine programs and plans to improve water quality
in Boston Harbor and serve as a central focus for coordinating and
directing efforts aimed at eliminating the problems of the harbor.
Recently in June, EPA issued a tentative decision denying the MDC’s
application for waiver of secondary treatment requirements. This tenta-
tive finding was based on certain water quality and marine life impacts
at the proposed outfall locations. The MDC has formally stated to EPA
that it will reexamine those water quality parameters which led to a
denial and resubmit the application to EPA within one year.
C. Scoping Process and Screening of Alternatives
A series of scoping meetings has been conducted to define the issues and
provide a forum for agency and public comment prior to undertaking
detailed assessment of impacts of facility siting alternatives. The
purpose of the Scoping Meetings was to define the issues associated with
the impacts and alternatives to be analyzed in detail in the SDEIS.
This final scope of work is being issued for the Supplemental Draft EIS
now underway, based on the comments received at these meetings from
federal and state agencies, local officials and the public at large.
4
-------
This scoping document incorporates the alternatives studied by the MDC
and their consultants in the Nut Island Site Options Study (1982 )
report. These alternatives encompass both primary and secondary treat-
ment options at various harbor locations with associated local or deep
ocean outf ails. Sub—regional treatment options, commonly referred to as
satellite facilities , were previously studied in the EPA Draft EIS
(1978) and will also be analyzed based on the comments received during
scoping. New alternatives not previously studied were also identified
during the scoping process. These involve new combinations of treatment
facilities and siting options at Long Island and outer harbor locations.
All of these reasonable choices will be preliminarily analyzed in an
initial assessment and screening in the Supplemental Draft EIS.
As a first step in the environmental impact assessment, all of the
alternatives will be preliminarily examined in order to screen out those
with comparatively unacceptable impacts. This first—tier analysis
is intended to compare the relative impacts of the various options
across a range of key potential impact categories. These categories
include:
(a) Compliance with existing water quality standards and applicable
state and federal environmental regulations;
(b) Land availability and adverse land use/recreational impacts;
(c) Adverse community impacts (traffic, noise, odor) and social
consequences;
(d) Economic feasibility: construction costs and O&M, cost—
effectiveness, affordability;
(e) Engineering feasibility;
(f) Institutional constraints;
(g) Beneficial impacts;
(h) Agency and public comments.
A matrix format will be used to array the above impacts across each of
the alternatives being studied. Quantifiable values , such as costs,
affordability, and land area will be combined with more subjective
valuations , such as recreational resources, traffic, institutional
constraints, or social impacts. Relative impact levels will be shown as
either severe, moderate or minimal in order to judge which alternatives
appear to have an unacceptable number of higher impact levels or fewer
mitigation opportunities and therefore should be eliminated from further
consideration.
This screening process will incorporate the comments of the Technical
Advisory Group and CAC in setting weightings and priorities among cate-
gories of impacts. State policy as formulated by the current delibera—
S
-------
tions of the Sargent Committee and the Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs will also be factored into this screening process as it is
developed during the SDEIS analysis.
As the analysis proceeds and the screening process is further applied to
evaluate alternatives and continue to narrow the number of options for
further more detailed study, a final set of reasonable and affordable
alternatives will be developed whose environmental consequences can then
be fully evaluated. This process will lead eventually to the selection
of a preferred alternative (both primary and secondary) whose impacts
can be shown in order to reach a final siting decision.
IJ. Wastewater Treatment Alternatives and Significant Issues
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
MDC’S previous engineering studies ( Nut Island Site Options Stu y, 1982 )
identified several wastewater treatment alternatives that were analyzed,
to varying degrees, in terms of their construction and operation—mainteri—
ance costs, and environmental impacts. These alternatives examined both
primary and secondary treatment options. The alternatives identified
and studied by the MDC were the basis for the initial listing of options
in the scoping discussions held.
In addition, new alternatives not previously studied, or alternatives
which had been examined previously but for which conditions may have
changed, have also been raised during scoping and will be analyzed in
this SDEIS. These include primary and secondary treatment options at
alternative siting locations and satellite advanced treatment options.
Intermediate levels of treatment which may be considered, if proposed by
the MDC in their reapplication for a waiver of secondary treatment,
were not identified during the scoping process and will not be con-
sidered as part of this SDEIS. This treatment option could be analyzed
at a later date during the EIS analysis if it becomes an alternative of
the MDC.
In all, there are presently five major alternatives being studied in the
SDEIS. These include options identified by the MDC as well as previous
and new options developed from comments received at the scoping meetings.
These are listed ma Attachment to this document.
There are presently two major levels of wastewater treatment being
considered. These are secondary treatment , as required under current
state and federal laws, and upgraded primary treatment as proposed by
the MDC in their 301(h) waiver application. Advanced wastewater treat-
ment (AWT) is also being examined for sub—regional ‘ satellite” facilities
which may be warranted in conjunction with operation of harbor secondary
treatment facilities. The satellite option includes a proposal presented
by the Quincy Shores Association, Inc. which identified several potential
inland sites which may serve as treatment facility locations, while
providing groundwater recharge benefits in those watersheds.
There are three major alternatives with a secondary level of treatment.
These involve siting of facilities at Deer Island, Nut Island, Long
Island, or a new island option. In addition to the alternatives pre—
6
-------
viously considered by the MDC, new options in this category include the
above—mentioned AWT satellites, combined secondary treatment on Long
Island, and a newly formed island in the outer harbor as a site for
combined secondary treatment facilities.
Two major options, additionally, consider a primary level of treatment
(should the 301(h) waiver be granted). In addition to those alter-
natives studied by the MDC, there are new options for siting of primary
facilities on Long Island.
Intermediate treatment at a level less than secondary is not considered
at this time, as noted previously, but may also be included if it be-
comes appropriate. Because state and federal regulatory reviews are
still being carried out, no final decision has yet been made on the
level of treatment required. The EIS will examine all levels pertinent
to a decision on facility siting, with a recommendation on preferred
sites for both primary and secondary treatment facilities.
Significant Issues and Scoping Comments
A variety of issues and impacts require consideration as part of the
evaluation of proposed wastewater treatment facilities siting in Boston
Harbor. These issues range from concerns about the harbor’s water
quality, its marine life, and its numerous recreational and aesthetic
resources to community impacts resulting from construction and operation
of proposed wastewater treatment and disposal facilities. The current
incapacity of the existing Deer Island and Nut Island treatment facilities
to adequately treat wastewater flows exacerbate the problems being
experienced which have led to this EIS process.
Since none of the siting solutions to the treatment needs and problems
of the present MDC system are without some significant effects, the
EIS/EIR serves as a basis for identifying the range of both positive and
adverse impacts which can then be evaluated and compared to reach a
decision on siting and facility options.
The listing below provides a compilation of some of the major issues and
impact categories being analyzed in the SDEIS. Comments made on these
or other issues during scoping are incorporated to this document .
There will be further opportunities for agency and public comments on
impacts during the monthly progress meetings of the Technical Advisory
Group and CAC.
The following issues and impacts have been identified during the scoping
process and will be analyzed in the SDEIS.
Issue 1: Water Q ia1ity and Marine Life
Water quality problems and violations of federal and state laws result
from the current practice of discharge of primary effluent and sludge
into Boston Harbor. Direct discharges to the harbor of untreated raw
sewage during periods of high flows and inadequately treated sewage from
equipment breakdowns results in public health threats at beaches and
shoreline recreation areas and economic effects on fishing and boating
interests.
7
-------
Water quality issues to be examined in the SDEIS will be limited to
impacts of primary and secondary treatment plant siting and secondary
effluent quality discharges . The separate 301(h) waiver review by EPA
will consider the water quality impacts and issues associated with a
less than secondary effluent at outfall locations to be proposed by the
MDC. A review of the broad comparative effects of primary versus
secondary effluent will also be generically addressed in the SDEIS.
Potential problems associated with the proposed facilities are:
Characterization of secondary effluent, its volume and chemical
makeup, with particular concern for toxic material and priority
pollutants.
Concentrations of heavy metals and chlorine used as a disinfectant,
in the receiving waters as they might impact marine resources.
Dredging, filling, and sediment runoff during construction which
could impact harbor water quality and marine life, as well as the
effects of removal of harbor sediments and its disposal.
Characteristics of the harbor receiving water with regard to the
mixing and dispersion capacities of the present channels and shore-
line areas.
• Commercial and recreational fisheries and their food value.
• Fisheries population and their habitat loss, alteration, and dis-
turbance.
Impacts upon wetlands and floodplains associated with construction
and operational elements of facility siting.
A more detailed assessment of these issues will be provided in a techni-
cal report addressing water quality assessment issues.
Issue 2: Institutional Factors
The historical development of the MDC metropolitan wastewater collection
and treatment system has not necessarily been integrated with growth
factors in the member communities, or with organizational elements of
administering a large metropolitan system. Questions of municipal
jurisdictions, budget allocations, and land acquisition among others
require complex coordination in any plans for future facility construc-
tion and operation. The elements to be addressed in the impact evalua-
tion include:
The export of water from local watersheds to Boston Harbor via the
sewer system may be affecting local water supplies, while the prac-
tices of member sewer communities towards new sewer hookups and
problems with infiltration and inflow (I/I) may be ignoring present
system deficiences.
• Present institutional constraints to effective system management.
8
-------
• Adequacy of future growth and water use projections as they relate
to system design flow characteristics.
• Institutional and legal issues associated with siting of new facili-
ties, as well as factors involving the continued operations of
existing major facilities in the harbor area (airport, prison,
Harbor Islands State Park, hospital and others).
Issue 3: Air Quality
• Air emissions and odor impacts during construction and operation
from transportation sources and operational equipment at the pro-
posed treatment plants will be analyzed.
• To a limited degree and depending on forthcoming state policy deter-
minations, the issue of air quality associated with a sludge incin-
erator facility may require consideration insofar as secondary
facility siting is examined. The availability of land for an
incinerator and its resultant impacts at sites other than Deer
Island are a preliminary aspect of those sites’ screening. This
issue will be incorporated to the EIS as necessary.
Issue 4: Traffic, Noise and Construction Impacts
Traffic impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the
proposed treatment plants could burden local roads and may pose safety
problems in the vicinity of the plant sites. Impacts in other corrmuni-
ties may also result from proposed centralized staging areas or satellite
worker parking locations. Specific impacts which will be examined are
described below.
Construction activities could generate noise levels in excess of
normally experienced levels; proposed 24—hour work shift schedules,
and the staging of construction activities will be examined for
their impacts.
Construction traffic associated with truck deliveries of materials
and worker traffic on local roads, along both residential streets
and utilizing the major access network of the metropolitan area,
must be examined in detail to establish the impacts associated with
the proposed facility construction and operation periods.
• Sites designated for staging areas and/or terminal facilities (for
barge operations) require analysis, particularly as they relate to
associated traffic and construction activities.
• The duration of construction activities and the peak year work
force may increase community disruption beyond levels noted above.
• Use of a barge ferry service for workers and materials may pose
difficulties to use of the harbor waters for recreational boating
and commercial fishing and must be examined for the effects upon
staging and parking areas, as well as for safety issues and per-
mitting requirements.
9
-------
• Truck traffic during operations, including the arrival of chlorine
trucks, may pose hazards to local residential areas; while chlorine
deliveries by barge requires further definition and analysis.
Issue 5: Socio—Economic
Impacts in this category relate to the economic and social environments
within the affected communities. Both construction and operation
effects will be analyzed including:
• Impacts associated with the land use requirements of the proposed
projects, and associated impacts of proposed industrial facilities
adjacent to residential areas.
Other effects of the combined construction activities in the area
of the harbor (including airport expansion, improvements to the
roadway network, and other wastewater treatment facility construc-
tion).
• Impacts associated with the reliability of future MDC operation and
maintenance programs.
Other impacts and issues involving local taxes, impacts on adjoin-
ing property values, historical and archeological impacts, and
potential disruption of established community patterns.
• Costs of operation and maintenance of proposed treatment facilities
including user fees and associated user community system costs.
• •2cnstruction employment and w ye levels, particularly during peak
years and the effects upon local and regional economies.
• Secondary income and employment generated in local—regional econo-
mies.
Issue 6: Recreational and Scenic Areas
There are approximately 250 miles of shoreline in Boston Harbor encompas-
sing recreational areas from Winthrop to Hull. There are, in addition,
the major resources of the Boston Harbor Islands which serve as a focus
for both local and statewide recreational activities. These areas
represent major and significant resources which must be carefully
evaluated prior to any siting decisions. Issues include:
Thipacts on the Boston Harbor Islands State Park and its boating,
dishing, hiking, camping, picnicking, and swimming resources.
• Compatibility (or conflict) between proposed industrial and recrea-
tional uses.
Impacts on beach areas and fishing due to aesthetic and health
effects of potential raw sewage discharge.
10
-------
• Visual impacts associated with locating new treatment facilities or
expanding/reducing existing facilities.
• Effects on local and state coastal resource planning and management
programs.
The issues discussed above encompass the major categories of impacts and
issues associated with them that were raised during the scoping process.
A compilation of the principal comments made during the scoping meetings
is provided in the Appendix to this document. Both agency and public
comments are listed.
E. Agency and Public Participation Program
Another aspect of the EIS process involves regular monthly Progress
Meetings of the Technical Advisory Group . This group is made up of
representatives of key agencies participating in the EIS. These meet-
ings, to be held at EPA’s offices in Boston, will include discussions of
the work underway, problems encountered, and technical issues being
examined. They will also focus on the coordinations necessary among
state and federal agencies and reviewers to assure complete and compre-
hensive coverage of issues and impacts within the EIS/EIR process.
The agencies which make up the Technical Advisory Group include, at the
state level, the Office of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs under
which operate the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE),
Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC), Metropolitan District Com-
mission (MDC), Coastal Zone Management (CZM), Department of Environmental
Management, and the Division of Marine Fisheries. The Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act Unit (MEPA) of the Secretary’s Office is the
agency responsible for coordinating the state’s Environmental Impact
Review (EIR) process. Also participating are the Executive Office of
Communities and Development, Massport, MAPC, Department of Public Works,
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Executive Office of Economic Develop-
ment. At the federal level, involved agencies include the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Coast Guard. Other state and federal
agencies may also participate according to their particular areas of
responsibility and concern.
Local government agencies and public officials are also involved in the
public participation process through both the Technical Advisory Group
and the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) as representatives of their
respective community’s needs, and to comment on the various siting
alternatives as they might impact their communities and citizens. The
CAC moreover serves as a forum for the range of local and community—wide
interests affected by this project. Representatives of the CAC would
also participate in the Technical Advisory Group meetings.
Completion and review of the SDEIS will include a public hearing and
will be followed by a Final EIS and a Record of Decision (ROD) by EPA.
These documents will serve as the basis for a final siting decision for
treatment facilities in Boston Harbor. It is anticipated that the scope
11
-------
of the SDEIS and following documents in the EIS process will encompass
actions to be followed by the MDC under a final waiver decision from
EPA, expected to coincide with the Final EIS and Record of Decision. tn
this way, the environmental review process leading to necessary approvals
for siting of harbor wastewater treatment facilities can proceed in a
timely fashion.
EPA is establishing a comprehensive public participation effort as part
of the environmental review process. A range of activities will be
undertaken to keep the public informed about the process and give inter-
ested individuals and organizations opportunities to comment on proposals
and recommendations.
Barry Lawson Associates, Inc. of Boston will manage the public partici-
pation program . They will prepare and distribute materials to the
public, organize and give notice of public meetings and workshops,
coordinate the efforts of the project participants and serve as a cen-
tralized source for public comments and questions.
The public participation program will include:
Scoping Meetings — Scoping meetings were held to define the issues,
impacts and alternatives to be analyzed in detail in the SDEIS. A scop-
ing meeting for federal and state agency staff was held on September 19,
1983 at 9:30 a.m. in the John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Executive
Dining Room. This meeting was specifically held for comment by federal
and state agencies involved in the SDEIS.
A public scoping meeting was held on September 28, 1983 in two sessions,
one beginning at 2:00 p.m. and another at 7:00 p.m. in the main audi-
torium of the U.S. Department of Transportation building located at 55
Broadway Street, Kendall Square in Cambridge. Notice of these meetings
was made in advance in local newspapers. The public scoping meeting was
open to all residents, public officials, and other interested parties.
A comment period for public and agency comments on issues and alterna-
tives relative to scoping closed on October 5, 1983 for both the state
EIR and federal EIS portions of the effort, with a final scope of work
issued following receipt of all comments.
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC ) - A Citizens Advisory Committee has
been established to represent a variety of public interests and local
concerns associated with the proposed treatment facilities siting. The
Committee will meet monthly and members will be called upon to review
the work in progress and advise the consultants and EPA of the various
critical issues and impacts associated with the elements under study.
CAC meetings are open to the public and will be announced in advance.
Mailing List - A mailing list of more than 600 names has been developed
and will be used to send notices of meetings, “Boston Harbor Update”
newsletters and other program material to interested groups and indi-
viduals. These names include public officials, civic groups, local
special interests, and the public at large. The lists will be updated
periodically.
12
-------
“ Boston Harbor Update ” — Information on progress and results of studies
will be reported on in newsletter form three times over the course of
the project.
Information Centers - Program information will be available for review
at several “depositories” set up in libraries in Boston and surrounding
communities. Project information and materials will be stored in ref er-
ence binders provided to these centers.
Public Meetings — Scheduled meetings will be held to present information
to the Public on the work in progress. Comments and opinions will be
recorded, and key issues and impacts discussed. In addition, periodic
smaller meetings may be held in surrounding conununities to explain
options under consideration.
Public Workshops — Workshops will be held to facilitate more intensive
discussions of critical issues and special topics which will influence
decisions to be made on treatment and siting options.
Public Hearing - A formal hearing jointly held by EPA and the state will
be held after the SDEIS has been published and distributed to obtain
public comments on the findings and conclusions of the environmental
review. A comment period will be established to allow written comments
in addition to statements made at the hearing.
Responsiveness Summaries — A summary will be prepared following each
public meeting/workshop which identifies and responds to the questions
and concerns raised by the public concerning findings and recominenda—
tions presented.
13
-------
ATTACHMENT
BOSTON HARBOR SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS
WASTEWATER FACILITY SITING ALTERNATIVES
A. SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Option 1: Deer Island - Nut Island Treatment Facilities
a. Convert Nut Island to a headworks and construct secondary
treatment facilities (either separate or combined system
flows) at Deer Island; inter-island transport of effluent via
tunnel.
b. Construct upgraded primary treatment at Nut Island and construct
secondary treatment facilities (either separate or combined
system flows) at Deer Island; inter-island transport of ef flu-
ent via tunnel.
c. Separate secondary treatment facilities at Nut Island and Deer
Island.
d. Satellite AWT treatment facilities on the Neponset River;
Charles River; or other locations.
Option 2: Nut Island - Deer Island - Long Island Treatment Facilities
a. Construct secondary treatment facilities (for north system
flows) on Deer Island and secondary treatment facilities (for
south system flows) on Long Island with preliminary treatment
(either headworks or primary) facilities on Nut Island; inter-
island transport effluent via tunnel.
b. Construct secondary treatment facilities on Long Island (for
combined system flows) with preliminary treatment (either
headworks or primary) facilities on Deer Island and Nut Island;
inter—island transport of effluent via tunnels.
c. Satellite AWT treatment facilities as noted above.
Option 3: New Island Option
Construct a new island site for secondary treatment facilities
in an appropriate outer harbor location.
B. PRIMARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Option 4: Deer Island - Nut Island Treatment Facilities
a. Construct combined primary treatment facilities at Deer Island
with a headworks at Nut Island (and either a local or deep
ocean outfall); inter-island transport of effluent via tunnel.
-------
b. Construct separate primary treatment facilities on Deer Island
and Nut Island (and either separate local outfall or combined
deep ocean outfall).
Option 5: Deer Island - Nut Island - Long Island Treatment Facilities
a. Construct separate primary treatment facilities at Deer Island
(for north system flows) and Long Island (for south system
flows) with headworks on Nut Island.
b. Construct combined primary treatment facilities on Long Island
(with deep ocean outfall) with headworks on Deer Island and
Nut Island; inter—island transport of effluent via tunnels.
-------
9 e ?ommo)la ea ii,4 a A U4 eU4
z rt on rnen((J
100 carnise qe i9iyeei
J a4jac/ ef6 02202
JAMES 5. HOYTE
CERTIFICATE OF TUE SECRRTARY 0F ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
ON
ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM
PROJECT MArIE:
PROJECT LOCATION:
Site Option Study
Boston / Qu I flCY
EOEA NUMBER:
PROJECT PROPQNENT:
DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR:
September 9, 1983
Pursuant to N.G.L., Chapter 30, Section 62A and Sections 10.04(1) and 10.04(9)
of the Regulations Governing the Implementation of the Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act, I hereby determine that the above referenced project does require the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
My office has participated with the EPA in the development of the EPA Scope of
Work and I adopt that document as the Scope for the EIR with the following comments
and expectations for the Supplemental DEIS/DEIR.
I. INTRODUCTION; PURPOSE; SCHEDULE
At both the state and Federal level, we are in a period of intensive re—evaluation
of options for treating MDC sewerage. The EMMA study (1976) formulated a long—term
approach to the problem. The EPA Draft EIS (1978) examined and narrowed the options,
based on conditions prevailing at the time. The Draft EIS did not, however, result
in consensus on wha facilities should be constructed. To further refine the options,
the Site Options Study was prepared by the MDC under the direction of the EPA and DEQE.
MICHAEL S. DUP AKIS
GOVERNOR
4911
MDC
-------
MDC
Site Option Study
Page Two
Today, the determination exists at both the state and Federal level to make the
difficult decision and move forward into final planning, design, and construction.
Factors of enormous complexity must be weighed: technological questions, environmental
impacts, social impacts, and fiscal impacts.
At the state level, my office as well as the Boston Harbor Water Quality Committee
and the Boston Harbor Interagency Coordinating Committee are charged with arriving at
this decision. However, significant Federal permitting and funding questions are
involved as well. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a
precondition to a federal allocation of grant monies or necessary permitting actions,
and compliance with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) is a precondition
to state (MDC and DEQE) actions. Although the EPA initiated NEPA compliance procedures
in preparing the 1978 DEIS, it did not complete those procedures. Passage of time may
have rendered some of the EIS conclusions out—of—date or not. MDC did not commence
MEPA compliance in 1978 (the Draft EIS was never filed for state review under MEPA).
The MDC has, however, now filed an ENF, and NEPA and MEPA compliance for this project
will proceed henceforth in a coordinated fashion.
EPA is scheduled to complete the Draft Supplemental EIS in June 1984, and a
Final EIS in November 1984. I am hopeful, that close coordination will, be maintained
between EPA and MDC, so that the Draft Supplemental EIS can be adopted by MDC as a
Draft EIR. MDC ma wish to add its own perspective to the Draft Supplemental EIS
before submitting it as a Draft EIR. This could be done by the addition of an
Appendix to the federal document, which would present the MDC’s analysis and conclusions
in any areas in which they differ from those of the EPA. I hope that MDC and EPA
conclusions shall hav converged by the time of the final EIS, and that the Final EIS
and the Final EIR will, therefore be the same document.
II . TREATMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
A. NEPA/MEPA Compliance
The scoping of the EIS poses a difficult issue which has frequently surfaced in
the fourteen years since the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act introduced
formal requirements for environmental review into the planning of major public works
projects. The dilemma relates to the interrelationship between project design and
environmental study. On the one hand, the law provides that environmental study shall
influence decisions on the form a project shall take; it should thus precede, or take
place concurrently with, those design decisions. On the other hand, environmental
analysis cannot take place in a vacuum. It must be applied to projects which have
taken shape (general nature as veIl as location), so that their impacts may be fully
assessed. Thus, some design must precede environmental review.
Where few alternatives exist, or a project’s impacts are relatively simple, this
interrelationship poses no problems. Where, however, the project has the breadth and
complexity of sewage treatment for the MDC system, it takes time and money to prepare
an alternative for effective environmental analysis. Each additional alternative added
for review introduces new preliminary design costs and a time lag.
When the present ENF was filed, MDC and DEQE felt that alternatives examined
should be limited to options identified in the Site Options Study. However, both the
State and National Environmental Policy Acts require that a formal public scoping
process occur before the list of options is closed. During the required scoping of the
-------
MDC
Site Option Study
Page Three
SDEIS/DEIR in October 1983, public comments called for the examination of certain
options in addition to the options proposed by state and Federal agencies for study.
These options include an all Long Island option, and re—evaluation of satellite
options, which I shall discuss later in this Scope.
An EIS which examines to an equal level of detail many very different options
would be an unmanageable document. It would take long to prepare., and it would be so
bulky as to preclude effective agency and public review. Thus, the list of options
must be narrowed between the initial scope and the draft EIS.
The EPA has agreed to perform an inital screening which will determine which
options are infeasible for reasons of high cost, excessive environmental damage, or
lack of benefit. This initial screening is planned for December. Documentation
available at that time should permit determination of which options shall be
exhaustively studied for the SDEIS.
It is essential that the public be involved in this preliminary screening because
the avoidance of litigation and delay at later stages requires that the SDE1S evaluate
all feasible alternatives. The Boston Harbor Interagency Coordinating Committee will
work closely with the EPA,as the options -are narrowed, to ensure that.determination
of infeasibility are made on solid grounds. Continual working contact between the
agencies shall ensure that the time for preparation of the EIS is kept to a minimum
without jeopardizing the quality of the document.
B. Comments on Specific Alternatives
(i) Satellite
Several satellite treatment options for the south system were examined by EPA in
the 1978 DEIS and ruled out on technical grounds. Representatives of the City of
Quincy have urged that satellite options be re—examined in the SDEIS,and have asked that
the SDEIS not merely review the 1978 options, but conduct a fresh search for a
juxtaposition of flows and environmental conditions where a satellite plant might
make sense. In response to the concern that a further search for new locations would
interpose additional delays before the Harbor cleanup occurs, Quincy has suggested
that satellite plants might affect the size,but not the configuration, of harbor
facilities eventually selected. If this is the case, it seems clear that satellite
plants would increase construction costs, complexity, and operation/maintenance costs
of the system. In addition, they would add further siting problems to an already
difficult set of public policy choices and delay on—going state funded projects.
For these reasons, neither DEQE nor MDC believe satellite options are a feasible
alternative at this point, and I have given consideration to the possibility that
satellite plants should be excluded from the Commonwealth’s Scope.
However, public comment has brought forward another issue, water supply, which
may deserve further evaluation. It is characteristic of all non—satellite options
that they entail discharge of sanitary sewage effluent to salt water, where it is
lost to further use. Satellite options, by comparison, would discharge treated
effluent to freshwater rivers or wetlands, which could possibly reduce the stress
on those resources and increase their usefulness to the metropolitan population.
This is a long—term consideration, but it is certainly within the planning horizon for
Eastern Massachusetts. As water demands grow, the conservation of local water
resources yields increasing dollar savings. Ultimately, recharging of local water
resources could lessen the need for furture interbasin transfers. I am inclined to
defer to the judgement of MDC and DEQE that satellite plants are not an element of a
-------
MDC
Site Option Study
Page Four
present solution to the Metropolitan Sewerage District’s treatment needs, but I
certainly agree with EPA that the feasibility and benefits of satellite plants must be
examined in the preliminary screening. Clearly, satellite plants may be an element
of any future expansion of MDC service beyond its present boundaries.
(ii) Long Island
There is also much opposition to the examination of an option which places all
primary (and potentially, secondary) treatment on Long Island. DEM, DEQE, MDC, and
the City of Boston all have expressed opposition to this concept, which finds strong
support within Winthrop. EPA is proceeding to estimate costs and institutional issues
for this option to determine if on existing information alone it should be ruled out.
If costs alone do not clearly separate it from other options, other reasons for state
and local opposition to that option shall be considered.
(iii) Primary/Secondary Alterxmcives
Present indications are that the decision on the MDC’s amended 301(h) waiver
application will be made in the Spring of 1985, and that the Record of Decision on the
EIS will coincide with the waiver decision, but that the Final EIS will appear prior
to that time, with -a preferred primary treatment alternative and a preferred secondary
alternative. Thus, the Draft and Final EIS/EIR will have to address both the
possibility of waiver denial and of its granting. This ambivalency will add difficulty
to an already complex document, but is necessary in order to permit the earliest
possible completion of the EIS/EIR process.
Although, I, Commissioner Cortese and Commissioner Geary have taken a firm
position in favor of primary treatment with deep ocean outfalls, I consider it
appropriate, for comparison purposes, that the EIR discuss the water quality impacts
of all alternatives, including primary treatment/local outfalls. The MDC should
ensure that the EIR filed by it includes a summary of the findings of the amended
301(h) waiver application and a comparison of those findings with the findings rejected
by EPA in its June 1983 Tentative Decision denying the waiver.
(iv) New Island Option
I am satisfied, based upon review of the ENF, comments thereon and discussion with
the BHWQ Committee and the Interagency Coordinating Committee, that the “new island”
alternative is wholly infeasible and may be rejected forthwith.
III. SLUDGE
The extent to which the Supplemental DEIS will address sludge management is unclear
at this date. In the past, primary sludge disposal issues were segmented out from
the site options issues, no doubt because it was Optimistically believed that primary
sludge issues could be resolved earlier than the other issues. The EPA prepared a
Final EIS on primary sludge management and then issued a Record of Decision, calling
for a Sludge Management Update Study, since prepared by MDC. The Final EIS, reviewed
as a Final EIR, was found inadequate. The Sludge Management Update has been informally
reviewed by the MEPA Unit as well as by DEQE, MDC, and the EPA, and further study and
analysis is now going forward. The sludge issues are being developed for presentation
to the BHWQ Committee, and a consensus on the best approach is being sought. The
results of the agency analysis and the preferred alternative will be submitted by
MDC for review as a Final EIR.
-------
MDC
Site Option Study
Page Five
At the least, the Site Options EIR should discuss compatibility of the various
alternatives -ith both primary and secondary sludge disposal options. If MDC wishes
to submit its Final Sludge Management EIR for review simul:aneously with the Draft
Site Options EIR, that will be entirely acceptable(to the extent permitted by the
schedule in the action Quincy vs . MDC.)
IV. GENERIC ISSUES
I look forward in the Supplemental Draft EIS to a thorough discussion of certain
issues that may be coirmion to any facility such as the moving of workers and construction
materials to a site by water, the potential impacts and benefits of barge delivery of
chlorine,and odor control. Techniques, feasibility, potential impacts, and impacts
on costs should all be discussed in the Supplemental Draft. Although a construction
staging area cannot perhaps be selected, the Draft Suppleme t should identify the
criteria necessary for such an area——such as parking area, storage area, utilities,
highway access, water access, and water travel time to the construction site(s) (I
expect that during preparation of the Final EIS, more progess can be made in identifying
actual sites).
V. State Issues
It is essential that the Supplemental Draft carefully review state and local
statutes, regulations, procedures, and programs that may be involved in or affected by
the options. All state agencies are responsible for bringing to the attention of
EPA those statutes or regulations which govern agency responsibilities. Certain ones
which have emerged during scQping are c742, Acts of 1970, Article XLVII, Massachusetts
constitution, local floodplain zoning, G.L. c. 111 Sec. 150 and implementing regulations,
and G.L. c. 131 Sec. 40 and coastal wetlands regulations and variance procedures.
DEM, CZM, MEPA, and DEQE will all be available as necessary to respond to questions
on any of these programs.
MISCELLANEOUS
I understand that if secondary treatment is located at Deer Island, federal
funding exists for the relocation off Deer Island of the Suffolk County House of
Detention. The relocation is not within the Scope of the Site Options EIR. If
relocation is part of the alternative eventually selected, siting and environmental
review of a new facility will have to proceed at that time.
December 6, 1983 _____________________________
DATE ,J flf S S. O VS ET Y
JSH/DS/dc
-------
In 1978 EPA published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement which
recommended consolidation of secondary treatment at Deer Island. While
developing this Draft EIS many of the same questions and issues relative
to the proposed future use of Deer Island evolved. A Task Force of EPA
and Massachusetts representatives developed a report and recommendations
to Judge Arthur Carrity who at the time was reviewing prison conditions
at the Charles Street Jail.
The attached corresspondence is included to inform the reader of the
history of public use options for Deer Island. Its purpose is one of in-
formation only.
-------
‘4 ’,.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
JOHN W, Mc CORMACK OrATE OFFICE BU LDINO
ONE ABHBURTON PLACE. BOOTON 02100
April 27, 1976
The Honorable W. Arthur Garrity
United States Federal District Court
One Post Office Square
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Dear Judge Garrity:
Please find enclosed the Report of the Task Force
for the public uses of Deer Island.
t4t 2
/ Charles Corkin II
Chief
Environmental Protection Division
CCII :anth
Enclosure
CC: Kevin Keating, Esquire
Kenneth Mickiewicz, Esquire
Terrence O’Malley, Esquire
Max D. Stern, Esqi.ire
ANCIØ C. SELI0rfl
TT RWLY NL**
-------
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
JOHN W, Mc CORMACK STATE OFFICE BUILOINO
ONE ABHBuRrDN PLACE. BOSTON 02108
April 26, 1976
*NC I X. BELLOTfl
£Y?ORNEY SLNCRAI.
The Honorable W. Arthur Garrity
United States Federal District Court
One Post Office Square
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
RE: Inmate of Suffolk County Jail et als vs.
Thomas S. Eisenstadt, et al
Dear Judge Garrity:
Report of the Task Force for the Public Uses of
Deer Island:
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiff and the defendant Sheriff of Suffolk
County moved to vacate U.S. District Court Judge
Garrity’s Order closing the Charles Street Jail and
renovating the Hill Prison facility on Deer Island.
On March 22, 1976 Judge Garrity continued the
motions until April 26th in order to provide the
task force sufficient time to prepare a report on the
public uses of Deer Island, including sewage treatment
facilities proposed to be built by the MDC.
2. THE TASK FORCE
Z4embet of the task force included, Evelyn F. Murphy,
Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
for the Commonwealth; John Snedeker, Conirnissioner of the
Metropolitan District Commission; Bette Woody, Commissioner
of the Department of Environmental Management; Martin Weiss,
Metropolitan District Commission; Jarne.SHilliard,
Undersecretary of the Office of Human Services,
Thomas Sellers, Director of Program Development in the
Department of Corrections; Paul Dunn, Director of Development
in the Boston Penal Department; Eugenie Beal, City of Boston;
Charles Corkin II, Chief, Environmental Protection Division
of the Department of the Attorney General; Steve Ells,
Environmental Protection Agency; David Standley, Commissioner
of the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering;
Michael Ventresca, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.
3. ! OTENTIAL PUBLIC PURPOSES FOR DEER ISLAND
Three public uses of Deer Island have received
considerable attention in recent years —— correctional
facilities, sewage treatment, and recreation. While the
-------
specific focus of the task force was on space for sewage
treatment if Deer Island is to accomdoate the Charles Street
Jail inmates, alternatives were developed that might
accomodate all three interests.
The following preferences were stated at the
outset:
Officials of the City of Boston would prefer
no relocation of Deer Island correctional facilities,
especially the Hill Prison. After a thorough search
for facilities elsewhere in Suffolk County, the City
concludes that no adquate structures are available.
Moreover, the cost of building a new facility is deemed
an extreme financial burden for the City. (See Attachment A,
letter Paul E. Dunn to Secretary Murphy, March 26, 1976).
• . • The Metropolitan District Commission would prefer
to expand its sewage treatment facility on Deer Island
to handle there the secondary sewage treatment requirements
Z both Nut and Deer Island plants. There are major
ejwironmental problems as well as substantial political
Qpposition to filling Quincy Bay in order to accomodate
secondary sewage treatment on an enlarged Nut Island.
• . . The Commonwealth and the City of Boston would
prefer to retain some recreational opportunities on Deer
rsland, specifically for the enjoyment of residents
ofT Winthrop, and more broadly, to integrate the island
into the urban 1 arbor island park currently under development.
4.. ALTERNATIVES ENCOMPASSING ALL THREE INTERESTS
The attached diagrams —- Alternatives One, Two and
Three —— represent ways to accomodate the several potential
pu1 lic uses of Deer Island.
Alternative One shows the correctional facilities
where they are currently located; the aeration and settling
t6nks of combined secondary sewage treatment for both
N t and Deer Island; and the use of the fill from the
drumlin along the southwest edge and tip of the island
før potential local and island park recreational use.
The positive features of this alternative are
threefold; first, there is adequate open space around the
correctional facilities to permit ample outdoor movement
of inmates. Second, sewage is being treated by tried and
proven technologies. Finally, limited recreational
opportunities are provided.
There are, nonetheless, several drawbacks to this
alternative. The drumlin, considered a significant historic
and natural feature, will be destroyed. The visual
impression of the island will be that of massive sewage
treatment apparatus —— a dramatic shift from the current
character of the island. Moreover, filling the harbor will
introduce added instability in the ecological pattern of
-------
—3—
the harbor. Filling is typically discouraged by the
environmental regulatory department because of the
disturbances that ensue.
Finally, this alternative will require that the
General Services Administration (GSA) turn over the tip
of the island to the MDC for sewage treatment. In
preliminary conversation with the ‘GSA land office,
Mr. O’Connell, indicated that GSA would consider such
authorization if the city and state endorsements were
presented to GSA.
The Second alternative would leave the tip of the
island for recreation and would put the settling and aeration
tanks on a portion of the City’s correctional property.
Hill prison would remain in its current location.
The primary advantages of this alternative are that
implementation can proceed without GSA actions and
without filling. The disadvantages are that the Hill
prison would be tightly fit between sewage treatmc .t
facilities with little outdoor area for inmates; soim .
relocation would be necessary; and the drumlin would be
destroyed.
Alternative Three indicates a consolidation of
settling tanks that enables consolidated secondary
treatment within a much more limited area than indicated
in the prior two designs. The advantage of this dcsign
are versions of the features discussed previously.
However, there are major problems with this
alternative and it should not be considered a serious
option at this time. The proposed technology for
sewage treatment is considered on the forefront of the
state—of-the-art, untested as yet in the United States.
Moreover, the added costs —— in excess of $50 million
than Alternative One —— would impose considerable
financial burden on MDC sewer commitments.
5. ALTERNATIVES ACCOMODATING TWO INTERESTS
Alternative Four (actually Alternative One without
filling) would accornodate the nee3 for correctional
facilities and sewage treatment. It is reasonable to
Wonder whether people would ever regard Deer Island as a
i creational area given the predominance of the other two
3 1 es. This alternative only dramatizes more the loss
5 f environmental amenities for massive institutional
Alternative Five presents a design for sewage
rt1Uen hind recreational use. Environmental sensitivity
i’ ’0rninent —— the drumlin remains in being; no substantial
‘ is required.
-------
-.4-.
Considerable relocation costs would be incurred to
*ove the entire correctional facility elsewhere and to build
* Tiew facility. The costs of relocation would be bourne by
the City and the State. Yet both governments feel financially
strapped and may have difficulty making this a financially
feasible alternative.
6. QUESTIONS OF VALUE
These alternatives portray some significant questions
of value. Is it desirable or appropriate to locate a
correctional facility, as contrasted with any other
public or private facility, next to a massive sewage
treatment plant? How important is it to preserve a
significant natural feature, the drumlin?
These questions emerged in our deliberations. The
task force, however, was a technical one and we did not
attempt to answer these questions.
7. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY
The task force concludes that an expanded correctional
capacity on Deer Island would not preclude plans of the
Metropolitan District Commission to enlarge its sewage
treatment facilites on the island. This memorandum outlines
tethnical alternatives and their related social, financial
and en iron ,ei tal issues.
-------
—5—
[ See attached letter from John McGlennon
to Evelyn Murphy dated April 26, 19761
Steve Ells,
Ezivironuiental Protection Agency
t
Eugenie Beal
City of Boston
Paul E. Dunn, Director of Development
Boston Penal Department
Environmental Protection
-------
—6-
Eve]. F. Murphy’ )
Executive Office of(Environmental Affairs
David Standley, Commissioner
Department of Envirinmeatal Quality Engineering
o er
Depar ent of Enviro ntal Management
Ma tin Weiss,Director, Environmental Planning
Department of Metropolitan District Commission
7L. ,.
Thomas Sellers, Director Program Development
Department Corrections
hael Ventresca
ironmental Affairs
ames Hilliard, Undersecretary
ecutive Office of Human Services
Lt of Metropolitan District Commission
-------
__ 5 e €omma,u ea/i% ?J/aMac4 e&
ecaieve ce o/ on neni a/4Pae
100 ami( qe t9 eet
EVELYN F. MURPHY (e.1et O2 U)2
SECRETARY
ADDENDUM TO THE COURT .
The task force was asked, and responded to realities: is it
physically possible to accommodate both the prison and sewage treat-
ment needs on Deer Island? Other realities have been prominent in
our deliberations, also. The expense of constructing a new jail
elsewhere would constitute a heavy financial burden for the City of
Boston; few, if any, facilities exist elsewhere that might be converted
into penal facilities at reasonable cost.
Yet we would be remiss if some comments were not offered on the
Commonwealth’s view of the destiny of Deer Island. If such constraints
of reality did not exist, or were altered in the future, three uses
appear ex s ive, both f r the land iass itseJf, and for the Town of
Winthrop. We would prefer, rather, to see but two uses of the island -—
sewage treatment and recreation. Preservation of the waterfront for
water related uses would seem the most judicious use of this limited
space. The location of new penal institutions nearer to the city and related
public institutions — — courts, probation offices, and the like —— would
seem to have social value as well as improved efficiency in public
administration.
If the Court wishes further work to resolve any issues, we are
prepared to commit our offices to prompt and thoughtful resolutions.
Evelyn F. Murphy, Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
2
.Tâmes Hilliard, Undersecretary
ecutive Office of Human Services
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
J.F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
April’26, 1976
Evelyn Murphy, Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston. M.ass ichusetts 02202
Dear Secretary Murphy:
In light of the “Addendum to the Court” signed by you and
Undersecretary of Human Services James Hilliard, I concur in the
statement which identifies the technically feasible alternatives
and is entitled “Report of the Task Force for the Public Uses of
Deer Island”, April 26, 1976. This report demonstrates that though
it may be feasible to locate all three desired public uses on
Deer Island (the correctional facility, an expanded treatment plant
and a waterside park), there are significant disadvantages in
attempting to do so. Indeed, given the “preferences” stated on
page 2 of the report. only two of the proposed uses can be realis-
tically accomodated; the proposed park and the adjacent ninely
foot high hill are likely to be destroyed unless further alternatives
are pursued.
As you correctly point out, these trade—of fs present complex
questions of values, finances and the availability of other solutions,
and these questions are not readily answerable. I am pleased, though,
that in your Addendum the Commonwealth has expressed its policy
preference for the future of this Island and assure you that we will
wholeheartedly participate in the process of further analysis that
you suggest.
yours,
Jobn’A S. McClennon
Re ional Administrator
-------
CITY OF BOSTON
/ .\ PENAL INSTITUTIONS DEPARTMENT
ROOM 704 — BOSTON CITY HALL
) 1 W.NiCKERSON BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02201
March 26, 1976
s. Evelyn Murphy, Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Commonwealth of Massachusett8
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
Dear Secretary Murphy;
At Iionday’s Task Force meeting you requested further
detailing of the City s position on the use of Deer Island
for correctional purposes. A quick description of the
present Charles Street Jail case may aid in putting the
issues into perspective.
In 1973, the Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail
sued Sheriff Eisenstadt, Mayor White, the nine Boston City
Councillors and Commissioner Hall for violation of constitutional
standards. The Federal District Court of W. Arthur Garrity,
the Court ruled that the Charles Street Jail should b cosc
not later than July 1, 1976. In addition, Garrity temporarily
required the women at Charles Street be sent to MCJ Framingharn
and that each cell at Charles Street be limited to one
man (recently the one ‘nan/one cell ruling was lifted because
of overcrowding.)
The Public Facilities Department, as the City agency
responsible for c P1tal construction, undertook a survey of
a number of a1tern t1Ve; acd decided to propose to the
Court a plan which would include the creation of a small, short—
term (70bed) Intake Service Center (I.S.C.) near the Superior
Courthouse and the renovation of the Hill Prison at the
Suffolk County House of Correction for long term detention.
Both facilities wouid be placed under the jurisdiction of the
Sheriff thereby replacing the present Charles Street Jail.
The House of Correction property at Deer Island, save the renovat-
ed Hill Prison, would continue its function of past—conviction
custody and remain the jurisdiction of the Penal Institution
Dc artinent. Tr e City offered the plan to Federal Court
cictoI 1 . 20, 1975 ordered it implemented.
The City’s deeic3ion to propose the plan was based
Upon three major onsj ,9ratjons. In order of importance they
are:
ATI’ACHIIENT A
-------
March 26, 1976 page 2
COST :
Estimated costs for new prison construction has been
estimated at between $40,000 to $60,000 per cell. Thus
construction of a new Charles Street Jail would cost some
twenty five m• .llion dollars without land acquision expenses.
On the other hand, the cost of the Fresent plan is $8.5 million
dollars and in addition may result in the Charles Street
site becoming available for private use.
RENOVATIONS :
Renovating the present Charles Street Jail was rejected
by both the City and the Federal Court. Any renovation
to the present site presented a safety and security problem
due to structural strain that would occur during the process.
Both the roof and foundation at Charles Street present
substancial delimxninas.
A further advantage to the City was that the Hill
Prison at Deer Island, which has substancial mechanical needs,
would be totally improved. The plan allowed the City to save
on what would eventually be a substaincial revnovation of
that facility if the plan was not adopted.
SITE :
During the Garrity hearings, location becoame the leading
issue. Inmates, especially those newly detained need quick
access to attorneys, family friends and similiar resources.
Yet no downtown site for intake services and detention
presented sufficient room or reasonable costs to be justified
in the City’s view. This was not decided without substancial
review and consultation. A number of sites were explored,
including:
Nashua Street — This was the most commonly suggested
site ie: for the City to “swap” the Charles Street land for
property which Massachusetts General Hospital owns on Nashua
Street and build a new facility. The Hospital rejected
this (see attached letter) when it was de termined that the
City would first have to acquire Nashua Street, build and
move the inmates before it could legally transfer the
Charles Street property to the hospital.
-------
March 26, 1976 page 3
Fargo Building — was explored and rejected when the
Coast Guard, the present owners, said it was going to transfer
the building to the Army. The Army refused to take a position
since it did not own the property. In addition because
of building structure, renovation costs would be substancial.
Fort Devens — the Department contacted the Army but found
that the stockade had been torn down.
Portsmouth Naval Station — was rejected for distance
reasons. Further there was some question whether detaines
could be taken out of state.
Middlesex County Training School — was explored but
rejected as being insecure.
Middlesex County Jail — the East Cambridge Jail, at
the top if the new courthouse was rejected because of a
lack of sufficient cells.
Roslindale Detention Center — was toured and rejected
because it was too small. Further, the Youth Service P rd
seemed to be uncertain whether it would actually declare
the facility surplus. In retrospect, it seems clear that the
state will continue using the Detention Center for the
foreseeable future.
If I can provide any further information or assistance
on the matter please feel free to conatct me.
Sincerely,
Paul E. Dunn
Director of Development
cc: James Hillard Human Services
Betty Wood, Environment Management
John Snedeker, M.D.C.
Martin Wies, M.D.C.
Michael Ventresca, Coastal Zone Management
Robert Vey, Deputy Mayor
Victor Hagan,Public Facilities
Jean 3eal, Conservation Commission
Kenne:h Mickiewicz, Law
PED/ar
-------
-------
APPROXIMATE CITY CF BOSTON PROPERT 1 Y LINE
DEER ISLAND
OPTION 2
V
-------
\ PROXIMATE CITY OF BOSTON PROPERTY LINE
/
/
DEER ISLAND
RELOCATED ACCESS ROAD
‘S..
OPTION 3
-------
1 EER ISLAND
I.
/
1
I \ ••••
-------
AOPROXIMATE CITY OF BOSTON PROPERTY LINE
DEER ISLAND
OPTION 5
/
7-
-------
10.2 Public Participation
Program Summary
-------
10.2.1
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM SUMMARY
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS)
Boston Harbor Wastewater Facilities Siting
September, 1984
Prepared by: Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 648
Concord, Massachusetts 01742
Preparc d for: C.E. Maguire, Inc.
One Davol Square
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
For the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Under Contract Number 68—04—1010
1
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Public participation is an important consideration in any
investigation of environmental impact. Public involvement
throughout the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process can
ensure that the resulting plans, rec ommendations and policies
are not only technically appropriate, but also politically and
socially acceptable. The complexity of issues and concerns, and
the large number of communities, interest groups, and government
agencies involved in this SDEIS increase the need for organized
and integrated public participation.
The public participation program designed for this SDEIS by
Barry Lawson Associates, Inc. performs two basic functions:
o provides the public with information on the EIS
process and the progress of studies for the SDEIS
o creates opportunities for the public to provide
input and consultation to the SDEIS study team
and responsible agencies.
Several major public participation activities took place to
guarantee the performance of the above functions. Each of these
activities, and several support services provided, are summarized
later in this appendix. In all participation events involving
the public, efforts were made to provide the participants with
the facts they would need to make informed comments and ask
pertinent questions. Public participation activities were
designed and planned in close collaboration with the study team.
Meetings, workshops, exercises and questionnaires were structured
to provide the study team with information it needed, while also
offering opportunities for general comments from the
participants. The major public participation activities were
tuned to provide public input at points in the EIS process when
important decisions were about to be made by the study team.
II. MAJOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
1) Public Participation Coordination
Management and coordination are obvious requirements if a
public participation program is to succeed. Barry Lawson
Associates, Inc. provided overall management, coordination, and
production of materials for this public participation program
with Barry R. Lawson as project manager and Ann Jacobson and
Edward lonata as public participation coordinators.
2
-------
2) Planning
A public participation workplan was developed by
representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I (EPA), C.E. Maguire, Inc., and the staff of
Barry Lawson Associates. The plan includes all of the activities
and services summarized in this appendix and provides for ongoing
evaluation and modification of the plan by EPA, C.E. Maguire, and
Lawson Associates staff as neccessary to meet changing
conditions.
3) Formation and Support of Citizens’ Advisory_Committee
A twenty—six member Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) was
appointed in October 1984, by Michael Deland, Regional
Administrator, EPA, to assist and advise the study team.
Nominations for CAC members were solicited from a wide range of
concerned interest groups representing communities involved, the
environment, recreation, business, and government. The appointed
members began meeting in November 1983 and have held regular
meetings each month since then and task force meetings at two
week intervals between the regular meetings. Attendance at the
regular meetings averages 16.5 members and representatives of
members not able to attend.
The CAC worked diligently with EPA, C.E. Maguire, and
Lawson Associates to become familiar with the issues examined in
the SDEIS and has offered comments at every stage of the EIS
process. The CAC has reviewed each chapter of this SDEIS in
draft form and edited for possible errors in data or
interpretation. Members also took part in structured excercises
to assess the importance of various siting impacts and to develop
potential mitigation methods. The results of these exercises are
reported in section 10.2.3. In June 1984, the CAC offered
testimony at State Legislature hearings on the establishment of a
metropolitan water resources authority.
The members of the CAC have produced a report summarizing
their concerns and recommendations regarding wastewater treatment
plant siting in Boston Harbor, which is included as section
10.3 of this appendix.
Lawson Associates is responsible for coordinating the
activities of the CAC, producing meeting agendas and minutes,
assisting the CAC in document and testimony preparation and
keeping CAC members supplied with current SDEIS information.
4) Formation and Support of Technical Advisory Group
A thirty—five member Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was
formed in October 1983, to provide technical assistance to the
study team and create a forum where study results can be
3
-------
presented to concerned public agencies for discussion. The
members of the TAG were appointed by local, state, and federal
agencies interested in the project. The TAG met periodically
during the initial stages of the study and less frequently in the
later stages using bilateral discussions between individual TAG
members and the consultant as a forum for review. Future TAG
meeting are planned to review this SDEIS and future final
documents. Lawson Associates coordinates TAG activities and
provides agendas and meeting notes.
A list of TAG members appears in Table 10-1.
5) Production and Distribution of Newsletters
A series of newsletters entitled “Boston Harbor Update”
was produced and distributed to all individuals and agencies on
the project mailing list (approximately 740) . Three Updates have
been published to date, informing the public on study progress
and upcoming public participation events. A fourth Update is
planned for publication at the time of the SDEIS release.
6) Production of Public Meetings and Workshops
Several public meetings and workshops have taken place during
this project to reach out to the general public for input at key
decision—making junctures. In September 1983, two public scoping
meetings and one agency scoping meeting were held. One hundred
members of the general public and twenty—one representatives of
concerned agencies attended and offered opinions on the scope of
work for this SDEIS.
A public workshop was held in November 1983, to identify and
discuss factors which should be considered in the screening
process. About sixty people attended and took part in excercises
designed to identify and weight the importance of various factors
involved. Results of this exercise are reported in section
10.2.2.
Two public meetings were held during January, 1984, to obtain
public reaction to EPA’S recommendation of six sites for further
study. One meeting was held in each of the two communities where
major impacts are likely to occur; Winthrop and Quincy.
Approximately one hundred people attended each meeting and
enthusiastically voiced a wide variety of concerns. A summary of
the comments made at these meetings was published as Appendix A
of the Report of Final Screening Results (May 16, 1984).
A public workshop was held in August 1984, to update the
public on the progress of the SDEIS, introduce factors being
considered in siting decisions and gather opinion on them, and
elicit comments on potential mitigation and compensation
measures. Thirty—five members of the public attended and engaged
4
-------
in discussions with project staff, worked in small groups on
exercises, and individually on an opinion survey. Results of
this workshop are also reported in section 10.2.2.
Future public briefings are planned to answer questions on
the SDEIS, and a public hearing will be held to gather the
public’s official comments on the SDEIS.
III. SUPPORT SERVICES
1) Mailing List Maintenance
A mailing list of approximately 740 concerned citizens,
organizations, agencies, and media outlets was developed and is
continually updated. The list is used for distribution of the
“Boston Harbor Update” and announcements of public participation
events. Separate CAC and TAG lists are maintained for mailings
to those groups.
2) Media Relations
Lawson Associates acts as a source of information for media
personnel and encourages coverage of SDEIS public events.
3) Information Depositories
Information concerning the SDEIS has been distributed to
libraries in Boston, Quincy, Wellesley, and Winthrop. The
libraries were provided with binders to file the information and
current SDEIS information is sent periodically.
4) Field Trips
Field trips were held to allow the TAG and CAC members to
view the Nut Island and Deer Island wastewater treatment
facilities and to view Boston Harbor by boat.
5) Summaries
Summaries and analyses of all public workshops and meetings
were prepared by Lawson associates for use by the study team.
6) Management
A collection of miscellaneous tasks are carried out to
support the public participation program. A telephone number
with answering service (617—451—3600) and a post office box
(P.O. Box 1357, General Mail Facility, Boston MA 02210) are
maintained to provide public access to the participation
coordinator. Requests for information or documents from
5
-------
concerned citizens, agencies, and media personnel are processed
continually. Lawson Associates staff provides advice to the
study team regarding public communications and analysis of
opinion data.
7) Evaluation
The public participation program was evaluated by members of
the study team in April 1984, and is continuously evaluated and
modified as the SDEIS progresses. A final evaluation by the
study team, the CAC, and the TAG is planned during the review
period for the final EIS.
IV. CONCLUSION
The public participation program for this SDEIS is producing
a diversity of information. For example, the study team has been
provided with detailed comments and opinions on study design,
impacts, and mitigation and compensation for the various options.
Public input has been extensively incorporated into the work of
the study team and plans are in place to ensure the same or
greater levels of public involvement for the remainder of this
project.
6
-------
TABLE 10-1
SDEIS — Boston Harbor Wastewater Facilities Siting
Technical Advisory Group List
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Mr. Chris Mantzaris
Habitat Protection Branch,
National Marine Fisheries
Federal Building — 14 Elm Street
Gloucester, MA 01930
281—3600
Mr. Rob Adler
Impact Analysis Branch, Pig. Div.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02154
647—8231
Ms. Kathleen Castagna
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Room 2103 - J.F.K. Building
Boston, MA 02203
223—3915
Mr. Howard Larsen, Reg. Dir.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1 Gateway Center
Newton Corner, MA 02158
965—5100
Mr. Jim Mikolaites
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 1518 — 55 Pleasant St.
Concord, N.H. 03301
(603)224—2585
Mr. Michael Frimpter
U.S. Geological Survey
150 Causeway Street
Boston, MA 02114
223—4521
Mr. William Patterson,
Regional Environmental Officer
c/o Department of Interior
National Park Service
15 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
223—5517 or (202)343—3891
Lt. Commander Allen Boetig
U.S.C.G. Marine Safety Div.
First Coast Guard District
150 Causeway Street
Boston, MA 02114
223—6915
STATE/REGIONAL AGENCIES
Ms. Beverly Boyle
A-95 Coordinator
Executive Office of
Communities and Development
100 Cambridge St. — 9th Fl.
Boston, MA 02202
727—3253
Ms. Evelyn Murphy, Secretary
Executive Office of
Economic Dev. & Manpower Affairs
1 Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
Ms. Cheryl Breen
Office of Coastal Zone Management
20th Floor — 100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
727—9530
Mr. Sam Mygatt, Executive Director
Environmental Impact Review
MEPA Unit
20th Floor — 100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
727—5830
—1—
-------
TABLE 10-1 (c6ntinued)
Ms. Kathy Abbott
Department of Environmental Mgmt.
100th Cambridge St. — 20th Fl.
Boston, MA 02202
727—4704
Mr. Emerson Chandler
Water Resources Commission
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
727—3267
Mr. Steven Lipman
DEQE
1 Winter Street—7th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
292—5668
Mr. Glen Haas
Div. of Water Pollution Control
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
292—5748
Mr. Ron Lyberger
Div. of Water Pollution Control
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
292—5738
Mr. Eugene Kavanaugh
Division of Water Ways
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
292—5695
Mr. Leigh Bridges, Director
Division of Marine Fisheries
19th Floor — 100 Cambridge St.
Boston, MA 02202
727—3193
Ms. Valerie Talmage, Exec. Dir.
Massachusetts Historic Commission
294 washington Street
Boston, MA 02108
727—8470
Ms. Denise Breiteneicher
Massport Planning Division
99 High Street
Boston, MA 02110
482—2930
Mr. Martin Pillsbury
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
110 Tremont Street
Boston, MA 02108
451—2770
Mr. Jack Hamm
Metropolitan District Commission
20 Somerset Street
Boston, MA 02108
727—8881
Ms. Jean Haggerty
Metropolitan District Commission
20 Somerset Street
Boston, MA 02108
727—8880
Mr. Noel Barratta, Director
MDC Sewerage Division
20 Somerset Street
Boston, MA 02108
727—5254
Mr. Justin Radlow
Bureau of Project Development
Department of Public Works
100 Nashua Street
Boston, MA 02114
727—4740
LOCAL/OTHER
Mr. Russell Hughes
80 Woodside Avenue
Winthrop, MA 02152
Mr. Paul Anderson
55 Sea Street
Quincy, MA 02169
Mr. David Standley
McGrath, Sylva & Assoc., Inc.
15 Court Square — Suite 540
Boston, MA 02108
227—1142
Mr. Peter Scarpignato
Department of Public Facilities
26 Court Street — 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
725—4802
—2—
-------
TABLE 10-1 (continued)
Mr. Ronald Jones
Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of Health and Hospitals
Administration Building Mezzanine
818 Harrison Avenue
Boston, MA 02108
424—5965
Ms. Frances Lavallee
Boston Harbor Water
Quality Committee
12 Randall Avenue
E. Weymouth, MA 02189
335—6388
Ms. Libby Blank
Boston Water and Sewer Commission
10 Post Office Square
Boston, MA 02109
426—6046
Mr. Robert Reimold
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
50 Staniford Street
Boston, MA 02114
Mr. Daniel Garson
C.E. Maguire, Inc.
One Davol Square
Providence, R.I. 02903
426—2120 ex 417
—3—
-------
10.2 .2
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
Summary and Exercise Results
Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Boston Harbor Wastewater Treatment Facilities Siting
October, 1984
1
-------
Two public workshops were held during this project to inform
the public and to gather public input. The workshops were
designed to provide the study team with helpful information at
key decision—making junctures of the project. The first workshop
was held in November 1983, during the period of the project when
the list of options for further study was being screened and
narrowed. The goals of this workshop were to inform the public
of the progress of the project and to gather public opinion on
factors involved in the screening process.
A second public workshop held in August of 1984 focused on
mitigation and compensation methods required to make the various
options under consideration acceptable to a variety of concerned
citizens and groups.
A summary of each workshop and results of exercises conducted
at the workshops follows:
I. Public Workshop $1
The first public workshop for this project was held on
November 29, 1983, at the State Street Bank Building in Boston,
Massachusetts. The group of approximately 60 participants was
welcomed by Michael Deland, EPA Region I Regional Administrator
and Sam Mygatt of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mr. Deland
moderated the workshop.
A briefing and explanation of the project was given by Daniel
Garson of C.E. Maguire, Inc. Following the briefing,
the group took part in an exercise designed to allow group
members to assign weights to various impacts to be evaluated as
part of the SDEIS screening process. The list of impacts to be
weighted corresponded to the STEEPLI matrix being used by C.E.
Maguire, Inc. to screen the options. The exercise was
coordinated by Barry R. Lawson of Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
The workshop participants were divided into several smaller
groups and allowed to select a siting option which they would
focus on throughout the exercise from a list of options provided
(table 10—2). The groups were also provided with a list of major
impact categories based on the STEEPLI matrix and several
sub—categories for each major category. The groups assigned
weights to each major category and ranked each sub—category as
high, medium, or low in importance. Results of the exercise are
reported in tables 10—3 and 10—4. Table 10—3 also compares the
results of the Public Workshop exercise to those of a similar
exercise performed with the Citizens Advisory Commitee for this
project, and ranks the major categories from most (1) to least
(7) important, based on the results of this workshop.
Useful information evolved from this exercise and
was incorporated into the analyses performed by C.E. Maguire,
Inc. Some of the more important findings of this exercise
include:
2
-------
—— the public is more concerned with environmental,
technical, and social impacts than with economic, political,
legal, and institutional impacts. (see rankings of major
catagor ies)
—— there is great public interest in options affecting
the communities of Winthrop and Quincy. (half of participants
chose to focus on options affecting the two communities)
—— the Citizens Advisory Committee opinion is a
reasonable reflection of public opinion. (comparable rankings)
II. Public Workshop #2
The second workshop on the siting of wastewater treatment
facilities in Boston Harbor was held on August 7, 1984 at 1:00
p.m. in the Enterprise Room of the State Street Bank Building in
Boston, Massachusetts. The goal of the workshop was to provide
EPA and the consultant, C.E. Maguire, Inc., with public opinion
on major siting factors and potential mitigation and compensation
measures.
Thirty—five members of the public attended the workshop and
were welcomed by Michael Deland, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region I. The remaining portion of the workshop was divided into
two parts: a portion which provided the participants with
relevant information and a portion which solicited public
comments and ideas.
The information portion consisted of two presentations.
Donald Porteous, Chief of Water Quality, EPA Region I,
gave a status report on the Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (SDEIS). Daniel Garson of C.E. Maguire, Inc.
reviewed siting options and impacts, outlined possible mitigation
measures, and provided the participants with printed summaries of
these issues. Questions from the audience were invited and
answered during both presentations.
The public comment portion of the workshop was divided into
a working group session and a poll. In the group session,
participants were asked to select the decision—making factors
which concerned them most and to form small working groups to
examine each factor. Each group was provided with a work sheet
to guide its discussions and comments. Staff members from EPA,
C.E. Maguire, Inc. and Barry Lawson Associates were available to
assist the working groups and to answer questions. Following the
working group sessions, each group reported its results and
offered comments to all of the participants. A brief summary of
each work sheet follows:
Group 1
Major Concern: Traffic and Access — Deer Island
— would like to see plant built on Long Island.
— concerned about traffic safety, noise in addition to
3
-------
current airport noise, and additional traffic in an
already congested area.
— mitigation measures for a Deer Island site would be to
barge all materials, equipment, and workers to the site.
— barging should begin immediately and include the current
fast—track improvements.
— Deer Island is the worst site for a new facility.
— Both the town of Winthrop and the contractor lose if
barging is not undertaken because it will be impossible for
residents or construction traffic to move through the crowded
streets.
Group 2
Major Concern: Land Use
— favor primary treatment option 4b2 (split Nut and Deer
Islands) and secondary treatment option la (split Nut and
Deer Islands) because they minimize degradation of existing
property.
— suggest buffer zones or parks around treatment facilities
and purchasing nearby residences at fair market value.
— consider Long Island the worst site for a treatment plant
because Long Island is the only harbor island to become part
of the Island Park system with land access, making it
available to people who cannot afford boat transport.
— if Long Island is chosen as a site, mitigation could be to
reclaim Nut island and Deer Island as parks.
Group 3
Major Concern: Recreation
— favor Nut and Deer Island sites for new facility.
— want long outfalls for all treatment levels.
— feel that there is no equitable compensation for
using Long Island as a site because there is no existing
treatment facility there and the land is valuable to
the State.
— any barging facilities built should be used later for
recreation.
— examine building facilities underground with recreation
areas on top.
Group 4
Major Concern: Community Impact
— favor consolidated facility on Long Island.
— maximize distance from facility to where people live.
— all materials, equipment, and workers should be barged
to Long Island.
— there is no just compensation or mitigation for building
a facility on Nut or Deer Islands.
Group 5
Major Concern: Facility Design
siting not important as long as sludge is taken care of.
4
-------
— sludge is a resource that should be utilized.
— sites with room for sludge treatment should be favored.
— mitigation for community adjacent to facility could
include odor containment, cash compensation, elimination
of sewer and water tax.
— Nut Island is a bad site because of lack of room for
sludge treatment, but treatment could possibly take place
off site.
Group 6
Major Concern: Costs
— consolidated treatment at Deer Island is favored because
it is an obviously economic option.
A questionnaire was distributed before the workshop adjourned
to poll the participants on their site choices for both primary
and secondary treatment options. Participants were asked to
provide reasons for their choices. The following are the results
of the poll:
Primary Treatment Options :
Seven participants selected option 4a.2, consolidated primary
treatment on Deer Island, as the best site. Reasons for this
choice were:
— least cost
— least new land destroyed
— water quality in that area is already poor
— does not affect Long Island
— provides an opportunity to compost sludge
— less environmental and community impact, less mitigation
— benefits of consolidated plant while not impacting
Long Island
Three participants selected option 4b.2, primary treatment on
Deer and Nut Islands, for the following reasons:
— the main construction is already in place and only
requires upgrading and enlargement
- opportunity for prompt action
— consolidation at Deer Island is too much for the
community of Winthrop to bear
Three participants chose option 5b.2, consolidated primary
treatment on Long Island, for the following reasons:
— least amount of residential disruption
— fewer community impacts on Nut and Deer Islands
— Deer Island could be used as park land
Two participants chose option 5a.2, primary treatment on Deer
5
-------
and Long Islands, for the following reasons:
— utilizes existing site on Deer Island without making
Winthrop absorb 100% of the impact
— a State Park is still possible on Long Island
— no filling of harbor at Nut Island
— better possibilities for mitigation
Secondary Treatment Options :
Six participants chose option la, consolidated secondary
treatment at Deer Island, as the best secondary treatment site
option. Reasons cited for this choice are the same as reasons
mentioned earlier for the choice of site 4a.2 for primary
treatment.
Three participants selected option lb , primary treatment on
Nut Island with secondary treatment on Deer Island, as the best
option for secondary treatment. The following are some reasons
for this choice:
— offers opportunity of a buffer park at Deer Island
without further degradation of Long and Nut Islands
- does not impact Long Island
Three participants chose option 2b.l, consolidated secondary
treatment at Long Island, for the same reasons option 5b.2 was
selected as a primary treatment site.
One participant selected option 2b.3, primary treatment at
Deer Island with primary and secondary treatment at Long Island
because, if the waiver (301(h) application) is not granted, the
impact should be spread out.
The following general comments were added to the
questionnaire sheet by participants:
— no secondary options should be considered because
the MDC cannot afford operation and maintenence costs
and secondary plants are too complex for us to be able to
guarantee successful operation
— leave sites where they are and upgrade them, too much time
will be taken up to chose a new site and get political
approval for it
— construction of ocean outfall should be started
immediately to allow pumping of untreated sludge and
wastewater out of the harbor to alleviate health hazards
— facilities should be located away from people
Several participants chose not to respond to one or more
questions on the questionnaire form.
This workshop indicated that the public was somewhat divided
6
-------
on the siting issue and that there was both support and
opposition for each option. There was a general consenus at the
workshop that mitigation and compensation are important factors
to be considered in siting a treatment facility or facilities.
Several EIS staff persons from C.E. Maguire and EPA were present
at the workshop and interacted with the participants.
Information gathered through these interactions and through
the exercises was used to assist in the formulation of
recommendations included in the draft EIS. Information
resulting from both workshops will be valuable when it becomes
necessary to begin planning for mitigation to ensure
implementation of a final siting decision.
-------
TABLE lO-.2
LIST OF OPTIONS
FACILITIES AND SITES FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Option Components
la.l Headworks at Nut Island
Combined primary and secondary treatment at Deer
Island
Combined local outfalls
la.2 Headworks at Nut Island
Separate primary and secondary treatment at Deer
Island
Combined local outfalls
lb.l Primary treatment at Nut and Deer Islands
Combined secondary treatment at Deer Island
Combined local outfalls
lb.2 Primary treatment at Nut and Deer Islands
Separate secondary treatment at Deer Island
Combined local outfalls
ic Primary and secondary treatment at Deer Island and
Nut Island *
Local outfalls
2a.l Headworks at Nut Island
Primary and secondary treatment at Deer Island and
Long Island *
2a.2 Primary and secondary treatment at Deer Island*
Primary treatment at Nut Island with secondary
treatment at Long Island
Local outfalls
2b.j. Headworks at Deer Island and Nut Island
Combined primary and secondary treatment at Long
Island *
Local outfalls
2b.2 Primary treatment at Deer and Nut Islands
Combined secondary treatment at Long Island *
Local outfalls
-------
TABLE 10-2 (continued)
3a/b Headworks at Deer and Nut Island
Combined secondary treatment * at either Lovells or
Brewster s
Local outfalls
4a.1/2 Headworks at Nut Island
Combined primary treatment at Deer Island *
Either local or deep ocean outfalls
4b.l/2 Primary treatment at both Nut and Deer Islands
Either separate or combined deep ocean outfall at
Deer Island with inter—island tunnel
PREFERRED MDC PRIMARY TREATMENT OPTION
5a.1/2 Headworks at Nut Island
Primary treatment at Long Island
Either local outfalls or inter—island tunnel to deep
outfall
Separate primary treatment at Deer Island
Either local or deep ocean outfalls
5b.l/2 Headworks at Deer Island and Nut Island
Combined primary treatment * at Long Island
Either local or deep ocean outfall
* assumes primary treatment facilities to treat average 500 mgd,
peak 1240 mgd combined flows.
-------
Weights Assigned to Impact Categories (by Group)
Group
Code option social Technical Environmental Economic Political Legal Institutional
1 ic 15 20 30 15 15 2 2
rt-
2 4b2 16 23 23 9 5 4 18
3 4b1/2 25 16 25 5.(L) 4 20
o ‘-
4 4b1/2 14 19 19 19 5 19
t-I
5 1b2 30 8 20 25 10 3 5
6 4b2 15 25 20 10 5 20
7 4a2 15 10 30 3O.(H) 0
w
U)
B 2b2 25 20 20 20 10 0 s
9 4b 1/2 24 20 20 15 9 5 9 Z
10 2b1 DID NOT WEIGH Li.
0
II
Total 179 161 207 148 68 34 103
Workshop Average 20 18 23 17 8 4 11.5
Workshop Rank 2 3 1 4 6 7 5 o
CAC Average (24+) (16—) (22) (10) (5) (7> (15)
CACRank 1 3 2 5 7 6 4 C / )
-------
TABLE 1O- 4
COMPILED GROUP RESPONSES
RATING OF SUB-CATAGORIES
SCREENING CRITERIA IMPORTANCE OF IMPACT
CATEGORY/impact HIGH MEDIUM LOW
SOCIAL (Adverse Community Impacts)
Construction activities 6 1 2
Traffic and safety 4 1 2
Noise 3 1 5
Odor 4 4
Property values 1 1 5
Land use (Preclusion/Compatibility
of Other Uses) — 6
Community Character 1 5
Historical/Archeological - 2
TECHNICAL (Engineering and Scientific)
Level of treatment/acres required 4 1 —
Ave./peak daily flows 5 1 1
Construction period 3 1 2
System operation during construction 4 — 2
System management/operation 5 1 1
Energy requirements 1 2 1
Long—term viability 4 1 -
Engineering feasibility 6 - —
Land availability and access 4 1 1
Sub—regional sewage systems 3 1 1
Infiltration/Inflow 6 — —
System elements (CSO’s, etc.) 4
ENVIRONMENTAL (Natural and Built Environment)
Water quality 7 1 —
Recreational opportunities 6 - 1
Scenic quality 2 3 1
Marine life (fisheries) 7 1 —
Air Quality 5 — 1
Wildlife habitats — 1 2
-------
TABLE 1O_1 (continued)
ECONOMIC (Costs and financial effects)
Capital (construction) costs 4 2 1
Operation & maintenance costs 6 1 1
Present worth/annualized costs 2 1 1
Local share (by town) 4 2 1
User charges (per capita) 5 — 2
Affordability (to taxpayers/users) 3 1 2
Employment/wages 2 1 2
Secondary economic impacts 1 1 3
POLITICAL (Jurisdictional implications)
Federal costs/respons. 2 1 1
State costs/respons. 2 1 2
Municipal costs/respons. 3 2 1
Political relats. toward communities 4 1 1
Personal responsibility 1
LEGAL (Judicial concerns)
Statutory requirements/limits 2 4
Permits required 1 4
Land ownership 1 - 3
Compliance with court actions 2 2 —
Environmental regulations 6 —
INSTITUTIONAL (Planning Coordination)
Institutions affected 1 1 2
System management/operations 4 1 1
Management of facilities 5 — 1
Policies 2 2 2
Other planning elements 1 2 —
Site ownership/acquisition 2 1 1
Periodic review/community input 2 2 1
-------
10.2.3
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE EXERCISES
Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Boston Harbor Wastewater Treatment Facilities Siting
October, 1984
1
-------
Two major structured exercises have been undertaken by the
CAC to assist the ErS staff. These exercises were performed in
addition to the functions mentioned in section 10.2.1 and 11.3.
The first exercise took place in early November 1983. It was
designed to yield information about the various impacts being
used to analyze siting options. This exercise was similar to the
exercise described for Public Workshop #1 (see 10.2.2) . In
addition to weighing each major category of impacts, the CAC
weighed each major category with reference to each particular
siting option. The results of this exercise are reported in
Tables 10—5, 10—6, and 10—7. This exercise also served as a test
of the exercise used at Public Workshop *1, and the results of
this exercise can be interpreted in much the same way as the
results of the workshop (see 10.2.2). As in the case of the
workshop, the information resulting from this exercise was used
to assist the EIS staff in screening and narrowing the siting
options.
The second CAC exercise took place in April and May of 1984.
This exercise used structured questionnaires and the framework
of the STEEPLI matrix to elicit and organize comments on impact
mitigation/compensation and avoidance of adverse impacts. The
task placed before the CAC members was to make each of the siting
options “equally acceptable”. Individual and group results for
this exercise are reported in table 10—8. (Option numbers and
STEEPLI catagories are identical to those described in table
10—2 and 10—4.)
The information resulting from this exercise is important
when considering the implementability of the various options
and the feasibility and cost of possible mitigation/compensation
efforts.
2
-------
CRITERIA
EPA
INDIVIDUAL
GROUP
SCORES
SOCIAL
25
10
15
25
15
37
5
25
TECHNICAL
10
25
15
25
15
5
10
15
ENVIRONMENTAL
25
25
15
20
20
38
15
25
ECONOMIC
25
20
20
1
5
1
15
10
POLITICAL
5
0
10
3
10
5
5
0
LEGAL
5
10
10
1
15
5
5
5
INSTITUTIONAL
5
10
15
25
20
q
5
20
TO- AVE.
TAL
172 214÷
110 16-
158 22
72 10+
33 5-.
51 7+
1014 15-
()
tIl
H
H
C)
0
111
0
H
C)
C)
C)
0
H
r h
C))
R A N K
1
3
2
5
7
14
-------
TABLE 10-6
CAC WEIGHTING OF IMPACT SUB—CATAGORIES
tEd. Notes:
(1) EPA’s response is added in to total in this Table.
(2) Some groups did not assign an importance to particular
categories. Therefore, the number does not add upto the total
number of groups.
(3) * indicates an impact added by a group.)
SCREENING CRITERIA Of what importance
is each impact?:
CATEGORY/impact HIGH MEDIUM LOW
IAL (Adverse Community Impacts)
Construction activities 5 2 1
Noise 4 2 1
Odor 5 2
Recreational Opportunities 2 4
Property values 5 1 1
Land use (Preclusion/Compati-
bility of Other Uses 5 2 1
Community Character 4 2 2
Scenic Quality 4 2 1
Historical/Archeological 2
TECHNICAL (Engineering and Scientific)
Engineering feasibility 5 1
Traffic disruptions 2 3 2
Land availability and access 5 3
Sub—regional sewage systems 3 4
Infiltration/Inflow 5 2 1
System elements (CSO’s, etc.) 6 1 1
Other
ENVIRONMENTAL (Natural and Built Environment)
Water quality 7 1
Marine Life 7 1
Air quality 7
Wildlife 5 1 1
Fishing 7
Other
-------
TABLE 10-6 (continued)
ECONOMIC (Costs and financial effects)
Construction costs 1 5 1
Operation & maintenance costs 4 2 1
Affordability 3 4 1
(to taxpayers/users)
Employment/wages generated 3 3
Secondary economic impacts 2 5
Other _________ ____________
POLITICAL (Jurisdictional implications)
Municipal costs/respons. 1 2 3
State costs/respons. 5 1
Federal costs/respons. 3 1 2
Political relationships*
toward communities
LEGAL (Judicial concerns)
State and Federal reguls. 3 3 2
Land ownership 2 2 4
Pending court actions 2 2 3
Environmental regs . 2
INSTITUTIONAL (Planning Coordination)
System management/operations 6 1 1
Future planning 5 3
Growth/expansion of system 5 1 1
Periodic_review/Commun.input* 1
-------
TABLE 10-7
CAC WEIGHTING OF IMPACT SUB-CATAGORIES
FOR EACH SITING OPTION
It o. NOTE: iF GROUP IRDICATED THAT A PARTiCULAR SITE WAS NOT AvAILABLE
(NA). NO SCORE WAS ADDED INTO AVERAGEJ
CATEGORY DEER NUT LoNG LOVELL BREWSTER OTHER
ISLAND ISLAND ISLAND ISLAND ISLAND LOCATION
SOCIAL 20 30 15 5 5 20
A $A
GROUP SCORES 45 45 15 NA NA
50
20
10 10 10 NA NA
TOTAL/AVE 160/23 175/25 160/27 130/33 122/24 qO/30
TECHNICAL O 30 20 20 20 25
0 30 NA NA
15 15 15 15
10 NA NA
10 10 io in
10 20 25 5
25 25 25 NA NA
130/19 130/19 90/15 65/16 $5117 40/13
20 20 20 20
ENVJR0N ENTAL NA NA AS
25 25 25 25 25
15 15 45 NA NA
25 25 25 25 25 25
15 35 35 10 5 10
25 25 25 NA NA
160/23 IRO/26 175/29 RO/20 120/24 55/1k
ECONONIC 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 20
NA NA 2
15 5 5 5 NEW ISLAND
100
15 15 1 NA NA
10 10 5 5
5 0 5 20 25 5
20 20 20 NA NA
$5112 70/10 50/4 30/A 60/12 110/36
POLITICAL 10 0 10 10 10 10
0 0 NA WA 10
5 NA NA
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5 1 5 5 25
0 NA NA
2 5F4 10/1 30/5 15/4 2515 35/11
LEGAL 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 NA NA 0
0 0
NA NA
?
10 1 25
10 10 10 NA NA
30/4 25/A 20/3 10/3 15/3 25/4
INSTITUTIONAL 2? 2? 20 20 2 20
NA IA
10 10 10 10 10
NA NA
2 10 10
20 10 10 LO
10 10 10 NA NA
90/13 $5/12 65/11 50/13 53/11 40/13
-------
TABLE 10-8
RESULTS OF CAC MITIGATION EXERCISE
SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SDEIS)
BOSTON HARBOR WASTEWATER FACILITIES SITING
CAC MITIGATION EXERCISE — INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES
April, 1 9 8k
(A)
Adverse Impacts
Requiring Action
(B)
Mitigating,
Avoidance,
Compensatory Measures
Suggested
(C)
Implication(s)
Requiring
Investigation
and expansion/upgrade would be possible without fill . (Andrea Sault)
Barging of workers and materials Availability of staging areas and what
impacts would occur in those areas.
Work with community to find most Set up community advisory group.
acceptable time (i.e. not to
coincide with travel time of school
children)
Guarantee repair of any damaged roads.
Consult coemiunity on most tolerable
time for high noise levels.
Provide safety equipment if noise
levels exceed OSHA safety levels at
prison or in neighborhoods.
Take measures to protect prison and
residential homes from structural
damage if blasting is necessary.
Any removable of ash or sludge should
be in container trucks or barges.
PRIMARY TREATMENT OPTIONS
Option 1 4a2: The island is
Construction traffic
Construction noise
Study of pre— construction conditions.
Community advisory group.
Cost might be high.
Construction interruption of plant
operations
-------
TABLE 10 -8 (continued)
Construction interruption of
plant operations — water quality
Construction debris
Construction debris — air quality
Notify public of shut downs. Monitor
closely; shut down during periods of
least effect on fishing, shellfish
harvesting and recreation.
Take measures to eliminate debris from
falling into harbor.
Take measures to lessen dust impacts on
neighboring comsunity; remove old parts
quickly; no burning of debris.
Lessen burden
Remove prison
Another suitable location must be found.
Reimbursement to host cc nity.
Air quality
Effective treatment for hazardous
waste.
Install acrubbers where feasible.
Install odor control facilities
Moratorium of any new city or towns
entering the system.
Will be costly; needs to be permanent
on—going operation with sufficient
personnel to make program work well.
New treatment plants in other areas
will have to be built.
Technical — construction period —
traffic problems in neighborhood
Construction crews would Jam local
streets — they could be barged in and
compensation to Winthop be made - a
mitigating measure might be to work
with Winthrop in scheduling traffic—
workers could be bused in.
Winthop residents believe the MDC has had
a slipshod record and may require the
establishment of a separate authority
before they allow any work to be done.
Social — Traffic and Safety, Land
Use
Noise and air quality will always be
a concern for residents near a plant
of this size. Whatever plant is de-
signed most be able to meet local
noise and odor regulations — an
arguaent could be •ade that the plant
would only be built if the correction—
The social implications because of noise
and odor from existing plant could be
criticaly important to local residents.
Option ‘$a2: Consolidated use at Deer Island, less significant impacts on Nut Island, no sludge problems • best
alternative with choices available . (Terry Fancher)
-------
TABLE 10-8
(continued)
al facility were moved.
Environmental — Water quality and
effects on marine life with long
ocean outfall.
The biggest problem with a deep ocean
outfall (besides the actual construct-
ion) is the unknown impact on the
marine life — suggest an in—depth study
be made.
Building a deep ocean outfall runs the
risk of polluting the outer harbor. A
Study would have to be made of effects.
Legal — Residents of Winthrop can
be expected to file legal action.
The legal question can be expected to
surface from residents. They must feel
they are a part of the total process.
Buffer zones would be ideal but there
is no room with prison on island.
Evacuation plans would be practically
useless on available streets if a chlo-
rine leak occurred. Suggest a totally
fail—safe chlorine solution be found.
The idea of financial incentives to
Winthrop is important but could only be
funded if plant was run as separate
authority.
Suggestions made under Column B.
Institutional — New location for Deer
Island correctional facility would
have to be found (ideally).
I consider removal of the correction— The residents might like to get rid of
al institution as biggest selling point the prison but I would think the state
for any construction on Deer Island, would have to be given an alternative,
though currently would not be required plus the money to build the prison.
with this option.
Political — MDC should consider a
separate authority to run plant.
The whole idea of finances has to be
increased. What is the chance of a
separate sewer authority? Would per-
formance bond be required? Would the
new plant be obsolete by the time it
is built?
Astudy has to be made of the plant with
state of the art technology that is not
simply built because it was the cheap-
est. The specifications must be written
for the best plant for that site.
Option 4b2: Upgrades present sjrstem — no impact at Long Island . (Andrew Locke)
Construction traffic
Busing; Bargin g
Docking facilities
Landfill at Nut Island
Take outer part of Hough’s Neck Eminent domain
instead. Legal process born by State. Funding — 5% increase in cherry sheet.
Enlarge Deer Island plant
Demolish prison.
Finding a new site.
Build a clean plant.
Complete re—building.
-------
TABLE 10-8 (continued)
Run it properly. Competent employees.
Open Shirley Gut Bridge.
Option 5a2: Sharing of responsibilities; ainiaal i act to residential coemirnities; construction on Long Island without
interference with existing plants . (A. Tersine)
Long Island recreation Co—ordinate recreational plans for ham%ediate involvement by City of Boston.
Long Island with treatment plant
siting. Consider relocation of
hospital facility.
Traffic t.pact on Squantua Consider docking facility for shipping. Locate shipping and staging area.
receiving bulk goods and for relief.
during construction.
Funds should be made available for the
impacted towns for legal and technical
consultants prior to final engineering.
Reorganize MDC — Develop public relations campaign to convince residents that
they can co—exist with a waste treatment plant.
Take iediate action on Boston Harbor CSO ‘a and on I/I.
Establish final limit on flows to MDC systems — future additions to system would
require pre-.treataent at source.
State should declare a .oratori on any additional towns feeding in to the 4DC
system until wastewater plans are finalized.
Option 5W: Removal of adverse impacts on residents adjacent to Rut Island and Deer Island. Removal of bridge mandatory
to reduce impects to Quincy residents. Construction limited to one area with no residents in area. Boston is largest
contributor to ayste. and would be sharing in responsibility . (Anne Porter)
Construction traffic Take down Long Island bridge. Special permits may be required for this.
Barge construction equipment, Staging area (e.g. Perini in East Boston
chlorine. — Meridian Street Bridge) near access to
Bridge and Tunnel — effects on Chelsea
traffic and East Boston.
Fire Station would be needed on Island
for smoke stack fires and any medical
Car traffic workers
Ferrying of different work shifts.
-------
TABLE 10-8 (continued)
Noise/Air Quality, health should not
be a factor, because not directly
adjacent to community.
emergencies.
Loss of Land use
Remaining area to be landscaped and
developed for recreational use.
Payment or compensation to Boston in
lieu of taxes or lower user charges
in Squantum area.
Relocation of homeless and hospital
Facility should be found in Boston
area for homeless, not on an Island
not accessible to them. Chronic
patients should also be relocated to
a more central location.
Federal annd State funding for new
facility.
Option 5b2: Reclamation of two Islands to the Harbor Islands. Reduced impacts to already overburdened community .
(Peggy Riley)
Community, Social and Environmental.
All listed measures should be imple-
mented.
All institutional, and political
constraints should be investigated.
Institutional and cost should be a
low priority under impacts due to
the adverse impacts on host
community.
SECONDARY TREATMENT OPTIONS:
Option la: Provides for both primary and secondary treatment with best alternative for siting .
(Terry Fancher)
Technical— Construction period —
traffic problems in neighborhood
Construction crews would jam local
streets. The actual materials might
Winthrop may have to be considered.
Suggest working with local residents to
schedule workers, maybe busing them to
site.
Before anything is done local residents
must be assured that the MDC will not
not run new plant as it has the old.
Would prefer gravity flow system with
both processes rather than current system
of pumping uphill.
Social — Traffic, safety,
Land use
Air quality will be biggest
concern with a secondary
treatment plant. No consid-
eration has yet been given to
type of sludge removal to be used.
Implications because of noise and odor
from existing plant could be critically
important to local residents.
-------
TABLE 10—8 (continued)
Environmental — How and
where to dispose of sludge
The biggest problem will be
the method of sludge treat—
sent. There has been no
discussion on pros and cons
of composting, incineration.
or barging. With any method
the residents should agree the
odors will be minimal.
A method must be developed to decide
which type of’ secondary plant would be
used.
Legal — residents of
Winthrop can be expected
to file legal action.
Compensatory measures must
be taken to diffuse any
legal action taken that would
delay or cancel plans.
If legal implications are not taken into
account, the plant will never be built.
Institutional — Mew boa—
for Deer Island
Correctional Facility would
have to be addressed or
the alternative is out.
The state is having severe
difficulties in finding
temporary space for prisons.
People do not want them. The
proble. will be magnified for
a permanent facility. This
could stop the whole project
in its tracks.
Site would have to be found for new tion
prison.
Political — MDC Should
consider separate author-
ity to run plant.
Issue of’ financing must be
dealt with. Performance
bonds required, since plant
is .ore co.plex a guarantee
must be given for a period of
years to ensure the safe
operation of plant.
If the type of secondary system is not
considered closely a syStem could be
built that will breakdown as present
system has.
Total List of Social
Impacts
Legal Staff Cost to insure
c uiance.
Possible co unity increase
in state aid due to siting
problems.
Pay for technical consultant
to monitor design.
Option to: Beat Harbor qua y . (A.M. Teruine)
(Other lapacta — Seme as option 5a2)
Construction techniques.
Removal of sludge.
Option 2b1: Main benefit to water quality of’ Harbor and surrounding beaches (removal of scum f’loatables, etc. )
-------
TABLE 10-8 (continued)
Transporting heavy
construction equipment
Mandatory — no land access
to plant of this enormous
size. Would benefit
residential areas because
numerous chlorine trucks would
not be travelling through
narrow streets and congested
neighborhoods.
Staging area large enough to handle
this amoung of equipment and storage.
(e.g. Moran Terminal or Conley Terminal
in South Boston)
Fire Station would be needed on Island,
and medical team for any emergencies.
Large loss of land use for
recreational purposes.
Add another island to
replace Long Island in
the Harbor Parks (e.g. Deer
Island — easily accessible
to Winthrop, Boston. Revere.
Lynn.)
Payment or compensation to Boston in
lieu of taxes, lower use charges to
Squantum and staging area residents if
it applies.
Relocaton of homeless and
hospital.
Facilities should be in
Boston area. (Same expana—
tion as primary choice)
Federal and State funding for new
facilities.
Option 2b1: Reduced impacts to residents — possible advantage by breaking down system into less centralized facility .
(Peggy Riley)
Destruction of bridge or Town permits
limited use.
All measures listed under
“mitigation” should be
implemented regardless of site
chosen, as well as those items
listed under “avoidance” and
“compensatory”.
Option 2b3: It is the most removed from nearby residential area (if proper odor control and screening is in place it
might be made compatible with recreational use ) (Andrea Sault)
Construction Impacts
Historical/ArchaeOlogioal
(Same as primary)
Archaeological crew should accompany
contractors (as was done in Cambridge
when Red Line extension built.)
Air Quality
Institutional
Odor control devices
installed to make it more
compatible with recreation
Move Hospital
Moratorium any any additional
cities and towns
Might increase cost.
Another location must be found.
Advantages to communities that have had sewerage treatement plant problems for over ten years . (Anne Porter)
Traffic
Availability of land by owner.
-------
TABLE 10—8 (continued)
SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SDEIS)
BOSTON HARBOR WASTEWATER FACILITIES SITING
CAC MITIGATION EXERCISE — COMPILATION OF GROUP RESPONSES
April 3, 1984
(A) (B) (C)
Adverse Impacts Mitigating, Implication(s)
Requiring Action Avoidance, Requiring
and Compensatory Investigation
Measures Suggested
Option #: 4a2 — (Headworks at Nut Island; Primary at Deer Island )
Principal Advantages of Option: Consolidated facilities, improvements to Hough’s Neck
community.
Institutional Move prison to another site Other potential sites
(Prison) Fund with portion of sewer fees
Chlorine Spill Evacuation plans; alternative
treatment
Traffic—Construction Busing of workers Staging area for buses
Barging materials Identify appropriate staging area (So.
Boston Naval Yard?
User Fees incentives Permanent fee reduction Need legislative approval
Create eater and Sewer Auth. Requires legislative approval
Allocate some portion of fees for prison
removal
Moratorium on new towns Legislative action, localized treatment
eater quality — I loatables More effective screening.
floating booms around perimeter
of project
Visual Impacts Pence screens, buffer zone with trees
Odor Proper Operation — tank covers and
scrubbers
-------
TABLE 10-8 (continued)
Option # 4b2 — LPrimary at Nut Island; Primary at Deer Island ]
Principal Advantages of OptiOfl Existing system can be upgraded with minimum dislocation.
Environmentally unpleasant Legal fund for ensuring
future compliance
Buffer park or ‘beautify plant
so that it looks and smells
like a park
Reward from State aid fund, i.e.
5% Increase from Cherry Sheet
Supplement fire and police
Beach Patrol
Demolish Prison Finding a new site
Open Shirley Gut Bridge
Run plant properly Competent employees
Construction traffic Barge
Option # 2bl, ( Headworks at NI, DI, Primary/Secondary at Long Island; 5a2 — Headworks at Nut Island,
Primary at DI LIj
Principal Advantages of Option: Main benefit of cleaning Harbor mainly for beaches. Dont have to
work around existing MDC facilites. Move treatment plant away from communities. Removal of Moon
Island CSO.
Construction Traffic Remove L.l. Bridge/Barge Need Fire Station
Remove prison
Reactivate recreational projects
Noise/Air quality Ferry of different work shifts
Payment in lieu of taxes
Option # 5a2 — (Headworks at NI, Primary at DI, LII
Principal Advantage of Option: Removal of adverse impacts on residents of Nut Island; Possible
addition of recreation area to Bough’s Neck; divides impacts across three communities.
(same as option 2b1)
-------
10.3 Citizens
Advisory Committee
(CAC) Recommendations
-------
10. 3
RECOMMENDATIONS ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
FOR
BOSTON HARBOR
Citizen Advisory Committee
Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Boston Harbor Wastewater Facilities Siting
August 1984
Prepared with the assistance of:
Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 648
Concord, Massachusetts 01742
C.E. Maguire, Inc.
One Davol Square
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
1
-------
I. Introduction: The Role of the Citizen Advisory Committee
The Boston Harbor Wastewater Treatment Facilities Siting
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was established in the Fall of
1983 to assist the United States Environmental Protection Agency
and the consultant under contract, C.E. Maguire Inc., in the
preparation of the Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact
Statement(SDEIS) for the siting of wastewater treatment
facilities in Boston Harbor. Barry Lawson Associates, Inc. was
contracted by C.E. Maguire, Inc. to coordinate public
participation for the project. The CAC is a major element of the
comprehensive public participation program designed for the SDEIS
by Lawson Associates. The following advisory functions were
considered for the CAC when it was established:
o providing a direct link to the wider community
interested in and affected by waste treatment in
Boston Harbor;
o assisting in the development, implementation
and monitoring of the public participation
program;
o commenting on the progress and conclusions of
the SDEIS;
o providing information to others about the
project and its likely impacts;
o assisting the project team in gathering and
understanding the concerns and opinions of the
publics affected by the project;
o advising the project staff on the scope of the
study and offering members’ representative
perspectives on the viability of options being
considered,
The CAC members were nominated from a cross—section of
environmental, community, government, and business interest
groups. The underlying factor uniting the members of this group
was a desire to ensure that Boston Harbor returns to being a
healthy, useful, and beautiful resource for the benefit of all,
and that undesirable impacts of wastewater facilities
construction and operation be minimized and borne as equitably as
possible. The CAC has worked diligently to perform all of the
2
-------
functions considered for the group when it was established.
There is general agreement within the CAC that the present
wastewater treatment situation in Boston Harbor is deplorable.
The factors outlined in Chapter 3 (Purpose and Need for Action)
of this document are of great concern to the CAC. Boston Harbor
and the communities surrounding it are being continually
polluted because of poor planning, inadequate maintenence, and
improper operation of an out-dated and over—burdened wastewater
system. The members of the CAC view the harbor as a valuable
economic, recreational, residential, and esthetic resource that
is well worth cleaning up and preserving, and are equally
concerned about the impacts of construction of wastewater
treatment facilities on the communities where they will be built
and operated.
The CAC has met once per month and a task force subcommittee
has met at two week intervals between committee meetings. Members
have been continually briefed by the engineering consultant on
the progress of the study while it was underway. The CAC offered
advice on factual details and data accuracy directly to
C.E. Maguire, Inc. and this advice is incorporated into the
analysis and conclusions of the SDEIS.
This portion of the appendix will describe the major concerns
and recommendations of the CAC regarding the larger issues of
wastewater treatment in Boston Harbor.
The opinions and recommendations of the CAC must be viewed
with the realization that they arise from a group that has worked
long and hard with EPA, the consultants, and members of the
communities and groups represented in order to gain a full and
balanced understanding of the problems facing those who must
determine siting for wastewater treatment facilities in Boston
Harbor. It is the hope of the CAC that these ideas will have
impact on the decisionmakers for this necessary and important
project.
II. Recommendations
1) Planning arid Growth
The construction of wastewater treatment facilities for the
MDC sewer system is of obvious importance, but is only one
component of a broader planning and improvement program which
must be undertaken if the current situation in Boston Harbor is
to be remedied. The following planning issues must be addressed
if the construction of new treatment facilities or the
rehabilitation of old facilities is to have any lasting positive
effect:
—— a long term, integrated plan for improving
Boston Harbor must be developed and the issues of
combined sewer overflows, dry weather overflows,
extraneous sources of flow, and all sources of
pollution must be considered in this plan;
3
-------
— — expansion of the present system to communities
not currently included in the system should not be
allowed;
—— expansion within communities in the system
beyond the system’s ability to provide adequate service
should not be allowed;
—— a prioritized schedule of projects should be
developed to ensure implementation of short term and
long term projects is coordinated and integrated so
that improvements to the harbor begin soon and continue
into the future;
—— the possibility of building satellite treatment
plants to reduce flow to the current treatment system
and to allow expansion of communities must not be
abandoned. Siting possibilities for satellite plants
should not be limited to those included in the EMMA
study, and new technologies should be examined as
possible solutions to upstream problems;
— — disposal of sludge produced by the proposed
facilities must be studied and planned for. Public
input must be sought before the facilites are
constructed. Pdternative modern sludge treatment
methods should be examined and pre—treatment of
industrial wastes should be more extensive to remove
toxic products from sludge and make it more useful as a
fertilizer. Current pre—treatment efforts are not
acceptably implemented and enforced. Planning for land
disposal of sludge must be coordinated with water
supply managers to protect the watershed where disposal
will take place.
—— some members of the group feel that, because of
project timing, additional State funds should continue
to be made available for upgrading existing MDC
treatment plants without further delay. Sewage rates
should be increased as soon as possible to build up
funding for the proposed facilities. These two items
will show good faith for implementation on the part of
the Commonwealth and the MDC or whatever agency assumes
control and will enhance public awareness of the
situation.
4
-------
2) Facility Operation
The following recommendations are made regarding the
operation of the proposed facilities in an attempt to avoid the
types of management and operation problems currently taking place
in the MDC treatment facilities:
—— establish a fiscally independent, self
supporting metropolitan water resources authority
similar to the body proposed in Massachusetts House of
Representatives Bill HR 5915 with modifications to
ensure more representation of communities where
facilities will be sited;
—— facilities must be designed for optimum
continual performance at normal and peak flows;
—— facilities must be designed with a planned
lifetime and replacement or refurbishment at the end
of this lifetime must be provided for;
—— operation, maintenence, and repair of facilities
must be carried out by trained professionals and must
be budgeted as part of the project (some members of
the CAC have suggested that the facilities should be
operated by private firms under contract). If
secondary treatment is the chosen option, a higher
degree of training and sophistication will be required
of the operating personnel;
—— operations issues such as noise, odor, visual
esthetics and traffic created by facility employees,
chemical deliveries, and sludge removal must be
planned for and mitigated with the communities where
the facilities will be built before construction takes
place.
3) Facility Siting Options
The field of options recommended by the consultant and EPA at
the time this document was produced was still quite large. The
CAC has chosen to provide decision makers with a list of factors
influencing siting decisions rather than examining each potential
option individually. These factors will come into play at any
site chosen and it is the intent of the CAC that describing the
factors of major concern will provide decision makers with a
gauge of public opinion to measure their decisions. Not all of
the factors listed below are the views of all members; those that
are not are so noted.
5
-------
Neighborhood Concerns — CAC members representing the
communities of Winthrop and Quincy are generally
opposed to any new facility development within their
communities. Members of both communities feel that
their neighborhoods are currently overburdened by the
operation of the present facilities and Winthrop
members point out that they also are impacted by Logan
Airport and the Suffolk County House of Correction.
From a neighborhood viewpoint, favorable siting would
occur with plant locations at a greater distance from
residential sections than now existing at Deer or Nut
Islands.
Mitigation and Compensation — there is a general
consensus that the communities where facilities will
be built must be compensated in some way for
unavoidable adverse impacts generated by the
construction and operation of facilities. Efforts
must be made to mitigate as many impacts as possible
and to provide substantial, guaranteed, long—term
compensation for remaining impacts. Citizens of the
communities involved must be allowed to take an active
part in determining mitigation/compensation plans,
plans must be in place before construction begins, and
mechanisms must exist to modify plans if projected
conditions change. A representative body should be
formed to ensure that the interests of impacted
residents are continually taken care of and a
mechanism of appeal should be established to provide
unsatisfied residents with a means of resolution.
The CAC wishes to emphasize that sewage
treatment is the responsibility of all communities in
the MDC region and that just compensation be made to
those communities which bear the burden of treatment
facility impacts.
Long Island — division within the group exists
concerning Long Island as a potential site. Some
members feel that the recreational potential, the
historic and archaeological value, and the relatively
untouched condition of portions of Long island warrant
protection and preservation, while the sites on Deer
and Nut Islands are already greatly impacted and (with
adequate mitigation measures) would not be greatly
changed by further construction.
Other members of the group, particularly those
representing Quincy and Winthrop, feel strongly that
neighborhood concerns greatly outweigh the
6
-------
recreational, archaeological, and conservation
potentials of Long Island and would rather see a
project impact “bones, trees, and arrowheads” than the
health and safety of living people.
There is consensus that if Long Island is not
considered as a viable option because of its
recreational/historic value, assurances must be made
that the island will indeed be preserved indefinitely.
The CAC does not want to see the island spared from
development as a wastewater treatment facility only to
be developed as residential or industrial land by the
City of Boston.
Satellites — the prospect of satellite treatment
plants should not be abandoned. There is concern
among some CAC members that the list of sites
considered for satellite plants, which arose from the
1978 EMMA study, was too restricted and that more
sites could be evaluated. [ A proposal by Quincy
Shores Associates regarding satellite plants was
examined as part of the evaluation ] . Satellites
could play a valuable role in reducing flows to Boston
Harbor facilities and allowing future expansion of
community systems.
Other_Sites — it is the opinion of a few members of
the group that the list of options considered for this
project was not extensive enough and that other
places, in particular Moon Island, should have been
seriously studied as possible sites, because they
could offer sites where immediate action could take
place with a minimum of community and neighborhood
impact.
Fast—Track Improvements — under no circumstances
should a “no action” option be considered after the
current fast—track improvements are complete. The
upgrading to 1968 standards of wastewater treatment
plants now in place should never be accepted as a long
term solution to the problems of Boston Harbor.
4) Levels of Treatment
The members of the CAC share an enthusiastic concern for the
water quality of Boston Harbor, but temper their enthusiasm with
knowledge of the limitations of time, money, and technology and a
realization of the trade—offs involved. It is a general
conclusion within the group that the dumping of sludge and
untreated sewage into Boston Harbor must stop as soon as
possible.
7
-------
—— some group members feel that pending decision on
MDC’S 301(h) waiver application should be granted
allowing upgraded primary treatment with long
outfalls because any untreated sewage produced by
wastewater treatment facility malfunction would be
carried out of the harbor.
—— other members see the project resulting from
this SDEIS as an opportunity to upgrade to secondary
treatment, an opportunity which they feel will be
precluded if primary plants are built.
-— concerns exist among some members about the
effects of long outfalls on Massachusetts Bay.
— — primary treatment is unacceptable without long
outfalls and adequate pumping capability.
— — some members feel that the expense of
constructing secondary treatment plants along with
long outfalls is justified and should be considered.
—— concerns exist about sludge disposal and there
are further concerns regarding the additional sludge
produced by secondary treatment. Additional planning
and investigation into using sludge as a resource
(fertilizer) is called for.
—— a few members feel that the MDC cannot finance
and operate the plants they have now and so are
hesitant to recommend secondary treatment if it will
be administered by MDC in its present form.
—— alternatives to chlorination as a disinfection
method should be investigated.
—— sludge incineration should not be considered
because of its negative impacts on air quality.
5) Construction Impacts
The construction or rehabilitation of a wastewater treatment
facility will undoubtedly affect neighboring residential areas at
any of the proposed sites. Members of the CAC share the view
that mitigation of construction impacts is of extreme importance.
They are very concerned about the safety and comfort of people
living in the affected area. They also realize that any
8
-------
undesirable conditions created by construction must be tolerated
for the relatively long construction period of five to ten years.
The following are the group’s suggestions
—- every effort should be made to reduce
construction related highway traffic through
residential communities. Roads in the potentially
impacted communities (Quincy and Winthrop) , although
busy at times, do not currently carry much heavy
trucking. Roads leading to the proposed site carry
very little truck traffic. There is great concern
about the safety of other drivers and pedestrians if
narrow, residential roads are pressed into service as
truck routes.
—— barging should be used to transport personnel
and materials to the construction site whenever
possible.
—— mass transit should be utilized by construction
and operation personnel as an effort to reduce
traffic.
—— periods of traffic activity to the construction
site should be timed so as to not interfere with
normally busy traffic times in neighborhoods.
—— an organized method of compensation for possible
damages to property (private and public) caused by
trucking or construction must be established before
construction begins. A mechanism of compensation must
be developed to account for the decrease in property
value and the increase in difficulty of selling real
estate before and during the relatively long
construction period.
—— effective measures must be established to
minimize noise, dust, odors, and mitigate other
construction—related nuisances.
—— a mechanism must exist for public input in the
mitigation/compensation plans and an opportunity to
change those plans in response to changes in
construction operations must exist.
9
-------
III. Summary
The Citizen’s Advisory Committee is greatly concerned with
the environmental quality of Boston Harbor, the islands in the
harbor, and the surrounding communities. The CAC has a strong
desire to see an integrated, prioritized plan developed for
improving the sewage system and the harbor. There is also a
desire to see this plan, and the building of a wastwater
treatment facilities as part of this plan, carried out in a
manner that minimizes adverse effects on communities most
impacted and the region as a whole. There is a need for building
quality facilities and ensuring mitigation and compensation, even
if the economic cost to the region is greater than for building
marginal facilities in a less responsible manner. The CAC
sincerely hopes that the concerns and recommendations put forth
in this document are considered by the decision makers, and will
offer additional advice when a final siting option is chosen.
The members of the CAC wish to thank the
Gillette Company for their kind hospitality
and the use of their conference rooms as
meeting places for the Citizen’s Advisory
Committee.
10
-------
The Citizen Advisory Committee
Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Boston Harbor Wastewater Facilities Siting
Co-Chairpersons:
Ms. Lorraine M. Downey Mr. George Marsh
Boston Conservation Commission Friends of Boston
Boston Harbor Associates Harbor Islands
Boston Harbor Citizens’
Advisory Committee
Member s:
Ms. Eugenie Beal Mr. Waldo Holcoinbe
Boston Harbor CAC
Neponset Conservation
Assoc iat ion
Mr. Richard C. Boutiette Ms. Frances H. Lavallee
Department of Public Works Boston Harbor Water Quality
Wakefield, Massachusetts Committee
Mr. Robert M. Calder Mr. Andrew Locke
Boston Shipping Association
Mr. Terry N. Fancher Mr. Tom Morell
Community Development Manager Massachusetts Lobstermans’
South Shore Chamber of Association
Commerce, Inc.
Mr. phillip Goodwin Ms. Lois Murphy
Mass. Bay Yacht Nut Island CAC
Club Association
Ms. Blossom Hoag Mr. Robert Noonan, Chairman
Sierra Club — Winthrop Board of Selectmen
Greater Boston Group
11
-------
Ms. Anne Porter Mr. Verne Porter
Point Shirley Association - City of
Deer Island CAC Newton, Massachusetts
Mr. Frank Powers Mr. Joseph B. Walsh, Senator
Quincy Bay Flounder Fleet Special Commission on the
Development of Boston Harbor
Ms. Peggy Riley Mr. Jack Walsh, Chairman
Deer Island CAC Nut Island CAC
Mr. T. Rollins Ross Ms. Nancy Wrenn
Boston Facilities Plan Boston Harbor CAC
Public Advisory Group
Ms. Andrea Sault Ms. Ethel Shepard
Nut Island CAC Metropolitan Area Planning
Council
Mr. Anthony Terrnine Mr. Eric Thomson
The Gillette Company Utility Contractors of
New England
Boston Harbor CAC
12
-------
EE R 1ULlF
z IkE5 U1AL UUkfl !
LE ©XUJL C !
U U D L ACL1F
11.0 PERMITS AND MARINE RESOURCE IMPACTS
11.1 Federal and State Permits Checklist
11.2 Overview of Requirements Under Required Federal Permits:
Sections 404(b), 103, and 10 of Applicable Guidelines
11.3 Water Quality Impacts
[ Water Quality Baseline Data Report Available Under Separate
Cover]
-------
11.1 Federal and State
Permits Checklist
-------
FEDERAL AND STATE PERMITS
AND REGULATIONS CHECKLIST
1. Discharge Permit: U.S. EPA (under the Clean Water Act), and
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) (per the
Massachusetts Clean Waters Act).
A. The Federal Clean Water Act and EPA regulations require
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits.
B. A treatment facility’s effluent may contain pollutants, as
defined in the “Clean Water Act t ; the discharge of pollutants
into the waters of the Commonwealth without issuance of an
individual discharge permit is prohibited.
2. Water Quality Certificate: Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE), Division of Water
Pollution Control (DWPC).
A. The certification insures that the project meets State water
quality standards.
B. The project requires Federal and/or State permits for dis-
charge to waters, and therefore requires this certification.
C. This certificate is also a prerequisite for construction
permits.
3. Order of Condition: The Boston Conservation Commission, Quincy
Conservation Commission, and (possibly) Winthrop Conservation
Commission, as well as DEQE (per the Wetlands Protection Act)
A. If the project’s activities extend to within 100’ of protected
areas, as set forth in the Wetlands Protection Act, an
“Order of Condition’ t must be obtained. Construction may
proceed subject to the conditions of the Order.
B. Protected areas that are potentially impacted by this project
are marine fisheries, areas containing shellfish, storm
damage prevention and flood control areas.
4. Dredging and Disposal of Dredged Material Permit: DEQE Division
of Waterways.
A. This permit is required for all dredging and dredged ma-
terials disposal in the tidewaters of the Commonwealth.
B. The construction of piers and/or pipelines will require some
dredging activity.
C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit is also required.
-------
5. Waterways License: DEQE (per the “Waterways License Act??)
A. A license is required for structures built seaward of the
high tide line.
B. The piers and possibly the outfalls may be included under
this Act.
C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit may also be required.
6. Coastal Zone Management (CZN) Consistency (Determination)
Certificate: Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs, CSN Office (EOEA).
A. Proposed activities must comply with the policies of the
Massachusetts coastal management program.
B. The CZM consistency certification is required for the Corps
of Engineers’ Section 10 and 404 permits, NPDES permits,
and federal funding of a project.
7. DEN Land Use Review: Massachusetts Department of Environ-
mental Management (DEN). The Commissioner of DEN is
empowered to review and aprove new development on all of the
islands within the boundaries of the Boston Harbor Islands State
Park which encompasses all of the sites being considered for
treatment facilities.
8. Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA):
A. The MEPA Unit reviews the environmental impacts of state
activities, including permitting, approvals, and funding, as
well as of other projects which meet its criteria.
B. In the case of this project, the SDEIS also serves as an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) required by HEPA.
9. Clean Air Regulations: DEQE.
Regulating air pollution in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
requires approval and/or registration with DEQE for such items as
incinerators, fossil—fuel utilization facilities, fuel content and
emissions, and construction and demolition.
10. Landfill Approval: Massachusetts DEQE Division of Water Pollution
Control (per the Massachusetts Clean Water Act), and DEQE,
Division of Hazardous wastes.
A. Non-hazardous sewage sludge-only landfills are exempt from
the general landfill regulations, and are regulated under the
general authority of the Massachusetts Clean Water Act which
provides for the abatement of public nuisances.
-------
B. An ash landfill may fall under this jurisdiction. Any new
sludge landfill must be lined and have a leachate collection
and treatment system.
11. Hazardous Waste/Materials Regulations: U.S. EPA (per the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act); Massachusetts DEQE (per
Chapter 21 C of N.G.L.)
A. Any activity which involves the generation, transportation,
storage, treatment, or disposal of any hazardous waste is
subject to EPA ’s RCRA regulations, and DEQE’s regulations
under 310 CIIR 30.
B. Chlorine is a hazardous material. Therefore, the transpor-
tation and storage of chlorine must satisfy the requirements
of U.S. Department of Transportation (40 CFR, Part 6)
regulations.
C. Barging of chlorine would also be subject to the regulations
of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Coast
Guard (the Coast Guard would also supervise barging
activity during construction).
12. State Building Code: Department of Public Safety.
13. Wetlands Restriction Program: DEQE.
14. Tideland Construction.
15. State Traffic Signal Warrant: Department of Public Works
(necessary to install a new traffic signal).
-------
11.2 Actions Requiring Permits
Under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act,
Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act and
Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act
-------
11.2 ACTIONS REQUIRING PERMITS UNDER SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN
WATER ACT, SECTION 10 OF THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT, AND
SECTION 103 OF THE MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND
SANCTUARIES ACT
11.2.1 Overview
All of the alternatives to existing treatment facilities will
require some construction in waters of the United States and will
therefore require a Section 404/Section 10 permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. At a minimum, these alternatives require the
construction of an effluent diffuser at whatever outfall site(s) is
chosen. If short outfalls are chosen for effluent discharge under
secondary treatment, outfall pipelines would likely be placed in bottom
sediments. Long outfalls and inter-island conduits may be either rock
tunnels or pipelines placed in bottom sediments.
In addition, it is likely that some type of dock, on piles or
solid fill, will be required for the movement of materials to any
island site selected for treatment plant construction.
Some of these activities, such as dredging for dock access, will
require the disposal of dredged material. Disposal of these sediments
beyond the territorial sea (three nautical miles off shore) would
require a Corps of Engineers ocean dumping permit in accordance with
EPA ’s regulations under Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act.
Finally, options which call for an expanded primary treatment
plant at Nut Island might require approximately 3 acres of filling in
Quincy or Hingham Bay.
With seven siting options still under consideration, the marine
related facilities associated with them are only at the conceptual
stage of development. Recent final and draft facilities plans prepared
11.2—1
-------
for the MDC show a number of different alternatives for marine con-
struction. As such, this EIS does not address the specific marine
related impacts of a particular siting option. Lack of this detail,
however, would not likely affect the siting decision because the types
of marine construction impacts associated with all the sites appear to
be similar (except for possible filling at Nut Island) and would not
favor any particular option over another. This assumption is generally
supportable due to the likelihood that all of the marine construction
sites are characterized by similarly contaminated sediments which are
conunon in Boston Harbor. In the past, these contaminated conditions
have not precluded previous harbor projects, since environmental
evaluations found the excavation and disposal of sediments from these
projects to be acceptable.
An exception to this recently surfaced when test results from four
projects in Boston Harbor (three in Dorchester Bay and one in Winthrop
Bay) indicated that ocean disposal of dredged material would not be
acceptable. These projects consisted of dredging and disposal of
sediments from the South Boston Yacht Club, the Dorchester Yacht Club,
and the Savin Hill Yacht Club/UNass Pier, as well as the Winthrop
Harbor channel and basin. Biological testing showed a significantly
high level of PCBs were bioaccumulated in test organisms exposed to the
materials to be dredged (a sunnnary of the results is presented at the
end of this section). Ocean disposal of these materials is considered
unacceptable, thus delaying the dredging of these projects until
acceptable disposal options are found. This illustrates that site
specific information could potentially affect the implementability of
any SDEIS site option chosen. For a complete discussion of this issue,
refer to Section 5.4.
Once specific proposals for marine construction have been de-
veloped, additional environmental evaluation and permit application(s)
would be submitted by the MDC to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
environmental review by the Corps and EPA. In preparing the permit
application(s), the MDC will be required to evaluate alternatives to
their proposed action, including both alternative marine construction
11.2—2
-------
sites and alternatives not requiring discharges of dredged or fill
material to “waters of the United States” or the ocean. Physical,
chemical and biological testing of materials to be discharged will also
be required.
ii .2.2 Legislative/Regulatory Framework 1
Clean Water Act - Section 404
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act established a national program
to control the discharge of dredged or fill material into the “waters
of the United States”. “Waters of the United States” include all
waters which may be used for interstate or foreign commerce, their
tributaries and all adjacent waters, including wetlands (33 CFR Section
323.2).
Key requirements for allowing fill to be placed in waters under the
jurisdiction of Section 404 are: that there must be a clear need to
place fill or dredged material in the water resource, that alternatives
must be thoroughly examined, and that the least damaging practicable
alternative must be adopted.
Under Section 404(a), a permit system was established for admini-
stration by the Corps of Engineers. Section 404(b) required EPA, in
consultation with the Corps, to develop environmental criteria to guide
the permitting decisions. These criteria are discussed below.
Under Section 404(c), EPA may overrule a Corps decision to allow a
discharge if EPA determines such discharge will have an unacceptable
adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fishery
areas, wildlife or recreational areas. EPA 404 staff regularly review
1 Excerpted in part from:
EPA, 1983 Environmental Review of Construction
Grants Projects Under 205 (g) .
11.2—3
-------
Corps permit applications by examining the projects for conformance
with the 404(b) guidelines.
EPA Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill
Material [ 40 CFR 230] and Administered by the Corps of Engineers
[ 33 CFR 320-330 ]
On December 24, 1980, EPA issued a Final Rule establishing sub-
stantive criteria for use in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill
material under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act [ 45 FR 85336]. They
reflect the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act, were developed in
conjunction with the Corps, and although entitled “Guidelines,” have
the force of regulations. The 1980 guidelines stress the overall 404
program’s goal of preventing any discharges that would have an unac-
ceptable adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, including wetlands,
either individually or cumulatively.
Section 230.10, Restrictions on Discharge, defines the four
independent requirements which must be met to comply with the guide-
lines. They are:
o there must be no less environmentally damaging, practical
alternative available;
o the discharge must not violate applicable water quality
standards or jeopardize an endangered species;
o the discharge must not result in a significant degradation of
the aquatic environment;
o all reasonable measures must be taken to minimize impacts to
the aquatic environment.
Section 230.5 of the guidelines establishes a general procedure
for evaluating whether a particular discharge site may be approved.
Section 230.11 establishes “factual determinations” which are to be
11.2-4
-------
used in determining whether or not a proposed discharge satisfies the
conditions for compliance with the guidelines.
The guidelines point out that the level of documentation in the
factual determinations and findings of compliance should reflect the
significance and complexity of the discharge activity.
Rivers and Harbors Act - Section 10
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 established a
permit program administered by the Corps which regulates the placement
of structures in navigable waters and is concerned with their effect on
navigation.
A major distinction between Section 404 and Section 10 is the
difference between “waters of the United States” and “navigable
waters”. As noted above, “waters of the United States” under Section
404 extends the upstream jurisdiction beyond the limits of traditional
navigability.
In most situations where activities involve both Section 404 and
Section 10 permits in the same waters, the Corps will consolidate their
permit review in a single process. For areas not defined as “navigable
waters,” only Section 404 permits apply for the disposal of dredged or
fill materials. Section 10 permits, however, will be required for the
placement of any structure, such as an outfall pipe, in navigable
waters even without any discharge of dredged or fill material.
Section 404 and/or 10 permits are required for any wastewater
treatment plants or sewer lines located in or crossing water bodies or
wetlands.
11.2-5
-------
Evaluation of Proposed Dredged Material Discharge Into Ocean Waters
Under Section 103 .
Where dredged materials are proposed to be transported for their
discharge into “ocean waters” (beyond the three mile territorial sea
boundary), a permit must be obtained in accordance with Section 103 of
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. Section 103
permits are administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under EPA
issued regulations and criteria (40 CFR 220—229). The environmental
review of Section 103 permit applications is conducted independently by
the Corps and the EPA under criteria set forth in 40 CFR Section 227.
This includes the ecological evaluation conducted in accordance with an
implementation manual published jointly by the EPA and Corps of
Engineers. The EPA is responsible for designating ocean disposal sites
to manage where open disposals are to be regulated. Permit applica-
tions are also independently reviewed by the National Marine Fisheries
Service, as well as state resource agencies and other interests.
The evaluation of permit applications for ocean dumping includes
the consideration of:
o presence of prohibited materials,
o adverse impacts to the benthic environment, based largely on
biological testing (bioassays and bioaccumulation),
o adverse impacts to the water column, as determined by bio-
assays and compliance with applicable water quality criteria,
o general compatibility of material to be disposed with the
proposed disposal site,
o need for ocean dumping,
o alternatives to ocean dumping,
11.2-6
-------
o impacts on esthetic, recreational, and economic values and or
other ocean users, and
o site management.
While these evaluation categories apply to all ocean dumping
proposals, special provisions and exemptions apply to Section 103
permit applications for the discharge of dredged materials. The
regulatory process for review of Section 103 permit applications,
including procedures for granting a waiver is laid out under 40 CFR
Part 225. Dredged material exemptions from certain environmental
impact evaluations are itemized under 40 CFR 227.1: “applicability”.
These include exemptions from evaluation under Sections 227.7: “limits
for specific wastes” (certain solvents, radioactive materials, biologi-
cal pests, acid or alkaline materials, and oxygen consuming materials),
227.8: “limits on disposal rates of toxic wastes”, and 227.11: “in-
soluble wastes”.
When a Section 103 or any other permit application is received by
the Corps of Engineers, a public notice is sent to federal and state
authorities and other potentially affected parties. The notice de-
scribes the proposed ocean dumping activity and the Corps’ tentative
determination on whether or not an EIS will be prepared. The thirty
day comment period on the public notice provides an opportunity to
raise issues and concerns for the Corps to consider in its evaluations.
Interim Final Rule for Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers
[ 33 CFR 320-3301
On July 22, 1982, the Corps published Interim Final Regulations
[ 47 FR 31794] to update previous regulations governing the Corps’
regulatory programs in order to reflect changes to the Clean Water Act,
judicial decisions, Executive Orders and policy changes since 1977.
These regulations establish policies, procedures and criteria for
evaluation and issuance of Section 404/Section 10/Section 103 permits.
11.2—7
-------
A key policy of the Corps’ permit program is that a project must
be found to be in the “public interest”, in order to be permitted. The
preamble to the Corps’ 1982 regulations indicates that the Corps’
public interest review goes hand-in-hand with EPA’s Guidelines [ 40 CFR
230] and that, at the end of the public interest review, a permit would
be denied if it did not conform to the EPA guidelines.
Applicability of Other Federal Legislation to the Permit Process
The Corps of Engineers must comply with several other Federal
statutes during its permit evaluation process.
Any applicant for a Corps permit must obtain a State Water Quality
Certification as required under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
before a Corps permit can be issued. Corps permit applications are
routinely reviewed by the National Marine Fisheries Service and by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (FWCA) and the Endangered Species Act. An applicant
must also receive a “consistency determination” from the State Coastal
Zone Management Agency pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA). (Note that additional requirements in Massachusetts include a
Division of Wetlands and Waterways license, local conservation com-
mission Order of Conditions, and MEPA compliance.)
The Corps also must comply with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and could require the preparation of an EIS or supplemental
documents if significant environmental issues need to be addressed
during the permit review process.
Environmental Review Responsibilities Under 205(g) of the Clean
Water Act
Section 205(g) of the Clean Water Act provides funds to the States
for administration of delegated construction grants activities. These
delegated activities include many aspects of the environmental review
of proposed projects.
11.2—8
-------
In actual practice, the Corps does not conduct a full Section 404
and/or a Section 10 permit review during the facilities planning
process because sufficient details for the review are not normally
available until the engineering and design stages. However, it is not
necessary for a municipality to have an approved Section 404/Section 10
permit to apply for an EPA wastewater facility construction grant.
Normally, the Corp’s permit process takes from two to six months and
can result in substantial delays and costly redesign if alternatives
and mitigating measures have not been adequately addressed. Therefore
the Corps strongly recommends that the grant applicant and State take
the Section 404/Section 10 requirements into consideration during the
development of the facilities plan and environmental information
document (EID) and that the Grantee initiate discussions for the
Section 404/Section 10 application process with the Corps during the
project design phase.
EPA’s Guide, Construction Grants 1984 indicates that the facili-
ties plan and EID should evaluate alternatives identified by the Corps
if a Section 404/Section 10 permit is needed. The process for com-
plying with Section 404 during 205(g) review is aimed at reducing the
potential for permit denials at the end of the design phase when
extensive engineering design changes would be costly and time-
consuming.
11.2.3 Features of SDEIS Options Involving Marine Construction
Marine construction features of the SDEIS options which may have
an adverse affect on water quality, marine life, and navigation and
that may require permit review consist of:
1. underwater trench excavation for pipelaying, disposal of
excavated materials, pipeline bed preparation and fill,
anchoring devices, and backfill,
11.2-9
-------
2. tunnel shaft and diffuser placement and construction, dis-
posal of excavated materials and possible development of an
off—shore island for tunnel access,
3. pier and wharf construction,
4. dredging for access to docks, and possible excavation for
solid fill docks, disposal of dredged and excavated material,
5. staging areas and marine transport facilities for construc-
tion workers and materials, conduit section fabrication and
sludge transport, and
6. filling in Quincy or Hingham Bays to enlarge Nut Island.
The matrix below is a general summary of construction types and
methods which have been identified in tIOC’s recent facilities plans.
Figure 11.2-1 shows alternative inter-island sewage transport routes
and outfall sites that were considered. Figure 11.2-2 shows several
alternative locations of piers presently being considered and the
location of proposed filling at Nut Island.
11.2-10
-------
MATRIX OF GENERAL CONSTRUCTION TYPES AND METHODS
Treatment Plant Sites
Outfall Sites
Type/Site
Deer Is. Long Is.
Nut Is.
President Rd.
Nine Mile
Interisland
Transport
Conduits
Preferred Method: Tunneling
(Alternate Method: Trenching)
Outfall
Conduits
Tunneling or
Trenchirig
Trenching*
(Tunneling)
Tunneling*
(Trenching)
Tunnel
Shafts
Down-Hole Excavation
(Up-Hole Reaming from Tunnel)
Diffusers
Trenching
Trenching
and Special
Caissons
Docks
Piers
(Wi -ia rves)
Dredging for
Dock Areas
.
Landfill
Clam Shell Dredge
(Dipper Dredge)
Diked Area
(Open Area
No4- appIa c
Me aIf Eô4y J’ S2., 4u+ (€ Ian4 ‘ 7if . oph’ori ‘ hAdy.
-------
NINE N
WASTE WATER
CONDUITS
INTER ISLAND
TRANSPORT
OUTFALL L. I. —
OUTFALL D. I.
DISCHARGE SITESS
CURRENTLY
BEING CON8IDERED
Nc rE Atternatlve d d ir d e5 were evatua &i
unpLAbleet Dr4ft— -’ ceer Valand FLC.ih hes
e ox iq 4 by H ver s merSOfli P4r3or
Srintherhc,# anti -44 e StuAy
of VarIOUS OL4kf4II 5it1ft OØ1O 4’o 14’c.
Deer i a d TreMnie tt’-’PSa- k 1 ‘1 4 by 4( .
PRESIDENT
d*’ ROADS
SITE
PE000CXS
I6LMt4O
\1
AIUT
,5L aAID
mites
SOuRC8 1 3 2. t4ut. I it iid
4te Op on 5tu4I
art4 Oc ob r 4 I
3OU’k’) Waiver
Ap c4 i fl L’0441 by
M eaIf My trc,.
11.21
WASTEWATER CONDUIT ROUTE OPTIONS PROPOSED
IN MDC FACILITY PLANS
II
11
HUL.L
a
-------
iIL
400’ OO SO0
* Aftern -..
t4arine
t..oea.horY ,.
ource. Havevte
me,rsor Jpa rs”
Dr(nkerho’ff 1’1 4,
Peer I ’t a cdri
Apper cthc a.
f i,r ,-i’1.
___—Th_ -
-
/
-. -
* \ V —
/
r — -- ‘
- 1 — - -
LONG ISLAND
Pier rn +i yes A 4nrIg In
P4DC ig8Z Wu+ 1 .’land i CpKariS Sy — -
/
I
•
ou, , Cr
DEER ISL
Day
NUT ISLAND
0 2L ’ 400 t ’ &z., oa’
7 ..
I
(-fh,m f: .g. 1-3)
-------
Alternative Outfall Sites and Inter—island Transport Routes .
Alternatives considered by the IIDC for inter-island transport and
discharge of wastewater are summarized in Figure 11.2-1. The basic
choice is between bedrock tunnels and pipelines placed in bottom
sediments by the trenching method. According to MDC’s facilities
plans, alternatives were selected on the basis of analysis of techni-
cal, environmental and economic factors. MDC’s selection of
alternatives included consideration of construction factors such as
interference with shipping lanes, designated anchorages and existing
utilities, water depth, conduit size and construction methods (Metcalf
& Eddy, 1982, Nut Island Site Options Study, Pages 6-7 to 6-28 and
Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 1984, draft manuscript of Deer
Island Facilities Plan, Chapter D3).
Conduit Construction by the Tunneling Method . Tunnel excavation by
either drilling and blasting of the material or by grinding the
material with a tunnel boring machine was considered to be the most
desirable construction method by Metcalf & Eddy because it provides
least disturbance of sediments and no interference with existing
infrastructure. Excavated material can be removed via a land site
shaft and used as landfill or disposed offshore at an approved site. A
general profile of a tunnel for the transport of effluent to a dis-
charge site is shown in Figure 11.2-3.
Tunnel shafts are required at tunnel ends and may be needed at
intermediate locations for hydraulic reasons or for construction
purposes. Shaft excavation on land would be made from the ground
surface down (down-hole) and the excavated materials would be used to
landfill or be transported to an approved disposal site.
Off-shore shafts could be excavated in the same manner as land
based shafts or by reaming upward (up-hole) from the tunnel. Excavated
materials could be removed landward through the down hole, or disposed
offshore adjacent to the shaft, if proven to be environmentally ac-
ceptable. At an offshore location it may be cost effective to build a
11. 2—12
-------
DEER ISLAND OR
LONG ISLAND
1’iVI AL 1UNIJEL COt4FICIURA11Ot4J ? ‘•
t t
Shaft No. I
Shaft No. 2
ourc e H ve * E,iiie ’ov /PôrbOW2 ‘rk 4 o
rw .1u vif* pf Oeer k Ianci P Ctti(ieS Plan.
Oiap er P3.
-------
small island to facilitate construction of the shaft and the diffuser.
Should it prove environmentally acceptable, such an island would remain
a permanent feature of the harbor.
Conduit Construction by the Trenching Method . The trenching method of
construction would require dredging and backfilling which may have an
adverse affect on water quality, marine life and navigation. The
conduit would be placed on a relatively level and firm grade to provide
firm footage to resist the scouring action of tides and currents. To
provide a firm bedding for the pipe, crushed rock fill material must be
imported and placed by controlled means without free fall through the
water column. Excess trench excavation material would be left in-place
along the trench alignment or completely removed and transported to
approved disposal sites. Underwater pipelaying is a highly skilled
technique in coordinating workers, equipment and supplies in the face
of extreme uncertainties of the elements. A general construction
technique based on state-of-the-art methods and equipment would be as
follows (see Figure 11.2-4).
a. Dredge the trench no more than a few hundred feet ahead of
pipelaying.
b. Lower pipe section over the side of a barge, and suspend it
just above the trench bott .a to permit divers to align and
join the section.
c. Place a rock fill ballast on both sides of pipe to provide a
firm pipe bedding.
d. Backfill the remaining portion of the trench.
Diffuser . An effluent diffuser will be required for any outfall
option; it could be constructed by the trenching method or by
specialized techniques using a large pneumatic caisson. Dis-
turbance of the water column would be similar to that which may be
caused by conduit construction by the trenching method.
11. 2—13
-------
1 c
1JZEM E P(P
CONDUIT WITH
STAf,IL)Z1W * LLA51
S DDINC
Note:
e,ac,ec on rendenric crorr)
cDn ’+rL4thorJ rflef &.1’
quiprnent (cri 6) (974 At4c .
UNDER WATER
- TRENCHING METHOD
-------
Dock . Wharfs and piers will be required for support of land and
water based construction and are currently being considered for
barging of sludge. Wharves use anchored bulkheads to confine
fill. Piers are deck structures supported by driven piles. A
recent conceptual dock design is shown in Figure 11.2-5. To
minimize environmental impacts, the design of docks should include
features which minimize thanges in current velocities and provide
for controlled construction of underwater fill.
Dredging . Dredging will be required to provide adequate draft for
docking. The dredging method should be restricted to dredging by
clam shell bucket to minimize disturbance of the ocean bottom and
suspension of sediments. Dredge material disposal must be at an
approved disposal site. Presently, the only EPA approved site for
the disposal of dredged material near Boston Harbor is the
Marblehead Disposal Site or “Foul Area’ t about 17 miles northeast
of Deer Island (Figure 11.2-6). The dredged material would
undergo testing, including bioassays, to determine the accept-
ability of disposal at this site.
Landfill . Construction of land at Nut Island may be required for
upgraded primary treatment there (Figure 11.2-2). This could be
accomplished with least disturbance by placement of the fill
within a diked area. Dike design would incorporate temporary
sheet pile wall and rock fill dikes constructed ahead of land-
filling.
11.2.4 Marine Impacts of SDEIS Options with Respect to Section 404,
Section 10 and Section 103 Actions .
Once detailed facility planning and design has developed specific
construction proposals, permit applications would be submitted to the
Army Corps of Engineers for Corps and EPA review. All of the actions
described above (11.2.3) would require evaluation under Section
404/Section 10. Actions which include the discharge of dredged
materials beyond the three mile territorial sea boundary would also be
11.2—14
-------
evaluated under Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act.
While the specific requirements for environmental review of
Section 404 and Section 103 permit applications differ, the intent,
substance and methods of environmental review are similar. Review of
Section 404 and 103 permit applications requires consideration of:
o the need for dredging/filling,
o alternatives to dredging/filling and disposal,
o alternative sites for dredging/filling and disposal
o compliance with water quality criteria, after initial dilu-
tion and dispersion,
o effects on marine life,
o effects on human uses.
The marine impacts of dredging and dredged material disposal are
related to increased turbidity, reduced dissolved oxygen, increased
sedimentation and the release of toxic chemicals, principally metals,
from disturbed sediments into the surrounding waters. These effects,
alone or in combination, might lead to lethal and sublethal effects in
local marine life and bioaccumulation of toxicants in marine organisms
to levels which may exceed environmentally acceptable limits, or
otherwise may be harmful to the humans that eat them.
Of all the potential dredge or fill actions, inter-island trench-
ing within Boston Harbor poses the greatest threat to harbor marine
resources. This is because of the large quantities of sediments which
would be excavated during the laying of the pipeline(s), and the
chemical quality of these sediments. The principal resources which
might be affected include harbor shellfish and lobster. Compared to
11.2-15
-------
50’ 0 100’
-J
Sc
BOSTON HARBOR
FACILITIES SITING
SDE IS
Source: Adapted from Havens
& Emerson/Parsons
Brinkerhoff, 1984,
draft Deer Island
Facilities Plan.
PLAM- MODIFiED PUU SERVICE
MARINE FACiLiTY
Storage B idt g
SeawaI
Conveyor system
s. Ra
Fidsr PUss &
F.i d&I g System
-Ftc . II.2 5
-------
I
0
10 20 30 401 1 1.
BOSTON HARBOR
FACILITIES SITING
SDE IS
MARBLEHEAD DISPOSAL SITE OR “FOUL AREA”
FOR BOSTON HARBOR DREDGE MATERIALS(
s. vv a uire 1 T l.i
b05T0
.-.--—--- QSAL
--
1 .
4
a
-------
tunnel alternatives, inter-island trenching alternatives would likely
undergo a more extensive, in-depth environmental evaluation should they
be proposed by the MDC.
The sediments of Boston Harbor which are likely to be disturbed
during dredging contain relatively high concentrations of heavy metals
(see separate SDEIS report: Boston Harbor Water Quality Baseline). The
metals concentrations in sediments at any island site would probably
cause the sediment to be classified as category two or three material
under Massachusetts DWPC criteria (described in the SDEIS Boston Harbor
Water Quality Baseline). This would limit the approvable methods of
marine construction and disposal of dredged and excavated materials.
Generally, the metals concentrations are higher near Deer and Long
Islands than near Nut Island.
Physical and chemical evaluation of the material to be
discharged/disturbed is the first step in assessing the environmental
impacts of the proposed action. Physical parameters such as particle
size help determine settling characteristics, effects on ambient
turbidity and light penetration through the water column. Chemical
tests are used to determine the presence of toxic chemicals. Bio-
logical testing (bioassays/bioaccumulation) is required on nearly all
materials proposed for ocean disposal.
The site which has recently undergone such an analysis and which
lies closest to the island sites is the anchorage between President
Roads and Deer Island Flats. The bioassays conducted for this Section
103 permit had the following results: (ERCO, 1981):
Liquid phase bioassay : “Mean survival of organisms exposed for 96
hr. to 100% phase was 50.0 - 66.7% (copepods), 73.3 - 83.3% (mysid
shrimp), and 80.0 - 96.7% (Atlantic silversides)”. Mean survival
of organisms exposed for 96 hours to culture water control was
93.3% for copepods, 93.3% for mysid shrimp and 96.7% for Atlantic
silvers ides.
11.2-16
-------
Suspended particulate phase bioassay : “Mean survival of organisms
exposed for 96 hr. to 100% phase was 50.0 - 80.0% (copepods), 73.3
- 83.3% (mysid shrimp), and 76.7 - 90.0% (Atlantic silversides)”.
Mean survival of organisms exposed for 96 hours to culture water
control was 93.3% for copepods, 93.3% for mysid shrimp, and 96.7%
for Atlantic silversides.
Solid phase bioassay : “Mean survival of organisms exposed for 10
days to dredged material was 86.0 - 91.0% (grass shrimp), 98.0 -
100% (hard clams), and 91.0 - 95.0% (sandworms)”. Mean survival
of organisms exposed for 10 days to culture water control was
99.0% for grass shrimp, 100.0% for hard clams, and 97.0% for
sandworms. Mean survival of organisms exposed to reference
sediment (from disposal site) was 86.0% for grass shrimp, 100.0%
for hard clams and 91.0% for sandworms.
Bioaccumulation studies : Tests using hard clams, grass shrimp,
and sandworms exposed to dredged materials for 10 days showed the
potential for significantly higher bioaccumulation of mercury and
petroleum hydrocarbons in hard clams compared to bioaccumulation
in organisms exposed to reference sediments from the disposal
site. Other metals and PCB’s were not significantly accumulated
in these species.
These tests led to the conclusion that, “with regard to its
toxicological effects ... the dredged material is ecologically suitable
for discharge to the Boston Dump Site” (also known as the Marblehead
disposal site). Also, “the probability of harmful accumulation of
[ mercury and] petroleum hydrocarbons in the human food chain is
judged to be negligible.”
This suggests that although adverse water quality and biologic
effects may result from the disposal of dredged materials from Presi-
dent Roads, they are not significant with respect to disposal at the
Boston dump site. As President Roads is one of the more contaminated
areas of the harbor with respect to toxic chemicals, the permitting of
11.2—17
-------
dredging in this area suggests that the disposal of dredged material
from near Deer, Long and Nut Island could be accomplished without
significant adverse impacts at the Marblehead dump site. However,
recent data from Winthrop Harbor shows significant bioaccumulation of
PCBs in clams exposed to harbor sediments (Mass. Division of Waterways
1984 404b permit application).
Data for Nereis virens, Nercenaria mercenaria and Palaeometes
pugio exposed to Winthrop Harbor dredged sediments shows 90% or greater
survival. This is not considered statistically different from refer-
ence samples. Results of bioaccumulation studies did show
statistically significant bioaccumulation in several instances, as
explained below (excerpted from Mass. Division of Waterways 1984 404b
permit application for dredging in Boston Harbor):
Review of mercury data shows 90% of all data points falling
below the required detection limit of 0.20 mg/kg. Lowest levels
were reported in Mercenaria exposed to the Reference sediments
(0.06 mg/kg), highest levels were observed in Mercenaria exposed
to the treatment sediment (0.28 mg/kg). Evaluation of the data
set, comparison of body burdens between Reference and Treatments,
show no significant accumulation of mercury in Nereis and
Palaemonet.es ; significant differences in mercury body burdens were
observed for Mercenaria .
Levels of PCBs show body burdens ranging from 0.003 to 1.67
mg/kg with 43% of the values falling below the required detection
limit of 0.04 mg/kg. Highest overall levels were observed in
Nereis exposed to sediments from Winthrop while lowest levels were
reported for Mercenaria-exposed to reference sediment Statistical
evaluation of the data show significant differences in PCB body
burdens in Mercenaria and Nereis . No significant change in PCB
body burdens in Palaemonetes .
No statistically significant bioaccumulation was found for cad-
mium, DDT or aromatic petroleum hydrocarbons.
11.2-18
-------
These data from Winthrop Harbor and the President Roads anchorage
show that two relatively close sites (about 1-1/2 miles apart) may have
significantly different sediment characteristics. Site specific
evaluations will be necessary once MDC T s facilities planning develops
specific marine construction proposals. Evaluation of the actual
sediments to be excavated and disposed is necessary for each location
in order to assess the environmental acceptability for their handling
and disposal.
11.2-19
-------
REFERENCES
“Construction Methods and Equipment”; August, 1974.
EG&G, 1984. Oceanographic Study of Various Outfall Siting Options for
the Deer Island Treatment Plant. Prepared for Havens & Emerson/Parsons
Brinkerhoff as part of the 1984 Deer Island Facilities Plan.
EPA Region I and Metcalf & Eddy, 1983. Environmental Review of
Construction Grants Projects Under 205(g).
ERCO, 1981. Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Oceanic Discharge of
Dredged Material from President Roads, Boston Harbor. Prepared for the
New England Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 1984. Deer Island Facilities
Plan, Volume I: Fast Track Improvements. Prepared for the Metropolitan
District Commission.
Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 1984. Draft Deer Island
Facilities Plan. Unpublished draft prepared for the Metropolitan
District Commission.
Massachusetts Division of Waterways, 1984. 404(b) permit application
for dredging in Boston Harbor submitted to New England Division of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., June 1982. Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facilities Planning Project, Phase I, Site Options Study, Volumes I and
II. Prepared for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Metropolitan
District Commission.
11. 2-20
-------
11.3 Water Quality Impacts
(Boston Harbor Water
Quality Baseline Report
Available Under
Separate Cover)
-------
11.3 WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
11.3.1 Context: NEPA and 301(h )
The water quality impacts of the SDEIS alternatives do not affect the
treatment plant siting decisions which are the focus of this EIS. This
is because water quality impacts are common among all secondary
treatment alternatives and among all primary treatment alternatives.
While water quality impacts do not affect the siting decision, the
daily discharge of 500 million gallons of domestic and industrial
wastewater is “significant” under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NIEPA) definition (40 CFR Section 1508.27). Therefore, the water
quality impacts must be described in this EIS in accordance with NEPA.
EPA is now considering the MDC’s application for a waiver from the
secondary treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act (see Section 1
of the SDEIS). This 301(h) waiver application calls for upgraded
primary treatment facilities and an effluent discharge nine miles off
Deer Island into Massachusetts Bay. Moving the discharge location out
of Boston Harbor is expected to improve harbor water quality
significantly. EPA’s decision document on the 301(h) waiver
application will provide a description of the water quality and
biological impacts of primary effluent discharges to Massachusetts Bay.
The water quality impacts of primary treatment options are not
discussed in this SDEIS; EPA’s 301(h) waiver decision document will be
discussed in the Final EIS. Generic descriptions of primary treatment
and primary effluent are provided as needed to better understand the
impacts of secondary treatment options, particularly as these secondary
treatment options provide improvements over existing primary treatment
discharges to Boston Harbor.
11.3.2 Summary of Conclusions
Any of the alternatives (except no action) will provide significant
harbor water quality benefits. However, without further reduction of
toxic metals and pesticides in the wastewater flowing to the proposed
11.3-1
-------
treatment facilities, water quality criteria for toxicants could be
exceeded on occasion under any alternative.
Generally, the long term impacts of effluent discharges on the benthic
environment include nutrient and toxicant enrichment of overlying
waters, marine life, and sediments in areas where effluent solids
settle after discharge. Offshore discharges in Massachusetts Bay will
impact harbor resources less than in—harbor discharges. Conversely,
in-harbor discharges will have less of an effect on offshore resources.
The most significant potential adverse impact of any of the alternative
effluent discharges is the public health question posed by the
accumulation of toxic chemicals in edible marine life. The
significance attached to this potential impact, relative to other
discharge impacts, is attributable to the large number of people
potentially affected, the intensity of potential health effects, and
the uncertain level of risk associated with fish consumption.
Note that significant water quality impacts may result from actions
involving marine construction and the discharge of dredged materials
and tunnel spoils to offshore marine waters. Due to the undeveloped
nature of these actions they are discussed separately in section 11.2
of this SDEIS.
As explained below, the long term water quality impacts of the SDEIS
options depend on:
I. the quality of effluent, and
2. the site(s) of discharge.
The NBC ’s 301(h) waiver application calls for primary treatment
with a discharge nine miles off Deer Island into Massachusetts Bay.
The MDC Nut Island Site Options Study’s preferred option for secondary
treatment calls for discharge to President Roads. These MDC preferred
options offer a basic choice between a higher quality discharge in the
harbor and a lower quality discharge far outside the harbor. Either
11.3—2
-------
choice will yield water quality benefits to the harbor. The effects of
a primary discharge offshore are being considered by EPA in their
evaluation of the 301(h) waiver application. If the waiver is granted,
it will indicate EPATs provisional concurrence with the NBC ’s assertion
that the proposed discharge will not interfere with the protection of
marine life and recreational resources. The following discussion
summarizes the water quality impacts of secondary effluent discharges.
A. Quality of Effluent
1. Compared to primary treatment plants, secondary treatment
plants provide significantly greater removal of bacteria,
organic matter, solids, metals and many other toxic chemicals
from wastewater.
2. Together, the effluents from the existing treatment plants
are the largest source of suspended solids discharged to the
harbor annually. These solids contain concentrations of PCB,
pesticides, and metals 1 and therefore may be significant
sources of these toxic chemicals in harbor sediments and
bottom dwelling marine life, especially in the vicinity of
the discharge point.
3. Deer Island and Nut Island effluents also contain toxic com-
pounds in concentrations which exceed EPA criteria for the
protection of saltwater aquatic life. These are as sum-
marized in Table 11.3-1.
1 Analysis of filtered effluent solids has found total PCB from
4.8-25 mg/kg (ppm), total endosulfan from 1.7 - 2.73 mg/kg, 4, 4’
DDT from <0.02 - 0.80 mg/kg, dieldrin from <0.02 - 1.0 mg/kg,
endrin from 0.092 - 0.28 mg/kg (June 1984 301(h) waiver, Vol. 4,
p5-92 and 93), 1979 301(h) data show >25% of silver, cadmium
chromium and copper was contained in the solids fraction.
11.3—3
-------
-1 bIe 1 1 : 3 — I
i if) F 11(*4r1+ ’ HI MSP 1 EfLk2eJ1t
P A Gri Jzha - r,r4h.e
F ofr WtlC i-wii+ r u +ic u e .
•
Pgf ,F, I4&
iv ç ndc:
Aver 14 V *k
O r ’c1sc/
Av &Cn4 ri
Ori&arrfrlore
Vake , xc 44
A / ,& x
Me ra e Yak .
x&ee6
AC -
4-4oP r
V
v
Oic 1c rin
v
*
ôsu f n
‘-
v’
V
r1c ri i
Hep4- hIor
V
“
V
P(M
V
V P
Me1 k,:
C mium
V
?
C iromiurri
v?
?
topper
(Y•
I’
y
Le c
‘(V’
y’_
M6r ry
/y’
,‘v
kJic kel
f/y’
/Y•
V
Si Iv?,r
/ ‘
if
Zir
V?
VPb’
O her :
(i/anitte .
V
V
V
ChIor ’enzene
KEY:
1’ 7riori4y po)Iu+ nt c u pkng er 301 ( ) J*iuer 4pp(ieatii- .
V ’ verA e o.vwna .t n e4-d5 &t m tAiakltj i pIfr .
a min 9 wo t ca’,6 cor t iOr’i = Limrt o4 reç’ ’rted ecb n.
-------
B. Site of Discharge(s)
1. All final SDEIS alternatives (except no action) call for
discharge of both north and south system flows from either
Deer Island or Long Island. All alternatives call for south
MSD flows to be conveyed from Nut Island to either Deer
Island or Long Island before discharge.
2. Because Deer Island and Long Island are close to one another,
there is relatively little difference in the cost of con-
structing an outfall from either island to any one of the
outfall sites which have been considered for the discharge
(<6% difference in total plant cost; outfall sites shown in
Figure 11.3-1).
3. Generally, for any given effluent diffuser, the amount of
initial dilution achievable at a site is dependent on current
velocity and water depth. On this basis alone, of all
disposal sites suggested, the President Roads site is likely
to provide the highest initial dilution of secondary effluent
(the significantly higher currents in President Roads
outweighing the slightly greater depths available outside the
harbor). These differences in initial dilution are not
great, may lie within the range of error of the calculation
method, and may not be statistically different. Also, the
narrow width of President Roads will limit the length of a
diffuser placed perpendicular to the current. The length of
a diffuser is not limited by such constraints outside the
harbor. With the longer effluent diffusers which may be
constructed offshore, and the greater depth, higher initial
dilutions may be achievable than in President Roads.
Massachusetts DEQE requires the evaluation of such site and
design alternatives during detailed design of the treatment
3cilities.
11.3-4
-------
e’ie in4 ouJ4M
e*4e’t4 r 4bit gD ár,
+ i t w €4
ezfe A’ 4 %td3 a v e4 15,M
) 4oqiCi 4 .i. e4 i*V.-
,.uie
pJi Mile- “ -
Prr o —.
GENERAL TIDAL CIRCULATION
IN VICINITY OF EXISTING AND
ALTERNATIVE OUTFALL SITES
®
I
0 1
L&E JD
ebt’ curYevlt4
— - x4 AFY*
AI rN/Olii 4 *iI c,i 8 2
C
I L!
fi j e”-i
C (
1I31
-------
At the President Roads outfall site, the concentrations of
toxic pollutants in secondary effluent may occasionally
exceed EPA water quality criteria for the protection of salt-
water aquatic life even after initial dilution (Tables 11.3-9
through 11.3-12 and 11.3-16). These occurrences are expected
to be limited to periods of minimum tidal flushing and
unpredictable peak concentrations of toxicants. Over time,
industrial pretreatment and control of banned chemicals may
lower toxic pollutants discharged to the sewer system so that
effluent discharges never exceed aquatic life criteria after
initial dilution.
4. After initial dilution, an effluent plume undergoes far field
dispersion. Comparison of outfall sites with respect to far
field dispersion shows that the farther a site is from Boston
Harbor, the less it will impact the Harbor’s water and
sediment quality. During wet weather, the effects of urban
runoff and combined sewer overflows are likely to dominate
the bacterial quality of the harbor, no matter where the
treatment plant(s) effluent is discharged.
Any of the alternatives to the existing facilities will
improve recreation and commercial shelifishing in the harbor
due to reduced bypassing of untreated sewage (see Section 1
Purpose and Need for Action). Secondary treatment will
provide better protection of public health during dry weather
through improved disinfection effectiveness. However,
recreational use of the harbor and the harvest of shellfish
will still be limited by other sources of bacteria including
dry and wet weather overflows from the sewer system, and
urban stormwater.
Impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries also include
probable increases in the populations of pollutant tolerant
species in areas receiving organic enrichment from the waste—
water. However, the toxic chemicals in the effluent solution
11.3-5
-------
and solids may possibly cause avoidance, stress, disease, and
increased mortality in some fish. Any effluent discharge
will contribute to the bioconcentration of toxic chemicals in
food fish and thereby contribute to the as yet undetermined
health risk to humans eating these fish. By removing more of
these toxic pollutants (through industrial pretreatment, for
example) higher levels of wastewater treatment may lessen
long-term ambient concentrations which are bioconcentrated in
fish, and thereby lessen the health risk to humans.
These impacts are discussed in greater detail beginning on page 11.3-29
(Section 11.3.3 B), after the following analysis of wastewater
characteristics and initial dilution.
11.3.3 Wastewater Characteristics
A. General Considerations: Primary vs. Secondary Effluent
This subsection considers generic differences between primary and
secondary effluent. The purpose is to provide a basis for evaluating
the water quality impacts of secondary treatment with discharges to
President Roads. The impacts of primary treatment with a discharge
nine miles into Massachusetts Bay are being evaluated by EPA separately
in its consideration of the MDC’s 301(h) Waiver Application (June and
October 1984). These separate findings will be incorporated into the
Final EIS and EPA’s Record of Decision on the EIS.
“The major goal of primary treatment is to remove from wastewater those
pollutants which will either settle (such as heavier suspended solids)
or float (such as grease) . . . Soluble pollutants are not removed”
(EPA-625/5-76-012). Secondary treatment plants provide primary treat-
ment first, and then secondary (biological) treatment (Figure 11.3-2).
Secondary treatment provides microbial breakdown of suspended solids
and removal of soluble pollutants. Bacteria, encouraged by aeration,
consume dissolved and solid organic matter as a food source. Some of
the pollutants are converted to non-polluting gases such as carbon
11.3-6
-------
Primary
_______
I I A _____
- i fflr TYUJuent
1’4r
3 raF emovo4 1
Prirnc ry
d
rccei v rig
wa+er
Primary ‘ ewn1ary 1re tmepi PIAnf ,
_____ âaIt 1 V1Y 9
‘II,, (ud f&
Ge.
tic -.
-------
dioxide. Others are retained in the bacteria. The bacteria eventually
die, settle to the bottom of secondary settling tanks, and are removed
for disposal as secondary sludge (Figure 11.3-2).
The principal advantages of secondary treatment as compared to primary
treatment, are:
1. better effluent disinfection,
2. significantly greater reduction of the wastewater’s bio-
chemical oxygen demand (BOO), and suspended solids (SS or
TSS),
3. additional, often significant, removal of toxic chemicals in
the wastewater, and
4. compliance with the basic requirements of the Federal Clean
Water Act (separate from any 301(h) waiver considerations).
The principal disadvantages of secondary treatment as compared to
primary treatment are:
1. significantly greater capital and operating costs (in this
SDEIS primary treatment alternatives are closer in cost to
secondary treatment options because of the high cost of a
nine mile outfall proposed under primary options),
2. greater land area required for treatment facilities,
3. significantly greater sludge volumes produced with generally
higher concentrations of toxic chemicals, and
4. more complex mechanically
The relative pollutant removal efficiencies of secondary treatment
plants are compared with those of primary treatment plants in Tables
11.3—7
-------
11.3-2 through 11.3-6. These tables show that secondary treatment
plants provide significantly greater removal of most pollutants than
primary treatment plants.
There is, however, considerable variability in pollutant removal
efficiencies between individual treatment plants of any given type.
Comparison of Tables 11.3-2 through 11.3-6 shows this variability.
Table 11.3-S suggests that mean and median percent removals for bio-
logical plants (trickling filter and activated sludge) are generally
similar. Note, however, that the median percent removals reported in
Table 11.3-5 are much lower than median percent removals reported in
Table 11.3—3. While both these tables are based on treatment plant
data (rather than laboratory simulations), differences between the data
bases may account for the differences in median percent removals. For
example, Table 11.3-3 presents more recent data (early l980s vs.
mid—l970s) which might indicate changes in plant performance and/or
methods of chemical testing.
Considering metals removal specifically, “numerous field studies
demonstrated that the influent metals concentration, and the efficiency
with which metals are removed varies widely between plants”.
(Patterson and Kodukula, 1984. Footnotes omitted.) In a recent pilot
plant study (laboratory simulation) conducted by EPA (Petrasek and
Kugelman, 1983):
“Netals removals were computed by using both mean
concentrations and median removals obtained from frequency
distributions. For those metals with large standard
deviations in the influent samples, substantial
differences in the removal efficiencies were apparent.
For those metals with better behaved data, both
calculations yielded approximately the same removal.
Because of the variability of metals concentrations
usually observed, careful considerations should be given
to the use of mean, median, or modal concentrations for
the computation of removal efficiencies, and to the
development of percent removal frequency distributions.”
Similarly, “mo ;t of the organic priority pollutants are present in
municipal wast waters at relatively low concentrations (less than 10
11.3—8
-------
ugh) . . . accurate assessment of the fate and removability of these
materials is difficult, if not impossible, when influent concentrations
are low.” (Petrasek et. al. 1983) In contrast, high percent removals
for most volatile organic compounds, including many solvents, are con-
sistently reported for secondary treatment plants. This is probably
due to volatilization (evaporation) in the secondary treatment aeration
tanks.
11.3-9
-------
TABLE 11.3-2
COMPARISON OF TYPICAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
AND SLUDGE GENERATION RATES
Primary and
Parameter Primary Treatment Secondary Treatment
Total Coliform
Bacteria % removed
unchlorjnated 25-50% 80-95%
chlorinated (nominal) 90-95% 98-99%
chlorinated (best) 99.5%-99.9% 99.9%
80D 5 % removed 25-40% 85-95%
TSS °h removed 50-75% 90%
Total Nitrogen
% removed 5-10% 10-30%
Total Phosphorous
% removed 10%± l0%2
Sludge mass removed
per 1,000 gallons
of wastewater 1.245 lbs. 1.951 lbs.
Note: All values from Metcalf & Eddy, 1979 Wastewater Engineering ,
unless otherwise noted.
1 FWPCA, 1969. Note the bacteria removal efficiencies are
probably overestimated in these figures, particularly for primary
effluent, in light of recent evidence on suspended solids interference
with disinfection effectiveness (EPA Sponsored 2nd National Symposium
on Municipal Wastewater Disinfection, Jan. 26-28, 1982).
2 EPA 625/5-76-012. Note that “Except for the amount taken up for in-
corporation into cell tissue, the additional removal achieved in conven-
tional biological treatment is minimal because almost all the phosphorus
present after primary sedimentation is soluble . . [ however] . . . the
degree of phosphorus removal at some activated sludge plants is consid-
erably higher than would be predicted on the basis of the requirements
for organism growth.” (Metcalf & Eddy, 1979 Wastewater Engineering . p.
745-748).
11.3-10
-------
TABLE 11.3-3 MEDIAN PERCENT REMOVALS OF SELECTED POLLUTANTS
THROUGH PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS BY PROCESS
2 Secondary
Parameter Primary ( Activated Sludge )
BOD (12) 19 (22) 90
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS (12) 45 (22) 90
CADMIUM (6) 15 (6) 85
CHROMIUM (12) 27 (22) 84
COPPER (12) 22 (22) 84
CYANIDE (12) 27 (22) 62
LEAD (1) 57 (2) 82
MERCURY (8) 10 (8) 76
NICKEL (9) 14 (15) 34
SILVER (4) 20 (5) 83
ZINC (12) 27 (22) 81
BENZENE (8) 25 (10) 77
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE (12) 0 (8) 62
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE (4) 62 (2) 94
CHLOROFORM (11) 14 (20) 62
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE (3) 36 (6) 68
DIETHYL PHTIILATE (1) 56 (2) 91
ET}IYLBENZENE (12) 13 (10) 90
METHYLENE CHLORIDE (12) 0 (14) 48
NAPIITRALENE (4) 44 (6) 92
PHENOL (ii) 8 (15) 89
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (12) 4 (20) 82
TOLUENE (12) 0 (21) 93
TRICHLOROETIIYLENE (12) 20 (20) 90
1,1,1-TRIC HLOROETHANE (10) 40 (17) 88
1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE (9) 36 (19) 80
Number in ( ) is number of plants with calculated removals.
Only plants with average influent concentrations greater than three
times the most frequent detection limit of each pollutant are included
in calculations.
Source: EPA, 1982. Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned
Treatment Works, Final Report, Table 11. Plant sizes range from 7 to
200 mgd; note that these removal efficiencies may not be achievable in
very large treatment systems such as the MDC’s system.
should be noted that the primary effluent samples from this study
may not be representative of primary treatment plants because
secondary treatment plants generate a much greater volume of sludge
than primary treatment plants, and many of the sludge processing side
streams are returned to the primary tanks. This often causes the
influent to the primary tanks to be much higher in organic loading
than the influent to a typical primary treatment plant.” (p. 68)
- 11.3—11
-------
REMOVAL DATA SUMMARY
FOR PRIMARY, TRICKLING FILTER
AND ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANTS (SELECTED PARAMETERS)
T bIe U. 34
CD
CR
PB
HG
Cu
NI
ZN
FE
MN
P-TOTAL
TKN
NH 3
PHENOL
TOC
COD
sS
BOD
8 17 76/0
26 26 80/0
24 26 80/0
27 29 75/0
26 24 77/0
6 10 92/0
31 22 88/0
40 22 89/0
15 20 81/0
13 8 24/0
22 20 60/0
20 16 64/0
30 — 50/25
24 19 56/0
26 - 02/0
51 18 92/17
30 22 89/0
MD ACT VAT!D SLUDGE
Primary Plants (PP )
Standard Max!
Mean Deviation Mm
20 25 75/0
37 30 99/0
37 31 93/0
30 23 67/0
54 24 95/0
21 23 86/0
46 22 89/0
50 26 90/0
31 23 72/0
26 22 99/0
50 27 94/7
41 30 99/0
50 28 85/0
64 18 84/8
71 — 95/34
75 19 97/20
77 18 96/5
35 17 27 88/0
48 46 34 98/0
41 39 32 95/0
20 39 32 99/0
49 57 24 95/0
32 20 21 80/0
52 50 25 99/0
30 63 27 98/8
21 38 32 93/0
24 42 25 92/0
20 34 26 92/5
48 49 31 99/4
12 69 31 98/0
23 73 12 89/42
36 75 — 94/24
66 75 22 99/9
60 84 15 99/18
44
54
49
34
63
44
58
35
19
36
11
47
16
13
40
62
65
5ourc& EPA, 1977 (-430/9-76-017c).
Federal Guidelines, State and Local
Pretreatment Programs.
Parameter
Primary Plants
(PP)
No.of
Plants
Trickling Filter
Plants (TPP)
Activated Sludge
Standard
Plants (AS 1
Max! No. 0
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Max/
Mm
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Max/
Mm.
No. of
Plants
Mean
Deviation
( ‘Un.
Plants
31
36
34
21
44
28
38
27
16
7
7
42
2
30
18
47
52
Parameter
?LU!HT DATA SUW4).RY
FOR PRIMARY, TRICKLING FILTER
PLANTS (SELECTED PARA1 TERS)
Trickling Filter Plants ( TFP )
No.of Standard Max! No. of
Plants Mean Deviation Mm. Plants
1 b1eII.
Activated Sludge Plants (ASP )
Standard Max! No. of
Mean Deviation Mm. Plants
CD (pg/i) 14
CR 188
PB • 156
HG • 1.0
CU 191
M X 155
ZN 550
FE 1520
MN 176
p—TO’rLL(mg/1)12.9
TXN 24.4
fH 3 20.2
PHENOL (pg/i) 16
roc (,rg/1)1 4 2
COD • 346
55 93
BOD • 167
9
406
272
1.3
278
387
658
1020
112
22
11.6
34.6
23
84.2
—
62
111
40/3
2600/6
1700/10
5.0/0.1
1700/10
1700/6
3600/30
5000/400
390/30
77/1.3
47/9.5
256/2.1
53/0.1
539/52
768/58
314/15
650/20
35
40
37
23
48
33
49
30
22
10
—
63
35
19
54
58
11
235
116
1.0
133
199
316
2910
136
9.02
16.8
16.6
209
54.3
133
43
48.6
10
563
276
2.0
283
336
464
11000
130
3.8
11.9
17.2
772
26.3
31
47.3
66/1
3200/3
1800/5
10.0/0.1
1800/3
1533/7
2800/40
65600/100
580/20
18.3/3.3
47.9/1.2
115/0.03
3000/0.03
129/23
361/18
228/5
245/4.0
41
52
45
22
54
39
57
34
28
27
21
65
13
23
39
66
61
50
202
67
6.0
92
165
238
747
144
5.2
19.0
11.1
135
35.3
86
37
28.3
277
515
69
32
195
387
257
1170
200
2.7
9.6
7.6
473
22.4
39
40.7
1970/1
2520/5
350/3
200/0.1
1600/8
1700/6
1400/10
6800/100
940/10
10.4/1.0
34/1.5
27.5/0.07
2000/0.02
95.0/10
275114
185/2
230/2.0
48
60
51
37
68
56
66
37
23
40
12
63
16
14
42
64
65
-------
TABLE ,i.9-&
CHARACTERIZATION OF PRIMARY AND BIOLOGICAL
PLANT PERFORMANCE
Primary Plants (PP) Biological Plants (BP )
Percent Effluent Percent Effluent
Parameter Removal Concentration Removal Concentration
(50%)/(mean) (50% .()/(mean) (50%?)/(Inean) (0%< )/(mean)
CD (pg/i) 7/8 11/14 9/18 10/30
CR 16/26 90/188 41/42 50/218
PB 20/24 110/156 41/38 60/92
HG 22/27 0.6/1.0 38/35 0.6/3.5
CU 18/26 110/191 56/56 50/113
NI 6/6 75/165 16/21 65/182
ZN 26/31 300/550 52/52 160/277
FE 35/40 1300/1518 59/57 600/1827
MN 8/15 160/176 28/35 90/140
P—TOT(mg/1) ID/13 10/13 32/34 6/7
TKN ID/22 ID/24 40/42 17/18
NH 3 “ 17/20 13/20 37/45 12/14
PHEN (pg/i) ID/38 ID/16 68/60 2.5/175
TOC (mg/i) 20/24 125/142 71/69 45/25
COD “ 18/26 340/346 75/73 100/110
SS 50/51 78/93 80/75 30/40
BOD “ 28/30 140/167 85/81 28/39
Notes:
ID = Insufficient data reported.
PP = ¶L plant data base.
BP = Eleven plant data base.
uae EPA, iTrt federal
c *uaet ne , E;4i*ke
LOCD.1 F’re freak-
mes* Pa Ja4t ’.
-------
B. Conventional Pollutants in NSD Wastewater
Table 11.3-7 presents estimated annual average concentrations of con-
ventional pollutants for MDC’s existing primary effluent,
typical/improved primary, and typical secondary treatment plant
effluents. IIDC values are expected to vary from typical values because
of the MDC’s high wastewater flow and the high percentage of that flow
which is infiltration and inflow. Note that bacterial concentrations
in effluent vary widely for any treatment plant (see recent Deer Island
and Nut Island plant bacterial data in the separate SDEIS report:
Boston Harbor Water Quality Baseline). Also note that COD, total
nitrogen and total phosphorus values for existing treatment plants are
based on very small sample sizes and cannot, therefore, be considered
statistically valid. At any specific time, actual effluent values are
likely to vary from these averages.
C. Netals in MSD Wastewater
Daily grab samples of Deer Island and Nut Island wastewater are com-
bined each month by the MDC and analyzed for metals content. Figures
11.3-3 and 11.3-4 depict combined Deer Island and Nut Island annual
average metals concentrations from these data, along with the mean
effluent concentration for the period 1973-1981. (Note that averages
for 1978 are missing from the original data and that these data do not
reflect emergency raw wastewater discharges or regular sludge
discharges.) Table 11.3-8 shows the mean annual average metals concen-
tration in the influent and effluent for both Deer Island and Nut
Island treatment plants. Comparison of this data with average metals
concentrations reported in Table 11.3-5 shows that the MSD effluent
concentrations are generally within the typical range of other primary
treatment plant effluents.
11 2 -12
-------
TABLE 11.3-7 EXISTING AND PROJECTED MSD TREATMENT PLANT
AVERAGE ANNUAL EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL POLLIJTANTS*
Primary Plant Typical Secondary Plant
Parameter/Units Existing Typical!
MDC Improved
Total Coliforins,
after chlorination
No./100 ml
reported 966 (1) 11
worst case (2) Sx l O 10
best case (3) 1000 1000
BOD , mg/i 104 (4) 108 (5) 30 (6)
COD mg/i 508 (7) 80 (8)
TSS, mg/i 77 (4) 65 (5) 30 (6)
Total Nitrogen
mg/i 26.5 (9) 18 (8)
Total Phosphorus
mg/i 4.3 (9) 9 (8)
Values do not reflect higher concentrations of pollutants in occasional
discharges of poorly treated wastewater, existing sludge and scum
discharges or the effects of atypical infiltration and inflow.
1. 1984 Deer Island Facilities Plan, Table E-2 assuming 1982 data and
75% DI and 25% NI of total flow. 12
2. Assuming raw wastewater load 10 total coliforms/litre (repre-
senting 100% residential wastewater); chlorination disinfection
effectiveness: primary 95%, secondary 99%.
3. ERT, 1979, P. 5-9. This probably underestimates the concentration
in primary effluent due to suspended solids interference with
disinfection effectiveness. These values reflect disinfection
effectiveness greater than 99.9999% and/or very low influent
concentrations.
4. Prorated data from 1984 301(h) Waiver Application, Table II-A3.3.
5. 1984 301(h) Waiver Application, Table II-A3.4 using 1990 flows.
6. Typical limits required by State/EPA issued discharge permits
(NPDES permits); median concentrations reported for secondary
treatment plants are: BOD 28 mg/I, SS 30 mg/i (see Table F-4),
and mean concentrations reported range from BOD 20 mg/I, SS 20 mg/i
(EPA-625/5-76-012) to BOD 39 mg/i, SS 40 mg/i (see Table F-4).
7. Average COD (chemical oxygen demand) from 1983 Mass. DWPC sampling
of 7/11, 7/12, 7/13, prorated DI 75%, NI 25%. This value is
likely to vary from actual average annual COD due to the small
number of samples on which it is based.
8. EPA-625/5-76-O].2.
9. Averages from 1983 Mass. DWPC sampling program (6 samples at each
plant) prorated DI 75%, NI 25%. These values are likely to vary
from actual annual averages due to the small number of samples on
which they are based.
11.3-13
-------
I
001
-J
z
0
I-
I-
z
uJ
U
z
0
U
1.40
1 20
1.00
080
0.60
0 40
0.20
6our e:
I 2 30i(h) Wtw’er
Addend rn 1, fi 5 :’.
YEAR
-j
z
0
I-
U
z
0
U
2
0
4
z
U
z
0
C -)
AVERAGE ANNUAL CONCENTRATION
FOR THE COMBINED DISCHARGE
FROM THE DEER ISLAND AND
NUT ISLAND TREATMENT PLANTS—
045
030
015
-
L
% :S: \INFLU PPLU!HT,,,,P
‘
-
‘\
,
‘_, ,/
5cjuen ‘
Oz2s
19
73
I I .1 1 I I I
74 75 76 77 78 79 1980 91
YEAR
.004 5
INFLUENT
KE L
1973 74 75 76 77 78 79 1990 81
YEAR
ZLN
1973 74 75 76 77 78 79 1980 81
INFLUENT
$ I I I
Ap 4iori,
3- 4 hr h
76 77 79 79 1980 81
YEAR
-------
source: I ..z j(’ )
\AJc4’ Ier Applic4-kicr-i,
Mae% at.U i
38.
AVERAGE ANNUAL CONCENTRATION
FOR THE COMBINED DISCHARGE
FROM THE DEER ISLAND AND
NUT ISLAND TREATMENT PLANTS
Av
a o’w ,
.I-1I O -iI(kI
L AO
0I0
4
z
INP UL74T
I
INFLUINT
Averaôe
•0
‘ S
4vermc
0. I4 :’3
03
C.APMIUli
5j Im 1 5 75 77
S 75 4450 I’
YEAR
0
573 74
* 7.
‘ S
YEAR
7, , S.
COPP R
IF LuENT
473 74 75 7. 7,
YEAR
‘5 74 4 SI
4S73 74 71 S 7 75 75 4450 II
YEAR
1.
4: Lø) )I.’i-4
-------
AVERAGE METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN
COMBINED DEER ISLAND AND NUT ISLAND INFLUENT
MeaYi e tr i-ioii 1
t7ee t) fr
fli ’ +
Meo
Nu+ i lav c
ir fluev t
(D 7’5% , )4t z’ )
Cc Jvnium
O.O’3
O. ’i
O.Qf
O OI2
0. t73
Chrowuuvv
o 12- 7
O.)O
O.b1 &
o.O 7E7
0. 11
Copper
•o.
c. 4-e7
0. 47
-o 3eT
c’. 4
Lead
0.i4
o.o( i
o.o 3-2
‘j
Meruvy
c o 7
ô.ooI
0031
o.oc
COOZ3
1 )ick&
O• I78
0- 323
0.2 - 13!
. Z7
$i)ver
0. ’47’1
o.oz4
O.oZo7
ôfl7
c. o2
ZIYLC
0A
C. 4
0’f27
Q . 3’
O. )
alt ce. o
ivev Iv
Wc ive,v App icafioi.i, M ek .4uwl I ThL’Je 3 ..e
2- ik o1 1 mk
* lce- 3- ID of +t’ e teXt C.)+ 4 repo .’fth oi er ov
e,f 14Q vvi f . i lq7S. Th’ howevev friac vevc ged
a 0. ‘110 w Ick vv ay t e ac1 I iv p coce’ hov .
1a be. iI.S- S
-------
CUMULATXOE DXSTRIBIJTIQN CURVES
t4rce: pA i a;
‘f ‘rjc’ri
(l1- n P rLkis,
/4’p nc ix B.
Copper
l
a
U
I. .
100
80
°
60
60
100
40
40
20
20
0 liii 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Chroiru.uin
100
90
—
>
40
20
V
Nickel
3 20 40 60 80 100
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
C
Cadini u n
0 20 40
60 80 100
Al
9
0
9
S
V
2
5
9
0 20 40 60 80 100 3 23 40 60 80 100 22 40 60 90 1)0 0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Plants Percent f Plants Pet t of P1ant Percent of Plants
No’rE n • number of plants with average jnfluent concentrat on 3reater than zero NOT t number of plants with average rmfiuent concentration greater t.- an zero
POLLUTANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES IN PUBLICLY OWNED
TREATMENT PLANTS
CUMULATIVE
0 20 40 60 80 100
-------
C12MJ TIV DISTRIBUTION
3UM0L T E DISTRIBUTION CUR7TS
Le ad
0 20 40 63 80 100
89
40
0
ie rc ry Silver zinc
20 40 63 31 100
100
30
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 80 29 190
200
N
. 169
C
C
- 120
o
0
U
0
1.0
0.8
C.. S
0
0 40
Percent f 5 lants
n irber of ‘ .- - .
fl I 9Z F ik&t f’
Priortl-y bI1a t
in PoT ,A ’pe+ d’ KS
500
400
300
200
10 )
0
n :o o .:‘ 00 43 60 30 lOf
Feroent f Pla nts Percent of P ants Percer.t f Plants
:cncrn trat nc reater than cern = =- mcer of la -.ts : tn. c.-erage influent concentration creater than zero
POLLUTANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
IN PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT PLANTS
Al
>,-) ,
x
S
0 20 40 60 30 100
Al 15
N
0 12
c
-J
S
C
-
-------
The effluent metals concentrations obtainable with secondary treatment
plants are depicted in the cumulative distribution curves shown in
Figures 11.3-5 and 11.3-6. Note that the data base includes several
different types of secondary treatment plants. Also note that, except
for nickel, half of the secondary treatment plants provided greater
than 70% removal of metals listed.
Tables 11.3-9 and 11.3-10 show the estimated mean metals concentrations
in secondary and existing primary treatment plant effluents, the EPA
water quality criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life,
and the various dilutions needed for the effluent to meet these
criteria. Table 11.3-9 shows the estimated secondary effluent
concentrations obtained through the use of mean MSD influent
concentrations (Figures 11.3-3 and 11.3-4) and median percent removal
rates for activated sludge plants reported in Table 11.3-3. The
statistical validity of these estimates is unknown due to the absence
of distribution statistics for the influent data. (See discussion
under 11.3.3 A above.) Table 11.3-10 shows average MSD primary
treatment plant effluent concentrations (Figures 11.3-3 and 11.3-4) for
comparison with projected secondary effluent concentrations in Table
11.3-9. Comparison shows secondary treatment plant effluent would
require much less dilution to meet the water quality criteria than
existing primary effluent.
In these tables the dilution necessary to meet a water quality
criterion assumes the background concentration is equal to zero.
Higher dilution would be required for effluent discharges to meet the
criteria where background concentrations are detectable. Where newly
proposed criteria (Federal Register, Feb. 4, 1984) are lower than
existing criteria, the proposed values are used for the purpose of a
“worst case” analysis.
Table 11.3-11 shows the metals data obtained during the priority
pollutant sampling conducted for the 301(h) Waiver Application.
Comparison of this table with Table 11.3-10 shows the 301(h) Waiver
data has much lower concentrations of metals than the historical data
11.3—14
-------
T bie ti - 3
d\e I
m3/j
Meai Inf’tuenF
Con en ra 1oi1
to nbine4 12 1 .15%
(1)
‘e onz1ary
1rea rnetit
Pjarii Me 1 ’) tan
(2.)
(fl5/j
E 4ima4-e4
4 Iven .
6oncentVaJlofl
4, i ev Ai Li
Ori1€ ri
2i1u
iOric,
/Mt*X.
I-nifl.diM 1OtI4
1v t-Iir ’rii
cr4 I: )
min. ik ion
+D meetfxu
eri ($ D)
mit rn
0.03
%
.oO4-5
°‘
.0045
0
NA
&hrt’mum
0.11
4%
.OI7(
.054
.o le,
LW
NA
A
Copp&r
o. 4
e4%
.0 73(
. oo2
*
oo z
z o
Le aa
gZ%
.0Z1(
5
.c e2?
.
zzo
WA
Mercury
ooz
e’
.000S5
.0W!
*
.OOIcI
‘E 25
A
IJick&I
0.27
347
.0071
i40
2 l
13
‘iIver
O.L92
s%
.0043
—
.oty2
Ziri&
I
,I%
. J53 /
.058
.170
2.1
NA
a e o i pr ea c-ri- e#’ia (ftAere4 E i 4-er, b.4 1 I øei ) NA tsiot a pIi1zkA . 1 eIFIvelAk on e fra 1i’cr
-------
from daily sampling. Some of the 301(h) Waiver data is more recent
than the daily sampling data and may therefore reflect more recent
conditions. On the other hand, relatively few samples make up the
301(h) Waiver data, and at least some of the 301(h) sampling results
are reported to be low because of wet weather influences.
The impacts associated with these metals concentrations are discussed
below under Near Field Effects and Far Field Effects.
11.3-15
-------
Table 11.3-10. Metals in primary effluent found in concentrations greater than EPA criteria for the protection of
saltwater aquatic life using average annual data from daily sampling. Note that criteria may be met after initial
dilution.
MEAN EFFLUENT
CONCENTRATIONS
CR1 TER TA
Cadmium 0.004005
0 .025
.0000838 0.0128 .0219
0.012*
0. 0045
0.038* 4.87
0.58*
Chromium 0.0243
0.1068 0.0093
0.0578 0.0946
0.054* 10.3
0.018
1.20* 5.25
0 . 08*
Copper 0.0565
0.3487 0.0359
0.339 0.3463
0.002*
0.0032* 173.15* 108.22*
0 .0323
0.0532 0.1003 0.025 0.0086* 0.668
Mercury
(1978—1982)
Nickel
0.0009
0.044 1
0.00136 0.0000151
0.1568 0.0133
0.002 0.0015
0.2931 0.1909
0.0001
0.0071
0.0019* iS
0.140 26.89
0. 79*
36
Silver 0.0028
0.0266 0.0013
0.0117 0.0228. --
0.0023
9.91
Zinc 0.2267
0.56 0.2702
0.335 0.5038
0.058
0.170 8.67 2.96
*Based on proposed criteria (Federal Register,
criterion, both values are shown.
Feb. 4, 1984).
Note: where existing criterion is lower than proposed
Sources: Columns la and 2a, 1984 301(h) Waiver Application, Table 1II-H2.l0 reported averages for 1984 priority pollutant
sampling unless otherwise noted. Columns lb and 2b, 301(h) Waiver Application, Addendum 1, June, 1982, Tables 3-9 and
3-10, showing average concentrations for the period 1973-1981.
I
Deer Island
2
Nut Island
3 4
Combined Chronic!
a
b
a
b
Col. lb
Average
Table III
Avg.
Table III
Avg.
x .75 +
Criteria
112.10 (1984)
Metals
H2.10(1984)
Metals
Col. 2b
mg/l
Avg. Conc.
Conc.&
Avg. Conc.
Conc.&
x .25
Chron. Avg.
at Deer Is.
mg/i
at Nut Is.
mg/l
5
6
Mm. Dilu-
Acute/Max.
Criteria
mg/i
Acute
tions to
meet chronic
Max. criteria
(Col. 3/
Col.. 4
Lead
7
tim. Dilu-
ti.ons to
meet acute
criteria
(Col. 3/
Col. 5
0.116 0.0139
0.220* 11.66* 0.46
-------
Table 11.3-11. Metal priority pollutants in p imary effluent found in concentrations greater than EPA criteria for the
protection of saltwater aquatic life using priority pollutant data collected for 301(h) Waiver Application. Note that
criteria may be met after initial dilution.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Deer & 1984 Average Mm. Dilutions Mm. Dilutions Mm. Dilutions
Nut Island Concentration Chronic! Acute! for Average Con- for Maximum for Average
Metal Effluent Combined Average Maximum centration to Concentration Concentration
Priority Range Deer and Nut Criteria Criteria Meet Chronic! to Meet Acute! to Meet Acute!
Pollutants (uncombined) Island Data ugh ugh Ave. Criteria Max. Criteria Ilax. Criteria
ugh — ugh Chr. Avg. Acute Max. ( Col. 2/Col. 3 ) (Max. Value ( Col. 2/Col. 4)
Col. 1/Col. 4 )
Chromium <3-580 20.61 54* 10300 1200 1.14 0.48 0.02*
18
Copper 2—271 51.42 2.0* 3.2* 25.71* 84.69* 16.07*
Lead 14-54 27.71 25 8.6* 668 220* 3.22* 0.25* Ø•j3 *
Mercury <0.2-2.6 0.73 0.1 1.9* 7.3 1.37* 0.38*
Nickel <5-462 36.43 7.1 140 5.13 3.3 026
Silver 2.50 2.3 13.04 1.09
Zinc 30-1245 273.63 58 170 4.10 7.32 1.40
*Based on proposed criteria (Federal Register, Feb. 4, 1984).
Sources: Column 1 data, 1978, 1979, 1982, and 1984 priority pollutant raw data as reported in 301(h) Waiver Applications.
Column 2 averages from 1984 301(h) Waiver Application Table Ill-H 2.10; note that some averages reported in Table Ill-H
2.10 are based on results from earlier years.
-------
D. Other Priority Pollutants in the MSD Wastewater
One hundred and twenty-eight chemicals have been identified by EPA as
“priority pollutants”. These pollutants are toxic to plants and
animals, including humans. (The word “toxic”, as used in this
discussion, is equivalent to “poisonous” or “disease causing”). The
metals discussed above under subsection C are all priority pollutants.
Samples of HSD wastewater for priority pollutant testing were taken in
1978, 1979, 1982, and 1984. In total twenty to thirty effluent samples
were taken at each treatment plant. Influent data is only available for
5 samples at each plant in 1978.
To evaluate these priority pollutant data, a screening process was
used. This process, depicted in Figure 11.3-7 allowed the priority
pollutants to be grouped into the following categories:
I. Priority pollutants which occur in effluent at concentrations
exceeding EPA saltwater aquatic life criteria prior to
dilution (Table 11.3-12).
2. Priority pollutants which occur in effluent at concentrations
which meet EPA saltwater aquatic life criteria (Table 11.3-18
11.3 Appendix A).
3. Priority pollutants present at concentrations which meet
existing and proposed maximum criteria for saltwater aquatic
life, but for which no chronic or average criteria exist
(Table 11.3-19, 11.3 Appendix A).
4. Priority pollutants detected, but for which no saltwater
aquatic life criteria exist (Table 11.3-20, 11.3 Appendix A).
5. Priority pollutants not detected in any of the samples (Table
11.3-21, 11.3 Appendix A).
11.3-18
-------
ie 4 ’ y o
010 43b1e)
2S effluent sarnp s per plant,
4 n iue# f ca npIe’ pe r pl8 I i7E Sot&rce fr1ek aIF
a a E kAy, cfll 3 I(k’ t a v r Applicahôr Vol 5 tcaLf
9P I A rp du,n 1 fv 19V1 3O((’ ) Wa 4 .- ApptiCdfion,
M CM1 4y, I B’ 3OI( ) uJowev AppI(aFlon
ei m a* y s bMç 5 po ,i+ n*4 Iy; Mef aW; £ I
€( Add 1j r, 1 oj ?71 oj(i ) alver
P OC ’ PO M ,t7
WA T WATE . Ft .4O 41Y P LWTh 4
J’ 73-JqsI
Aveva ie AnnUal
(Ai3, A4 r CM,
________
t7De lOJ-
rt ee1- ri eria
pr ôrto chlu{iori
(ttibI JL -io)
-Pit. I1. ’-7
-------
TABLE 11.3-12. Non-metal priority pollutants in primary effluent found in concentrations greater than EPA criteria for the
protection of saltwater aquatic life. Note that criteria may be met after initial dilution.
Non-Metal
Priority
Pollutants
Pesticide
Compounds :
1
Deer &
Nut Island
Effluent
Range
(uncombined)
ug/l
Chronic/
Ave rage
Criteria
Chr. Avg.
4
Acute!
Maximum
Criteria
Acute Max.
S
Mm. Dilutions
for Average Con-
centration to
Meet Chronic!
Ave. Criteria
(Col. 2/Co].. 3 )
6
Mm. Dilutions
for Maximum
Concentration
to Meet Acute!
Max. Criteria
(Max. Value
Col. 1/Col. 4)
Mm. Dilutions
for Average
Concentration
to Meet Acute!
Max. Criteria
(Cot._2/Col.4)
*Based on proposed criteria (Federal Register,
(1) Limits of detection for 1982 sampling 50
(2) 1984 data only. 1984 data PCBs associated
(3) Cyanide not included in 1979 samples.
(4) Calculated from Endosulfan I and II averages.
Feb. 4, 1984).
ug/l.
with solids only, soluble PCBs not detected
(<2.50 mg/i).
Sources: Column 1 data, 1978, 1979, 1982, and 1984 priority pollutant raw data as reported in 301(h) Waiver Applications.
Column 2 averages from 1984 301(h) Waiver Application Table 111-H 2.10; note that some averages reported in Table
Ill-H 2.10 are based on results from earlier years (e.g., PCB-1016 above).
2 3
1984 Average
Con cent r a t i. on
Combined
Deer and Nut
Island Data
ug/1
Heptachior ND-<10
0.0369
0.0036
0.053
10.25
188.67
0.70
PCB-1242(1) ND—2.l38
1.0293
0.030
10
5*
34.31
0.43*
0.21*
PCB-1260(1) ND-0.1924
0.0333
0.030
10
5*
1.11
0.04*
0.01*
PCB-1254(1) ND-5.2
0.0716
0.030
10
5*
2.39
1.04*
0.01*
PCB-1016(1) ND—106
38.15
0.030
10
5*
1271.66
21.2*
7.63*
Total PCB’s(1)(2)0.28-2.139
1.136
0.030
10
5*
37.86
0.43*
0.23*
Die ldrin ND-<10
0.0127
.0019
0.71
6.68
14.08
0.02
4,4 DDT ND-0.23
0.0313
.0010
0.13
31.3
1.75
0.24
Endrin ND-0.031
0.0151
.0023
0.037
6.56
0.84
0.41
Endosulfan I ND-0.398
0.0604
0.0087
0.034
6.94
11.71
1.78
Endosulfari II ND-0.281
0.0960
0.0087
0.034
11.03
8.27
2.82
Total Endosulfan ND-0.654
0.0782(4)
0.0087
0.034
8.99
19.24
2.30
Other
Compounds:
Chlorobenzene
160
0.79
1.06
0.64
Cyanide (3)
0.57*
30
1.0*
68.56*
82.14*
39.08*
ND -170
<0.01 -
82. 139
102.5
39.079 1
129
2.0
-------
For the non-metal priority pollutants detected in concentrations
greater than EPA criteria, Table 11.3-12 shows the range of
concentrations, the average concentration assuming combined Deer and
Nut Island effluent, saltwater aquatic life criteria, and dilution
required for effluent discharges to meet the criteria. The dilution
required to meet the criterion assumes a zero background concentration;
higher dilution would be required where background concentrations are
detectable.
Looking at Table 11.3-12, the high value shown for PCB-1016 (106 ugh)
may be an outlier, that is, a product of sampling error not representa-
tive of actual concentrations. Also, quality assurance data for the
1984 sampling suggests that reported concentrations of priority pol-
lutants may be generally lower than actual effluent concentrations
(based on percent recovery in control samples).
Secondary treatment plant effluent concentrations for these priority
pollutants have not been estimated due to insufficient influent concen-
tration data. However, experimental data has shown greater than 90%
removal of PCB 1254, heptachlor and chlorobenzene, in secondary
treatment plant simulators (Petrasek, et. al., 1983 a and b).
Cumulative distribution curves for cyanide removal in secondary
treatment plants are shown in Figure 11.3-8. Assuming influent con-
centrations of cyanide to a secondary process will be equal to, or
greater than, those found presently in Nut and Deer Island effluents,
the median percent removal for cyanide of 62% (Table 11.3-3) Indicates
that secondary treatment plant discharges may exceed average and
maximum cyanide criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life.
The impacts associated with these pollutant concentrations are dis-
cussed below under Near Field Effects, and Far Field Effects.
11.3—19
-------
100
80
60
Cyanide
CUNULP TIVE DISTRIBUTION
CURVES
n=40
0 20 40
60
80 100
40
20•
POLLUTANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
IN PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT PLANTS
I-I
I
Al 1000
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Plants
NOTE: n = number of plants with average influent
concentration greater than zero
ouv e EPA, F4+eof P iiyR 4tut4h+ V1 POTW S,
0
-------
11.3.4 Near Field Effects
A. Initial Dilution
Wastewater effluent is mostly freshwater. Freshwater is less dense
than seawater and will therefore rise after discharge into saltwater.
As the effluent mixes with the saltwater, its density increases and its
rate of rise slows. This is known as initial dilution. The effluent
plume will rise more and more slowly, mixing with the seawater, until
its density is the same as the surrounding saltwater. This marks the
completion of initial dilution.
Initial dilution is important because Massachusetts Water Quality
Standards apply after initial dilution, or outside the “zone of initial
dilution” (ZID). Therefore, wastewater effluent may exceed water
quality criteria at the point of discharge but still meet water quality
standards after initial dilution.
As explained below, the factors which favor (maximize) initial dilution
are fast currents, deep water, and long effluent diffusers.
Several sites have been investigated by the ?IDC for the discharge of
treated effluents (Figure 11.3-1). For combined north and south system
flows, the President Roads site appears to be the closest site to Deer
or Long Islands where a discharge could be environmentally acceptable.
This site was therefore chosen for the purpose of estimating initial
dilutions during different current and ambient density conditions.
After initial dilutions are estimated for a given site, they are
compared with Tables 11.3-9 through 11.3-12 which show the dilution
needed to meet EPA criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic
life.
11.3—21
-------
Method of Initial Dilution Modeling
To evaluate the water quality impacts of effluent discharges to Boston
Harbor, preliminary estimates of initial dilution (ID) of the discharge
were developed. To provide these estimates, an accepted and verified
numerical model, which could faithfully replicate the relevant plume
relationships, was sought. The plume model MERGE accounts for the
effects of current, ambient density stratification and port spacing on
plume behavior, and has been extensively verified (EPA 600/6-82-004b).
A desktop version of MERGE has been derived based upon a similarity
theory and was selected as the cost-effective model of choice for this
analysis.
1. Basic Approach
The premise upon which preliminary applications of the model were
founded consisted of the following:
i) “ Ambient density stratification adversely affects initial
dilution . The greatest density gradient over the height-
of-rise of the plume will result in the lowest dilution
period.” (Metcalf & Eddy, 1979, 301(h) Waiver Application, p.
Bl-22).
“ Ambient density stratification in receiving water limits the
height of rise of buoyant jets, traps the plume below the
surface, and reduces initial dilution by preventing effective
use of full depth of water. These effects are more pro-
nounced with increased stratification.” (Metcalf & Eddy,
1979, 301(h) Waiver Application p. Bl-21).
ii) “ Currents ... elongate the trajectory of plumes by carrying
them away from the diffuser; as a result, they increase the
initial dilution of the buoyant plumes.” (Metcalf & Eddy,
1979, 301(h) Waiver Application, p. B1-21).
11.3-22
-------
Two extreme conditions were selected for evaluation. They were:
Condition 1 : minimum density stratification with
maximum current, and
Condition 2 : maximum density stratification with
minimum current.
It was assumed, all other input values considered equal, that Condition
1 would provide much greater initial dilution than Condition 2. The
results which were obtained from these preliminary runs confirmed this
assumption.
This evaluation of the model provided insight as to the resultant
variation in initial dilution estimates as affected by simultaneous
changes in two key input parameters. Later iterations using the model
evaluated the relative change in ID with respect to a change in dif-
fuser characteristics discussed below. This provided a better
appreciation of the model’s sensitivity to these characteristics.
2. MERGE Model Description
The preliminary ID estimates were obtained from the “desktop” appli-
cation of MERGE. A set of tables which describe an infinite number of
possible diffuser, effluent and ambient flow configurations has been
developed based upon the theory of similarity. For this reason, the
model requires that a limited number of similarity conditions be
satisfied. As explained in the EPA manual (EPA 600/6-82 0046;
footnotes omitted):
The number of similarity conditions is determined by the difference
between the number of independent variables and primary variables
involved in the problem. Primary variables must include mass, time,
and distance. The present problem involves eleven independent
variables implying eight similarity conditions. The independent
variables, corresponding symbols, units, similarity parameters, and
their names are listed in (Table 11.3-13). As the dilution tables
are based on a linear equation of state, the effluent and ambient
densities and a’ respectively, replace four independent
11.3—23
-------
variables: the effluent and ambient salinities and temperatures.
This effectively reduces the number of similarity conditions by two
to six.
It is advantageous to further reduce the number of similarity
conditions to minimize the number of tables necessary to represent
the flow configurations of interest. From experimental observ-
ations, it is found that plume behavior is basically invariant for
large Reynolds numbers reducing the number of similarity conditions
to five. Finally, the ratio Pe/Pa and the stratification parameter
can be combined in a composite stratification parameter, SP, where,
SP =
Use of the tables requires the input of the plume variables listed in
Table 11.3-13 in the form of the following four similarity parameters:
1. Densimetric Froude Number: Fr = V/ g’d,
2. Stratification Parameter: SP = Pa-Pe/(d dP /dz),
o a
3. Current to Effluent Velocity Ratio: K = Ua/V
4. Port Spacing: PS
d
0
The determination of preliminary values for model input parameters
required the evaluation and comparison of siting and sizing criteria as
presented in several available sources. These criteria are presented
in Table 11.3-14. The comparison of these values led to a preliminary
set of criteria for the model. The values of input variables selected
for the preliminary applications of MERGE are presented in Table
11.3-15. Note that ambient density and density stratification data are
from Boston Lightship (due to lack of data for President Roads during
critical periods). Density stratification reported for Boston Lightship
in August is close to that reported for President Roads during July,
and ambient densities reported for President Roads in July are not
significantly different from those reported for Boston Lightship in
August with respect to the model’s sensitivity (see Figures Bl-l5 and
16, 1979 301(h) Waiver Application).
11. 3-24
-------
Table 11. ’- I3
PLUME VARIABLES, UNITS, AND SIMILARITY CONDITIONS
Variable Symbol Units Dimensionless Sim. Parm Name
Effluent density ML 3 none--primary variable none
Effluent velocity v LT’ none--primary variable none
Effective diameter d 0 L none--primary variable none
Ambient density p 8 ML 3 Pe’Pa density ratio
Reduced gravity g 1 LT 2 densimetric Froude
number: Fr
Density stratification dp 8 /dz ML Pe/(dodPa/ z) stratification pa -m.
Current velocity Ua LT’ Ua/V current to effluent
velocity ratio: k
Kinematic viscosity L 2 T’ d 0 /v Reynolds number: Re
Port spacing S 1 L S 1 /d 0 Port spacing parm.:
PS
Notes: 1. g = ((p -p )/p )g where g is the acceleration of gravity (9.807 msec 2 ).
2. In the present application a composite stratification parameter, SP, is used in
lieu of the density ratio and the stratification parameter. SP = (PaPe)/(dodpa/dz).
3. The diameter, d 0 is taken to be the vena contracta diameter.
tuee• PA - ( ,OO/( 92-oO4 ,
-------
TABLE 11.3-14
SITING AND SIZING CRITERIA
Metcalf & Eddy
Was tewater
Treatment,
Disposal &
Reuse
Not
Specified
575 avg
1290 pk
500 avg
1240 pk
2.6 ft/sec 12”
Average 8.5”
6 ft/sec pk
5-8 avg
7-11 pk
Not
Speci fied
1.5 to 3.5
ft/sec
Not
Specified
10’ to 20’ 2 to 5
ft/sec
1000 ft
2000 ft
1500 ft to
1000 ft
(CAPACITY)
VELOCITY
DIAMETER
SPACING
VELOCITY
500
avg
approx.
as
small
such that
5-7ft/sec
1240
pk
15 ft/sec
as
but
possible
5” mm
adjacent
plumes do
not
7.5 pk
not <2
SOURCE
S.O.S.
DE IS
(1979) Waiver
Application
(1984) Waiver
Application
Grace, R.A.
Marine Outfall
y t ems
DIFFUSER
LENGTH
Not Specified
Not 5½” 6”
Specified 6½”
Not
Specified
10’
22’ on
each side
22’ on
each side
Water
Depth, h
h - 2 to
h - 75
8’ to 15’
Water
Depth, h
h - 100 to
h - 700
Not
Specified
Not
Specified
500 avg
1240 pk
7700 ft
6560 ft
Typically a
few hundred
to a few
thousand
Not Specified
CEtI
Preliminary
2 to 3
ft/sec at pk
2 to 3 ft/s
less than
8 to 10 ft/sec
16 ft/sec 3” to 9”
at pk (ex.)
2.5—7 ft/sec 4” to 13”
ave rage
7-17 ft/sec pk
-------
TABLE 11.3-15
PRELIMINARY VALUES OF INPUT VARIABLES
VARIABLE SYtIBOL VALUE REFERENCE
3
Effluent density (March) 1.00449 g/cm 3 79 301(h ) Vol. 1,
1.00287 g/cm Table B1-8, “Combined”
e(August)
Effluent velocity Vavg 2.13 in/seC assumed
Vpeak 5.18 rn/sec
Port diameter d 0.25 in calculated based on
0
velocity assumption
3
Ambient density a(March) 1.02576 g/cm 3 79 301(h ) Vol. 1,
1.02491 g/cm Fig. B1-16 (at 30 m)
a (August)
4
Density stratification dP /dz 0.0 kg/rn 79 301(h ) Vol. 1,
a (March)
dP /dz 0.07 kg/rn Fig. B1-16 (at 30 m)
a (August.)
Current velocity U 0.05 rn/sec N.O.A.A. Tidal Current Charts,
a(minimum) 0.90 rn/sec Boston Harbor
a (maximum)
Water depth at discharge D 21 m to 24 m Boston Harbor Nay. Chart at
President Roads
Port spacing S, 4.6 m assumed
-------
3. Diffuser Characteristics
The range of values, as presented in Table 11.3-14, was used to
determine the relation between diffuser length, port spacing, port
diameter, and jet velocity. These relationships are depicted on the
following graphs (Figures 11.3-9 - 11.3-12). Based on general
recommendations, the required port diameter for the outfalls should be
in the range of 5 to 10 inches, and the ports should be spaced from 10
to 20 feet apart. As can be seen, these requirements can only be met
for diffusers of about 3000 feet in length or longer. The 6000 foot
long diffuser provided much more flexibility in establishing the port
exit velocity.
Subsequent iterations using the model evaluated the changes in
initial dilution for various diffuser parameter combinations both
within and outside of the recommended ranges. The results of these
iterations are presented in Table 11.3-16. Review of these results in-
dicates that significant changes in initial dilution are realized only
for significant changes in diffuser length for a given water depth and
current velocity. Port spacing, velocity, and diameter do have an
effect on the results. However, all of the results for a specific
diffuser length fall within a relatively small range.
11.3-27
-------
RELATIONSHPS BETWEEN
EFFLUENT DFFUSER PARAMETERS
L = 1500’
Qavg = 500 mgd
Qpk = 1240 mgd
SPACING
PORTS
PORT DIAMETER
VELOCITY IN FT/SEC
Vavg 3 Vavg4 Vavg=5 Vavg6 Vavg7
600
13”
18”
22”
25”
11”
15”
19”
22”
10”
14”
17”
19”
I I
10 15
PORT SPACING (FEET )
300 200
9”
13”
15”
18”
8”
12”
14”
16”
Vp 9.9
Vp 12.4
Vp 14.9
Vp 17
OPTIMAL DIAMETER 5—10
OPTIMAL SPACINGt1O’-20’
2’ó 25
1
150
300
150
100
75
V=3 Vp 7.4
15’
20’
251
20-
15
10-
5.
0
V=4
0)
w
C)
z
Iii
w
‘C
0
I-
0
0.
0 5
# PORTS
-------
RELATIONSHPS BETWEEN
EFFLUENT DFFUSER PARAMETERS
L = 3000’
(or 2 @ 1500’ or 3 @ 1000’)
SPACING
#
PORTS
PORT DIAMETER
VELOCITY FT/SEC
Vavg=3
Vavg=4
Vavg5
Vavg=6
Vavg=7
5’
10’
15’
20’
600
300
200
150
9”
13”
15”
18”
8”
11”
13”
15”
7”
10”
12”
14”
6”
9”
11”
13”
6”
8”
10”
12”
V3 Vp 7.4
V 4 Vp:9.9
V5 Vpz12.4
V6 Vp 14.9
V 7 Vp 17
OPTIMAL DIAMETER:5a 10
OPTIMAL SPACING1O’-20’
10 15 20 25
PORT SPACING (FEET)
I
I
‘
I
300
150
100
75
# PORTS
f; .Il. ’3-1O
a,
w
I
0
z
w
I-
w
a
I-
0
a-
20-
I 5
10-
5-
U- -
0
5
-------
RELATIONSHD’S b 1 W N
EFFLUENT DFFUSER PARAMETERS
L = 6000’
O vg=50O mgd Qrk 1240 mgd
SPACING
#
PORTS
PORT DIAMETER
VELOCITY IN FT/SEC
Vavg3
Vavg4
Vavg5
1 J
4”
“
5’
1200
6”
“
5”
10’
600
9”
8”
7”
6”
6”
15’
400
11”
9”
8”
8”
7 I
20’
300
13”
11”
10”
9”
8”
V 3 Vp=7.4
V=4 Vp:9.9
V=5 Vp=12.4
V=6 Vp=14.9
V7 Vp=17
OPTIMAL DIAMETER 5’-lO’
OPTIMAL SPACING 10-20’
I
0 5
I
10
I
15
20
PORT SPAC
ING (FEET)
-I
25
r I
1200
600
# PORTS
400
360
w
I
C)
z
U i
F-
w
‘C
0
I-
0
a.
15-
10-
5 -
0
Fip, II.3 I
-------
RELATIONSHPS BETWEEN
EFFLUENT DIFFUSER PARAMETERS
Assume V = 7 (avg) is good;
S 20’
I
1
3500
4000
4500
LENGTH (FEET)
SPACING
10’
15’
20’
20-
15-
10-
5-
C l ,
U i
I
C)
z
Ui
I-
Ui
I-
0
0
2000
2500
3000
I5 -t2
-------
TABLE 13 3-16
RESULTS OF INITIAL DILUTION MODELING FOR PRESIDENT ROADS SITE
Worst Case: minimum Rest Case:
curr.nt velocity, maximum
maximum density current.
stratification velocity no
strati fication
Avg.
Exit Port ID
Diffuser Port Velocity Spacing Rise Rise Depth Limited
Trial Length Diam. from Port (Ft.) H Ft. ID. 24M=73 Ft.
(feet) (inches) (feet/c.) (meters) (feet)
1 2000* 10” 7 10 12 36.5 64 81
2 2000 12” 5 10 13 39.5 40 85
3 2000 17” 2.5 10 15 46 26 43
4 3000 8” 7 10 14 43 46 73
5 3000 9” 6 10 14.5 44 46 65
6 3000 10” 7 15 11 33.5 49 176
7 3000 13” 3 10 9 27 34 82
8 6000 4” 7 5 7 21 47 135
9 6000 5” 5 5 9 27 66 107
10 6000 6” 3 5 9 27 65 159
II 6000 6” 7 10 9 27 67 179
12 6000 7” 5 10 Il 33.5 65 101
13 6000 8” 7 20 10 30.5 56 135
14 6000 9” 3 10 10 30.5 52 126
15 6000 10” 2.5 10 11 33.5 52 116
16 6000 10” 5 20 11 33.5 47 141
17 6000 13” 3 20 12 36.5 5 ] 314
18 10000 4.5” 7 10 7 21 75 241
1Q 10000 5” 5 10 7 21 74 206
20 10000 9” 2.5 15 10 30.5 67 223
11.3-28
-------
B. Effluent Discharges and Water Quality Criteria
At times, effluent discharges at any of the sites considered will cause
ambient water quality to exceed State and/or Federal water quality
criteria. Compared to the continuation of existing treatment plant
discharges, any of the alternatives under consideration would provide
bettei- conformance to the criteria.
Comparing estimated initial dilutions (Table 11.3-16) with estimated
pollutant concentrations (Tables 11.3-9 through 11.3-12) suggests that
for secondary treatment plant discharges, during periods of maximum
density stratification and above average pollutant loading, EPA’s
chronic and acute criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life
m’y be exceeded for inorganic and pesticide compounds, particularly
opper, cyanide, and PCB’s.
Although no data is presented for chlorine loading in effluent, con-
centrations of chlorine produced oxidants after initial dilution may
exceed proposed chlorine criteria for the protection of saltwater
aquatic life (these criteria would require that average concentration
of chlorine produced oxidants should not exceed 7.4 ug/l, and the
maximum should not exceed 13 ug/l). Typical chlorine concentrations
necessary for disinfection are shown in Figure 11.3-13. Note that this
figure shows HOC1 concentrations necessary for 99% kill; greater
percent kill is generally necessary for effluent discharges to meet
State bacterial criteria. This figure shows that lower chlorine
dosages may be used where sufficient contact time is available. This
suggests that with longer outfalls, lower chlorine concentrations may
be used for disinfection, for a given quality of effluent and desired
percent kill.
Detailed facility planning and design should consider alternative
disinfection methods and practices to minimize chlorine’s toxic effects
on marine life. Such alternatives should include contact chambers with
vertical baffling (to avoid short circuiting), siting outfalls away
from shellfish beds and public beaches, seasonal chlorination or no
11.3-29
-------
1 .0
-J
0)
E
0
0
I
101
0.01
I ) — 13 Concentration of chlorine as HOC! required for 99 percent kill of E. coli and three
enteric viruses at 0 to 6°C [ 2]. Note: mgJL = g/m 3 .
ouYce ,Metcalf I ic. \We + Y ,eeViV 1
ps,. O 11
Contact time 1 for 99 percent kill, miri
-------
chlorination for longer outfall alternatives, and dechlorination.
On-site manufacture of sodium hypochlorite from sea water should also
be investigated as an alternative to chlorine transport through popu-
lated neighborhoods.
Chlorine disinfection of wastewater is also known to cause the forma-
tion of chlorinated hydrocarbons such as chloroform (EPA 440/1-82/303 p
69). The facility planning and design evaluation of different chlorine
disinfection alternatives should therefore consider the impacts of
chlorinated hydrocarbon formation.
C. Toxic Chemical Impacts on Indigenous Marine Life
The contribution of treatment plant effluent to the prevalence of fish
diseases in Boston Harbor is unknown, but may be significant given the
high mass emissions of effluent solids, the relatively high
concentrations of toxicants including chlorinated hydrocarbons in
effluent solids, and the preliminary findings of research showing a
probable association between toxicants and fish diseases (Metcalf &
Eddy; 1984 301(h) Waiver Application, Volume 2, p III-D4.29 through
III-D4.45 and Volume 4, p. 5-92 and 5-93). Massachusetts DEQE and the
Division of Marine Fisheries are now conducting fish sampling and
analysis to determine the extent and causes of fish diseases in Boston
Harbor and other Massachusetts coastal areas. Through reduced toxics
loading to harbor waters and sediments, any of the alternatives to
existing treatment facilities has the potential for improving the
health of harbor marine life.
The Tables in 11.3 Appendix B show acute toxicity and bioaccumulation
data for local marine species for those toxicants of greatest concern.
11.3.5 Far Field Effects
Far field effects are those which occur or persist beyond the zone of
initial dilution. As shown above in Near Field Effects, effluent
disposal through a properly designed diffuser will dilute most toxic
11. 3-30
-------
compounds in the plume to concentrations which will not harm marine
life. After initial dilution, the far field marine impacts of effluent
disposal are:
1. lowering of ambient dissolved oxygen,
2. nutrient enrichment of water and sediments,
3. bacterial contamination of beaches and shellfish beds,
4. toxic chemical enrichment, particularly in areas of sewage
solids deposition.
The first two kinds of impacts, oxygen depletion and nutrient enrich-
ment, are not likely to significantly affect recreational or commercial
use of Boston Harbor or offshore waters. Nutrient enrichment will
affect the distribution and size of indigenous populations without
threatening the survival of particular species or community types
harbor wide.
The second two kinds of impacts, bacterial contamination and toxic
chemical enrichment are both significant. Both are directly related to
effluent solids.
Figure 11.3-14 shows estimated annual loadings of solids to Boston
Harbor, and projected loadings from an improved primary treatment plant
and a secondary treatment plant (see Table 11.3-17 for projections
data). Note that existing primary effluent is the single greatest
source of suspended solids among all harbor sources. The difference
between primary and secondary solids loading is somewhat offset by
higher concentrations of some pollutants in secondary effluent solids
and secondary sludge solids (sludge will not, however, be discharged to
the harbor in the future). Under current plans any new primary ef-
fluent discharges are expected to be located about nine miles into
Massachusetts Bay, and therefore would pose significant reductions in
the solids discharged to the Harbor when compared to existing
11.3-31
-------
ci 5rn4 4p Q !Ecr p A 1N ()AL
,Ug?ENpEp OLJP5 LOAD)MGI 491*1
c*ToiJ HA eOR— OuRCE
Afterr1c t1ve:
iPi ovW PRiMARY
T EA1ED FPUJ4T
59 S mS/
‘)HARG EJ1V
MA€i ACHVS TTS E ,4’(
AtfernodiVe
6 CtM DAR’(
T ATeD
EFFU J r
S 3O r q/
7ScHAR -rb
& ) 1184- C t. 201 PLAN Ta -3
(6)1 4 301(k) WAtV R.APPUCATIOI 4 ¶ bI IA33
( ) l Ø4- 301(h) WAIVER PPUcAT10 Table. A 3.4-
** Ooe nof induô bypassed eu.af
N f *-ia ôr-
-to re& .e iM ç .fcbrr) 44 ese-
PR NT
(AU may r sou .rce )
E)(I cTLN *
PP MA Y
T2EAtE 7
EFFUJ N 1-
s , =77r ,
B
198Z.
(S)
PU 1ARE
C - rement pkvi
effluent oi .ily
2010
19
4
sTa2M .V4TEk
( )
5LuPc E
1’3ø
p Y
2.
0’
Il *
EW R.
OV ?WV.fz
(A)
ft3-k
-------
TABLE 11.3-17
SUSPENDED SOLIDS MASS EMISSION PROJECTIONS
Average
Average Average Annual SS
Plant Flow SS Concentration Load
Year (Source) in mgd in mg/i lbs. x 10
1982 (1) Deer 295 90 8.09
Nut 124 46 1.74
Combined 419 77 9.83
1984 (2) Deer 304 72 6.67
Nut 117 91 3.24
Combined 421 77 9.91
Combined 421 65* 8.34
Combined 421 3Ø** 3.85
1990 (3) Combined 485 65 9.60
Combined 485 30** 443
2010 (4) Combined 500 65 9.90
Combined 500 3O 4.57
*SS concentration assumed for improved primary (1984 301(h) Table II-A3.4)
**SS concentration assumed for secondary treatment.
Sources:
(1) 1984 DI 201 plan Table E-3.
(2) 1984 301 (h) Waiver Application Table II-A3.3.
(3) 1984 301 (h) Waiver Application Table II-A3.4.
(4) Site Options Study, 1984 301 (h) Waiver Application.
11. 3-32
-------
conditions. Likewise, secondary treatment will also pose significant
reductions in solids loading to the harbor by virtue of its higher
pollutant removal efficiency.
Solids in primary effluent are generally larger than in secondary
effluent. Bacteria and viruses trapped inside sewage solids may be
physically protected from chlorine’s disInfecting action. This is
often referred to as suspended solids interference with disinfection
effectiveness. As the effluent is diluted, solids will break apart and
release the bacteria. Although the marine environment is inimical to
indicator bacteria such as the coliform group, viral spores may survive
for days or more. Disinfection effectiveness and the location(s) of
effluent discharge are therefore significant to water contact recrea-
tion and commercial shellfishing.
Figure 11.3—1 shows the general tidal circulation pattern in the Boston
Harbor area along with outfall sites considered. Recognizing the
effect of current velocity and turbulence on plume dispersion, this
figure shows which areas would be directly affected by recently dis-
charged effluent. The further offshore the discharge site, the less
likely it is to affect beaches and harbor shellfish.
In Boston Harbor, toxic chemical enrichment of bottom sediments and
overlying waters will be most significant in areas of solids deposition
(Figure 11.3-15). For discharges outside the harbor, slower current
velocities make seasonal plume trapping a more significant factor in
determining the area and rate of solids deposition (Figure 11.3-16).
To the extent that lighter organic solids contain higher concentrations
of toxic pollutants, total solids deposition rates may be misleading
indicators of relative toxics loading. After initial settling, long-
term toxics dispersion will occur through chemical release,
bioturbation, bioaccumulation, and wave induced resuspension of
sediments.
Toxic compounds in sediments may accumulate In marine organisms to
levels which threaten the organism’s health, and possibly the health of
humans which eat them. Fish disease and bioaccumulation of toxic
11. 3-33
-------
2. M1LE
PEPOt 11ONAL AREW2
MooEgAT o
GENERAL LOCATION OF
DEPOSITIONAL AREAS
INTERM ITJENT PEPOWflOIIG
(‘ ‘ii3y a ic 30 M def9 4 )
AR s c LITflE R NO
PEPo’,rflOW,
II
0 1
III’’ ’
III
‘‘1HIflJ 1UJILI
‘I
ilil’
‘‘‘
fflffl
L i ii
V.
s urce: Ec C , oc anoqraPh’c—
S+wly of Various Ouk a Si(iri 9
Op ic’rc’ ‘r -th& 2e€r ! 7I d
Tv ievtt PIavft. Q 1-F .Z2-3
IL -15
-------
WINTER CONDITION
PARTICLE PATH
EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE / SALINITY
STRATIFICATION ON EFFLUENT PLUME
WASTE FIELD
DEPOSITION AREA
SUMMER CONDITION PARTICLE PATH
CURR EN ?
PLUME ‘TRAPPINGs
BELOW SURFACE
H ER MOC LINE/HA LOC LINE
= —-..
•..:. .. . . .... • . .• • . , ... •.• . . .
WASTE FIE1.D
DEPOSITION AREA
soure €:
Tc r kTh k Iy ,t ra -t
1€ flI43( va Iua on
of 3010t) Waiver
.s-J
-------
compounds in Boston Harbor food fish have been documented (see separate
SDEIS report: Boston Harbor Water Quality Baseline). The contribution
of treatment plant effluent to fish disease or toxic accumulation in
fish is unknown but is a continuing concern. The health risk to humans
who consume local marine life is presently unquantified.
Limited sampling has found PCB concentrations in edible fish tissues as
high as 0.8 ppm. The Food and Drug Administration has recently lowered
the tolerance limit for PCB in food from 5.0 ppm to 2.0 ppm stating:
“the 2 ppm level strikes a proper balance between protecting consumers
from the risks associated with exposure to PCBs and the loss of food
due to the lowered tolerance.” (BNA Environmental Reporter, 6/1/84
citing FDA commissioner Mark Novitch).
To the extent that treatment plant effluents contribute to existing
toxics concentrations in edible marine life, any of the alternatives
under consideration would lessen the potential public health threat
associated with consuming fish which live in Boston Harbor.
Some of these impacts will be evaluated by EPA in their consideration
of HDC’s proposal for the discharge of primary effluent approximately
nine miles offshore (301(h) Waiver Application) and in their evaluation
of NDC’s plans for sewage sludge disposal.
11.3.6 Elimination of Emergency Bypassing of Untreated Wastewater
Recently, equipment problems have caused bypassing of untreated
wastewater at Deer, Moon and Nut Islands (see separate SDEIS report:
Boston Harbor Water Quality Baseline). With the implementation of
currently prograffined “fast track” improvements to existing facilities,
and subsequently the long term improvements considered in this EIS,
such bypassing from Deer Island and Nut Island will be virtually
eliminated, and Noon Island overflows will be greatly reduced.
However, with any treatment plant, equipment or operator failure may
require temporary bypassing of poorly treated sewage. Therefore, under
11. 3-34
-------
the provisions of EPA’s Construction Grants Program Handbook of Pro-
ceedures (10/1/84) treatment plants are designed with backup equipment,
excess capacity and emergency bypass structures at key points in the
treatment processes. With the alternatives under consideration in this
EIS, assuming EPA funding, treatment facilities will be designed for
emergency discharge of partially treated wastewater to the main outfall
system. However, major loss of pumping capacity would lead to raw
sewage discharges “upstream” of the treatment plants at overflow
points.
Power failure and subsequent loss of pumping capacity is a major cause
of raw wastewater discharges attributed to existing treatment facili-
ties (see Section 1 and the separate SDEIS report: Boston Harbor Water
Quality Baseline).
New treatment facilities, wherever they are located, will have both
outside utility company power and on-site power generation. With the
back up systems required by EPA’s construction grants requirements, raw
wastewater discharges due to power failures will be minimized. For
example, discharges from Noon Island, now estimated at 40 to 60 oc-
currences per year, are expected to decrease to about 12 storm related
overflows per year after power related pumping problems and other
equipment malfunctions are corrected at Deer Island. (CDM 1984).
11.3-35
-------
REFERENCES
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1984. Draft Report to the Metropolitan
District Commission Sewerage Division on Discharges from Moon Island.
Prepared for the Metropolitan District Commission, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
EG&G, 1984. Oceanographic Study of Various Outfall Siting Options for
the Deer Island Treatment Plant. Prepared for Havens & Emerson/Parsons
Brinkerhoff as part of the 1984 Deer Island Facilities Plan.
EPA, 1976. Quality Criteria for Water.
EPA, no date (-625/5-76-012). Environmental Pollution Control
Alternatives: Municipal Wastewater.
EPA, 1977 (-430/9-76-017c). Federal Guidelines, State and Local
Pretreatment Programs.
EPA, 1982 (-440/1-82/303). Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly
Owned Treatment Works.
EPA, 1982 (-600/6-82-004b). Water Quality Assessment: A Screening
Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants.
ERT, Inc., 1979. Water Quality Goals, Objectives, and Alternatives in
the Boston Metropolitan Area -- A Case Study. Prepared for the NSF,
EPA, ONE, and CEQ.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA), 1969. A
Practical Guide to Water Quality Studies of Streams.
Grace R.A. 1978. Marine Outfall Systems, Planning, Design and
Construction. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
11. 3—36
-------
Greeley and Hansen. 1978. Environmental Impact Statement on the
lJpgrading of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System Volumes One
and Two, prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I,
Boston, Massachusetts.
Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff. 1984. Deer Island Facilities
Plan, prepared for: Metropolitan District Commission Sewerage Division.
Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 1984. Draft Deer Island
Facilities Plan. Unpublished draft prepared for the Metropolitan
District Commission.
Massachusetts DEQE, DWPC, 1983. Boston Harbor 1983 Water Quality and
Wastewater Discharge Data.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1984. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Metropolitan District Commission Application for Modification of
Secondary Treatment Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island
Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters. (1984 301(h) Waiver
Application).
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., June 1982. Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facilities Planning Project, Phase I, Site Options Study, Volumes I and
II. Prepared for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Metropolitan
District Commission.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1982. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Metropolitan District Commission Application for Modification of
Secondary Treatment Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island
Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters. (1982 301(h) Waiver
Application).
11.3-37
-------
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1979. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Metropolitan District Commission. Application for Modification of
Secondary Treatment Requirements for its Deer Island and Nut Island
Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters. (1979 301(h) Waiver
Application).
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1979. Wastewater Engineering Treatment,
Disposal, Reuse. McGraw Hill Book Company, Boston.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1982.
Navigational Chart of Boston Harbor No. 13270, 47th edition, November
20, 1982.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1979. Boston
Harbor Tidal Current Charts. Fourth Edition 1974.
Patterson, J.W. and P.S. Kodukula, 1984. Metals Distributions in
Activated Sludge Systems. JWPCF, Vol. 56. No. 5, p. 432-441.
Petrasek, A.C. Jr., et. als., 1983 a. Removal and Partitioning of
Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants In Wastewater Treatment.
Presented at the Ninth U.S. -Japan Conference on Sewage Treatment
Technology, Tokyo, Japan, September 13-29, 1983. EPA MERL Cincinnati
Contribution No. 50.
Petrasek, A.C. Jr., et. als., 1983 b. Fate of Toxic Organic Compounds
in Wastewater Treatment Plants. JWPCF, Vol. 55, No. 10, p. 1286-1296.
Petrasek, A.C. Jr., and I.J. Kugelman, 1983. Metals Removals and
Partioning in Conventional Wastewater Treatment Plants. JWPCF, Vol.
55, No. 9, p. 1183-1190.
11.3—38
-------
S 5\
I :
/
t
• :
2
• /5. -
- S • ••
Appendix A
- . S
-------
TABLE 11.3-18 HSD WASTEWATER:
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS THAT DO NOT EXCEED CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF SALTWATER AQUATIC LIFE
Range of Concentrations (ugh) Reported Criteria for the Protection
of Saltwater Aquatic Life
Chronic!
Influent: Influent: Effluent: Effluent: Average Maximum
Priority Pollutant Deer Is. Nut Is. Deer Is. Nut Is. Criteria Criteria
Dichlorobromomethane ND ND ND-13 ND 6,400 6,000**
Trichiorofluoromethane ND-<10 ND-<10 ND<10 ND<10 6,400 6,000**
Chlorodjbromomethane ND-<1O ND ND-Kb ND 6,400 6,O00
Acenapthene ND-<10 ND-<10 ND-<10 ND-<1O 710 485**
l, 2 , 4 -trichlorobenzene ND-29 ND ND
-------
TABLE 1L3-19 MSD WASTEWATER:
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS WHICH DO NOT EXCEED
MAXIMUM/ACUTE CRITERIA FOR TUE PROTECTION OF WALTWATER
AQUATIC LIFE, AND FOR WHICH NO EPA AVERAGE/CHRONIC CRITERIA EXISTS
Maximum Range of
Concentration (1) Concentrations
( ugh ) (ugh) Influent
and Effluent,
Priority Pollutant Both Plants*
1 ,1,l-trichloroethane 15,600 ND-84
Benzene 2,550 ND-16
Ethylbenzene 215 ND-29
2-Nitrophenol 2,425 ND-<10
2,4-dinitrophenol 2,425 ND-80
Phenol 2,900 ND-120
l,2-Dichlorobenzene 985 ND-575
1,3-Dichiorobeazene 985 ND-570
l,4-Dichlorobenzene 985 N D-570
Napthalene 1,175 ND-28
Nitrobenzene 3,340 ND—54
Carbon tetrachioride 25,000 ND-
-------
Maximum Range of
Concentration (1) Concentrations
( ugh ) (ugh) Influent
and Effluent,
Priority Pollutant Both Plants*
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine 1,650,000 ND—
-------
TABLE 11.3-20
MSD WASTEWATER:
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS WITH NO CRITERIA FOR THE
PROTECTION OF SALTWATER AQUATIC LIFE
Range of Concentrations (ugh) Reported*
Influent: Influent: Effluent: Effluent:
Priority Pollutant Deer Is. Nut Is. Deer Is. Nut Is .
1,1,Dichloroethane ND-<1O ND-Kb ND—<10 ND-Kb
Chloroform ND-90 <10-16 ND-390 ND-36
Nethylene chloride 83-360 63-146 ND-260 ND-250
2-4-6 trichiorophenol ND ND-<10 ND-<10 ND-Kb
Parachlorometa cresol ND-<10 ND-Kb ND-<10 ND-<10
2-chiorophenol ND-<1O ND-<1O ND-Kb ND-Kb
2,4-dichiorophenol ND-<10 ND-Kb ND-Kb ND-<10
2,4-dimethylphenol ND-<10 ND-<10 ND-< IO ND-<10
4 ,6-dinitro-o-cresol ND ND ND-K1O ND-K1O
Benzidine ND- 120 ND ND-<20 ND-K20
3,3-dichiorobezidine ND ND-
-------
TABLE 11.3-21 ! 1SD WASTEWATER:
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS REPORTED AS NOT DETECTED (1)
Saltwater Aquatic Life Criteria
Limits of Chronic! Maximum
Detection, Average Criteria (3)
1984 Samples (2) Criteria, ug/l
ugh ugh
BASE—NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS
Bis (chioromethyl) ether
-------
Saltwater Aquatic Life Criteria
Limits of
Detection,
1984 Samples (2)
ug/ 1
Chronic!
Average
Criteria,
ug/ 1
Ma xi mum
Criteria (3)
ugh
PESTICIDE COMPOUNDS
4,4-DDD
endosulfan sulfate
PCB_ 122 1*
PCB- 1232*
PCB- 1248
0.0087(4) 0.034(4)
0.030 5
0.030 5
0.030 5
*Limits of detection reported for 1984 exceed existing or proposed criteria.
(1)(2) Limits of detection not reported with 1978, 1979 or 1982 sampling.
(3) Maximum criterion = final acute value/2 as proposed by EPA (Federal
Register, Vol. 49, No. 26, P. 4553, 2/7/84), or existing maximum
criterion.
(4) Criteria for Endosulfan.
Sources: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1979, 1982, 1984. The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Metropolitan District Commission Application for Modification
of Secondary Treatment Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island
Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters. (1979, 1982, and 1984 301(h) Waiver
Applications).
<0.01
<0.01
2.5
2.5
NS
NS Not sampled in 1984.
-------
/
NJ
‘ T 7.
Appendix B
_-
:
‘ c
-------
Cd Cadmium
Species mean acute values and acute—chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute-Chronic
Rank* Species ( ugh) Ratio
26 Mumm lchog, 50,600
Fundulus heterocl Itus
Striped kIlilfish, 21,000
Ft,nduius majalls
23 FIddler crab, 21 , i
Uca pugi lator
23 Sand worm, 10,100
Nerols virens
22 Oyster drill, 6,600
Urosalplnx cinerea
21 Blue mussel, 3,934
Mytlius edulls
20 Fastern oyster, 3.800
Crassostroa virginica
17 Blue crab, 2,591
Calllnoctes sapidus
Green crab, 4,100
Cnrcinus rnaenus
16 Winter flounder, 2,934
Pseudop I euronectes
amer canus
Soft—shell clam, 1,612
arenarla
Bay scallop, 1,480
Argopacten irradlans
-------
Cd Cadmium
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute-Chronic
Rank* Species ( ug/l) Ratio
8 AtlantIc sllverside 779.5
Menidla menidle
1 Grass shrimp, 760
Palaomonotes vulgeris
6 Iier,nlt crab 645
Pegurus long icerpuc
4 Poiychaete worm, 200
Copitella capiteta
2 AmerIcan lobster, 18
Homarus emericenus
0 Rankad from least sensitive to most sensitive b sód on Family Meen Acute Value.
Plant values
Result
Species Chemical Effect ( ugh) Reference
Kel P C hjs chloride 8-day EC50 860 Markham, et al. 1980
l.emlnane saccharIne (growth rate)
Diatom, Cadmium chloride 96—hr EC5O 175 GentIle & Johnson, 1982
Skelotoneme costetum (growth rate)
-------
Blue mussel,
Mytlius edulis
Blue mussel,
Mytlius edulls
Bay scallop,
Argopecten irredlans
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea virylnica
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea vlrginica
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea vlrglnlca
Quahog clam,
Mercenerie mercenar I a
Soft—shell clam,
erenaria
Grass shrimp,
Paleotnonetes puglo
Grass shrimp,
Paiaomonetes puglo
Grass shrimp,
Paiaemonotes vulgariS
Green crab,
Carclnus maenas
Green crab,
Carcinus maenas
Chemical
Cd Cadmium
BioconcentratiOn data
Species Tissue
Duration BiocoricefltratiOfl
( days) Factor
Soft parts
Cadmium
chloride
28
George & Coombs,
1971
113
Soft parts
Cadmium
chloride
35
306
PhIllips, 1976
Muscle
Cadmium
chloride
42
2,040
Pesch & Stewart,
I 980
Soft parts
Cadmium
chloride
280
2,600
Zaroog Ian & Cheer,
1976
Soft parts
Cadmium
chloride
280
1,830
Zarooglan, 1979
Soft parts
CadmIum
nitrate
98
1,220
Schuster & Prinqie,
I 969
Soft parts
CadmIum
nitrate
40
83
Kerfoot & Jacobs,
1976
Soft parts
Cadmium
nitrate
70
160
Prlngie, at ai.
1968
Whoie body
Cadmium
chloride
42
22
Pesch & Stewart,
1980
Whole body
Cadmium
chloride
26
203
Nimmo, ot al. 197Th
Whole body
Cadmium
chloride
28
301
Niinmo, et ai. 1977b
Muscle
Cadmium
chloride
68
5
Wright, 1971
Muscie
Cadmium
chloride
40
1
Jennings & Rainbow,
I979a
-------
Cl Chlorine
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute-Chronic
Rank* Species ( ugh) Ratio
20 glue crab, 796
Cattinecte. sapidu .
18 Northern pipefiab 270
Syninathu. fuicus
17 Grass shrimp, 220
Palaemonetee pugio
16 Thi:ee—spine stick leback , 167
Gasteroeteus aculeatus
14 Hermit crab 1 146
!! .2 longicarpu .
3 Atlantic silverside, 37
Menidia menidia
I Eastern oyster. 26
Crae.ostrea
*gapIed fEo least sensitive to most sensitive based on Family Mean Acute Va ue
-------
ChlorobeflZefle
Plant values
Result
Species Chemical Effect ( ug/l) Reference
AIgd, d Iorobunzeno ChIoro hyI$ 4 OOO
tonemd costatum 96—hr EC5O
Alga, chlorobenzene Cell numbers 341,000
Skoletonema costatum 96—hr EC 0
-------
Cr Chromium
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute-Chronic
Rank* Species ( ugh) Ratio
I, Blue crab, 93,400
Cal linoctos sapidus
14 Mu riichog, 91,000
Fundulus heterociltus
13 Soft—shell ci e, 51,000
ereneria
12 Starfish, 32,000
Asterles forbosi
9 Atlantic silvorside, 15,280
Menldla inonidia
B Hermit crab, 10,000
Pagurus I OflØ I Cerpus
Polycheote worm, 6,325
Capitol I a capitala
Polychaete rm, 2,000
Nerels virens
Ranked from least sensitive to most sensitive based on Family Menn Acute Value.
Bioconceritration data
Duration Bioconcentration
Species Tissue Chemical ( days) Factor Reference
Hoxevalent Chromium
Blue n issel, Soft parts Sodium 84 192 Zaroogian, 1982
Mytlius edulls dlchranate
Eastern oyster, Soft parts Sodium 84 125 Zarooglan, 1982
Cressostrea virginice dichronate
Trivalent Chromium
Blue mussel, SoH parts Chronic 168 86 Capuzzo & Sasner,
Mytllus edulis chloride 1971
Eastern oyster, Soft parts Chronic 140 116 Shuster & Pringlo,
Crassostree vlrginlca nitrate 1969
Soft—shell clam, Soft parts Chronic 18 153 Capuzzo & Sasner,
aronario chloride 1977
-------
Cu Copper
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute-Chronic
Rank* Species ( ug/l) Ratio
Gro* o crab, 600
C ircIuu5 m onus
14 ioI ‘/(‘hdOte worm, 365. 5
N w oi m l lvorsIcol ,r
Ii Al I on tic si Ivors (lu, 1Sb
Moo I d I i mon dl
10 Wintor- I lowider, 129
P SoUlloji I omironoci i
______—
8 Ammo r Ic on I cd i st or, 69
Flocmmiicmmii, mnur I
4 oft— lwIi cI?mm, 3’)
I iyo rulolr Iii
Eastern oystor, 12 13
Crmissoc I roo vi rq I mit
2 ;umlmrmmur- I I ommmmdor
F era II ( tm thy’. dorm I otus
1 3 k m mu soI , 5 0
Myt I lOS emimi Is
Ranked fran least sensitive to most sensitive basod on S 11 1)CloS t4oarm Acute Value.
-------
Cu
Plant values
Species
Alga,
Sko I etonoma cusi a turn
A I ga,
Nltsclila clostorlurn
Copper
Result
( ug/l )
50
i s ,)
Reference
t r Ick,’,ir, of dl
1 9 /0
RI)5k0 lt ichl In,
19/5
Ref erence
RI by Roth, 1911
Joiros, ot al • 19)6
ot l • 19/9
L jr I n , 1982
Ian, 1902
Ghij s I or & Pr I ng C)
I 909
Shiv I or & Pi mgi u,
9(0
,hir; t or A. Pr nq I o
1 9P)
Shristur A. Pringlo,
I 9 1 ,13
Ph 1111 S , 1 916
Effect
1 4uldy I t;50
(growth I ulu)
(0
( grow tt ro to)
Chemical
Tissue
Bioconcentratiofl data
Species
Alga,
Astorbonol Ia Japonica
P01 ycheoto worm,
Norols (flvurslcolor
Polyctraote worm,
EudistyHa vancouvorl
[ hay scallop,
Argopocton Irradlans
Bay sceilbop,
Arqopocten lrreuibons
Easlorn oyster,
Crossostroavlrqinbca
Eastorn oyster,
Crassr,sl roa vi rgi iii ca
Quahuq clam,
Murconirrla norconarla
Sofi—shob I clam,
hlyo eironario
Blue mussel,
Mytilus oduils
Duration Bioconcentrat ion
( days) Factor
25 309
24 2(1
3 S I
112 5,51 1 )
112 4,161)
140 28,200
140 20, 101)
/0 1)0
35 3, 500
14 90
-------
Cyanide
Species mean acute values and acute—chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute-Chronic
Rank* Species ( ugh) Ratio
6 WInIer floundor . 372
r nia dop i ouron oct 03
‘iFTconus —
AtIi ntIc slivorsido, 59
MonIdI. mnnldlo
Rock crab, 4.895
C ncOr ftrorotus
* Ranked from least sensitive to most sensitive based on species mean
acute value.
-------
DDT
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute-Chronic
Rank* Species ( ugh) Ratio
16 (saturn oystur, 7.9
Oasaostr.s virQInlCS
14 HermIt aab, 6.0
PaQif us I OfIQ I carpus
13 frsrlcan ssI, 4.0
g aIIIa rostrsts
12 *j Ichog , 3.9
Fundulus h.t.roclltul
II Gaas shrI , 2.0
Pal . ..mon.t5 pu jo
7 StrIped killIfIsh, 1.0
Fundulus mej.lIs
4 StrIped bess, 0.53
Marone saxatlils
3 Atlantic silvarslde, 0.4
Menidia mon Idle
Rinksd trom l..st s.nsItlv. to most ssnsltlve baud on sp.cl. muse
acute value.
Plant values
Result
Species Chemical Effect ( ug/l) Reference
Diatom, Reduced photo- 10 Wuruts- • 1968
Sk.l.ton costatue synth.sls (I—day)
NeritIc dIno iag.ll.t., Reduced photo- 10 Wwst, 1966
Per Idinlum trochold.u . synthesis (I—day)
Bioconcentration data
Lipid Bioconcentration Duration
Species Tissue ( %) Chemical Factor ( days) Reference
Eastern oyster, Whole body 42,400 252 lowe, it •i. 1910
Crassostree vlrglnica
Eastern oyster, Whole t ody 16,300 168 Low., .t al. 1970
Crassostrea virginlca
-------
Dieldrin
_____ Species
Grass shrine,
Paiaeinonetes vuiqaris
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea virginica
Ii Striped tess,
Morone saxatlils
16 Hermit crab,
Pagurus Ionciicarpus
15 Threesplne stlckleback,
Gasterosteus ecu latus
12 t4uinmichog ,
Fundulus heterociltus
I I Grass shrIw ,
Polaumonetos pugio
8 StrIped kiiilfish,
Fundulus majalls
7 Atlantic siiverslde,
t4enidia menidia
2 American eel,
Anguilla rostrata
Ranked from least sensitive to nist sensitive
acute value.
BioconcentratiOn data
Species
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea virginice
Crab,
Leptodius floridanus
• Species mean acute values and acute—chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute—Chronic
Rank* _______ ( ug/l) Ratio
21 50.0 —
19 31.2 —
19.7 —
18.0 -
$4.2 —
8.9 -
8.6 -
5.0 -
5.0 -
0.9 -
based on species meen
Lipid
_______ ( %) Chemical
Tissue
edible tissue
whole xxIy
Bioconcentration Duration
Factor ( days) Reference
8,000 392 Parrish, $974
400 $6 Eplfanio, $973
-------
Endosulfan
Species mean acute values and acute—chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute-Chronic
Rank* Species ( ugh) Ratio
II Eastern oyster, 157
Crassostrea virginica
9 Grass shrlnp, 1.31
Paleemonetes puglo
3 StrIped less, 0.10
Moron. saxetills
Ranked from least sensitive to most sensitive based on species mean
acute value,
-------
Endrin
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute—Chronic
Rank* Species ( ugh) Ratio
21 AmerIcan oyster, 14.2
Crassostrea vir Inlca
20 Hermit crab, 12
Pa urus iongicarpus
$8 Grass shrimp,
Paleemonetes vulgaris
15 Threesplne stickleback, 1.1
Gasterosteus aculeatus
14 Mummlchog, 0.95
Fundu has heteroci I tus
$3 Grass shrImp, 0.65 19
Paleemonetes puglo
ii American eel, 0.6
Anguilia rostrata
8 Strlped kiliitish, 0.3
Fundulus tn joII
4 StrIped bess, 0.094
Morone saxatlils
3 AtlantIc sllverside, 0.05
Menidle menidia
‘ Ranked from least sensitive to most sensitive based on species mean
acute value.
-------
Endrin
Plant values
Result
Species Chemical Effect ( ug/l) Reference
Alga, uptake >10 Menzei, et al.
reduced 1970
Skeietonenia costetum
Growth reduced 100 Monzel, et al.
Alga, first 5 days of 1970
Skeletonema costatum
test
Natural ptiytopiankto(i 46% decrease ig 1,000 Butler, 1963
cou ijnltioS productivity; 4 C
Bioconcentratjon data
Lipid Bioconcentration Duration
Species Tissue ( %) Chemical Factor ( days) Reference
A.erican oyster, Edible port Ion — 1,670- 1 Mason A Rowe, 1976
Cressostrea vlrginice 2,180
Grass sbrip , Edible portion 1,490 10 Tyler—Schroeder, 1919
Paiee netes pug lo
Grass shri.ç, Edible portIon 1,600 145 Tyler—Schroeder, 1979
Paiaea netes pugio
-------
Heptachior
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute-Chronic
Rank* Species ( ug/l) Ratio
Ii Threesplne stlckloback, 112
Gastorosfeus aculoatus
16 HermIt crab, 55
Pagurus long I carpus
15 Mun lchog, 5°
fundulus heterocl Itus
14 StrIped killlfish , 32
Fundulus majails
12 AmerIcan eel 10
Angullia rostrata
7 Atlantic silverslde, 3
Menidla menidla
6 StrIped boss,
Morone soxatlils
5 American oystur, 1.5
Crossostrod vlrginica
4 Grass shrin1, 1.06
Pa I aemonet4 s vulgar I S
* Ranked from least sensitive to nost sensitive based on species moan acute value.
Plant values
Result
Species Chemical Effect ( ug/l) Reference
Alga, Heptachlor EC5O, reductIon 93 U.S. EPA, 1980
Skeletonema costatum (99$) In owth as
measured by
absorbance
-------
Pb
Species
Rank*
10
9
6
5
R nkod fr s
Lead
mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute-Chronic
________ ( ug/l) Ratio
21,000 -
>10,000 —
2,450 —
780 -
476 —
Species __________ ______________
Soft—shol I
eroi er In
Atlentic sllvnrslde,
Menldle menidle
Eastern oyster,
Cressostree virginice
Qunhoq clam,
Merconarla orcenerle
Blue mussel,
Mytlils edulls
least sensitive t most spn ltIvn b ic l on Family Mnnn Aruto Vnlun.
Duration Bioconceritratjon
( days) Factor
40 650
.37 200
130 2,510
130 2,080
130 796
140 536
49 60
70 1,400
56 17.5
Reference
SchuI —Baldns, 1974
Talbot, at a!. 1976
SchuI —Baldas, 1912
Schulz—Bnldes, 1972
Schulz—Bnldes, 1972
Zarooqien, at ci.
I 979
ftlrkjie, at ci. 1960
Shustor ? Pringle,
1969
Pringle, at ci. 1968
Bioconcentration data
Species
Tissue
Chemical
Blue mussel,
Myttlus edulls
Soft parts
Lend nitrate
Blue mussel,
Mytlius edulis
Soft parts
Lead thioride
Blue mussel,
Mytlius edulls
Soft parts
Lead nitrate
Blue mussel,
Mytlius adulls
Soft parts
Soft parts
Lead nitrate
Lend nitrate
Blue mussel,
Mytilus edulls
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea vlrglnlce
Soft parts
Land nitrate
Eastern oyster,
C nssos tro yIr ln lea
Soft parts
lend nItrn 1e
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea virc 1 in ice
Soft parts
Lend nitrate
Quehog clam,
Mercener I a ,norcenar Ia
Soft parts
Lead nitrate
-------
Hg Mercury
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute—Chronic
Rank* Species ( ugh) Ratio
Dlvalont lnor nlc Morcury
24 Wlntor floun(ier, 1,678
P soudop I ouronoctos
i5i 1c n u
23 MLIn1nIcho J, 453.0
Fundulus hotorocl Itus
22 Soft—shell cl , 400
Mya arenarla
21 Foursplne sticlcloback, 315
Apoltos quadracus
A l nFIc sllvursido, 11’,.7
Mould lo rnonldla
I ? Ih ddock, 90
Molnnojrt mrnuc ao lof Inus
16 Day scallop, 89
Aryopocton Irrad I
14 Sand worm, 70
Norols virons
12 Stdrtlsh, 60
Arterlas forbesl I
11 Ilorm It crab,
Pagurus lonq I car pus
10 nurlcan lobster, 20
narus ajnur I canus
Groon crab,
Cercinis maonas
-j Pol ychaolo worm,
Capitol In ci pilata
4 Eastern oyster, 1.558
Crassostrea vlrcjinlca
— Rankod from least sensItive I c n st
3 Blue mu soI, 5.8
Mytilus odul Is sonsltlvo based on Fômlly Mean Acute Value.
2 Qtiahog clam, 4.6
Morconarla morconarla
-------
Hg Mercury
Plant values
Result
Species Chemical Effect ( ug/l) Reference
D I lent Inorganic Mercj y
Seaweed, Morcu- Ic 10-day EC5O, 100 Strongron, 1980
Asco yHum nodosum chloride growth
Seaweed, Msirctric 10—d iy EC5O, 45 Strongron, 1900
Fucus vesiculosus chloride growth
BioconcentratiOn data
Duration Bioconceritration
p cies Tissue Chemical ( days) Factor Reference
Dlv lent Inorganic Merc
Eastern o ,ster (adult), Solt parts Iiorcurlc chloride 74 10,000 Koptlor, 1974
Crossostree vlrglnlca
American lobster (adult), Tall muscle Morcuric chloride 30 129 Thurborg, ot al. 1977
Homarus omericanus
Methy Imorcury
Eastern oyster (adult), Soft ports Methylmorcurlc 74 40,000 Kopfhjr, 1974
Crassostreev lrqlnic Chloride
Other MurcurL Tipounds
Eastern oyster (adult), Soft parts F’henylmot-curic 74 40,000 KoptIor, 1914
Cr assostrea j glnic chloride
-------
Species
Mu.. ichog,
Fiu dulus htsroclltus
Soft sIi.II clam,
j ar.naria
Start Ish ,
Astarlus forb.sl
Polydiat.,
Nsanthes aramacsodsntat•
13 Crab,
Pagurus long I carpus
12 Sand war.,
Nsr.ls virens
9 Atlantic silverside,
Man Idle .snldla
6 P.srlcan oyst.r,
Crassostr.a vlrQlnlca
2 Hard clam,
l4srcenar I a merc.nar I a
American oyster,
Crassostrea virginica
AmerIcan oyster,
Crassostr.a vlrglnlca
Mussel,
Nytlius eduils
Mussel,
Mytllus edulis
Ni Nickel
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute-Chronic
Rank* _______ ( u9/l) Ratio
‘7
$6
I,
$4
350,000
320,000
$50,000
49,000
41,000
25,000
1,960
1,180
310
Chemical
Nickel
sulfate
Nickel
sulfate
Nickel
su I tat.
Nickel
sul fate
Bioconcentration data
Species
Tissue
Soft parts
Soft parts
Soft parts
Soft parts
Bioconcentration Duration
— Factor ( days) Reference
384 84 U.S. EPA, 198Db
299 84 U.S. EPA, 198Db
416 84 U.S. EPA, 198Db
328 84 U.S. EPA, 198Db
-------
PCBs
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute-Chronic
Rank* Species ( ug/l) Ratio
3 Eastern oyster, 20
Crassostr.a virginice
2 Grass shrin 2.5
Pala.swxietes pugio
1 8rown shrimp, 10.5
Penaeus eztecus
* Ranked from least sensitive to n ,st sensitive based on species mean
acute value.
Plant values
Result
Species Chemical Effect ( ug/l) Reference
Diatom, Aroctor No growth in 48 0.1 Fisher & Wurster,
Rhizosoienle set Iger 1254 hr. Reduced 1973
growth thereafter
Diatoms, Arocior Rgduced owth 10 Fisher, 1975
Thalassiosira pseudonana 1254 end carbon fixa—
and Skeietonema costatum tion in 48 hr
-------
PCBs
Plant values
________ Chemical Effect
Aroclor ’ Reduced owth
________ ________ 1254
Aroclor Reduced cell
____________________ 1254 dIvision
Aroclor• Reduced cell
____________________ 1254 divIsion
ArocIor No effect on
___________________ 1254 cell division
Aroclor Toxl it 1 In
!254 24 hrs
Aroclor ToXIcity In
1242 24 hrs
Aroc½r Decreas d diver-
1254 slty, species
ratio altered
Aroclore Reduced blomass
1254 and size
Biocoricentration data
Species _______ ______ _________
Polychaete,
Nereis divers Icolor
Eastern oyster,
Crassosirea virginica
Eastern oyster,
( rassostrea virginlca
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea virginica
r ss shrimp,
Paiaeinonetes pugio
Blue crab,
Call inectes sapidus
Species
Diatom,
Skeletonema costaturn
Diatom,
Ske I etonema costatum
Diatom,
Chaotoceros social is
Diatom,
Nitzschia longissima
Phytoplankton populations
Phytop tankton populations
Natural phytoplankton
conmiunity
Phytoplankton communities
Result
( ug/l )
10
10
10
100
15
6.5
00
Reference
lksser, et al. 1972a
Harding & Phillips,
1978
Harding & Phillips,
1978
Harding & Phillips,
1978
MoorE-. & Harrlss, 1972
Moore & Narrlss, 1972
Laird, 1973
O’Connors, et al.
1978
Tissue
Whole body
Lipid
(%)
—
Chemical
Phonochior*
L*’— S
Bioconcentration
Factor
Duration
(days)
14
Reference
Fowler, et at. 1978
800
Edible
portion
Arocior*
1016
13,000
84
Parrish, et al. 1974
Edible
portion
Aroclor
1 254
101,000
245
Lowe, of al. 1972
Edible
portion
Aroc lor
1254
>100,000
Field data
Duke, et al. 1970;
Nimmo, et at. 1975
Whole
body
Aroclor
1254
27,000
16
NIi,mo, ot al. 1974
Whole
body
Aro JorO
>230,000
Field data
NInr ,, of at. 1975
-------
Ag Silver
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute—Chronic
_____ _______ ( ug/l) Ratio
Species
Fourspine stickleback,
Ape ites guadracus
Winter flounder 0
Psaudop I euronoctes amer I canus
6 AtlantIc sliversldes,
Menidla menidla
4 Bay scallop,
Argopecten I rrad lens
3 Herd shell clam,
Marcenerla mercenarla
2 American oyster,
Crassostrea vlrglnlca
I Summer flounder,
Paral lchthys dentetus
Species
Alga,
5km letonema costatum
Alga,
Skeletonema costetum
Rank*
9
8
550
500
210
33
2 1
20
4.7
* Ranked from least sensitive to most sensItive based on species moan
acute Intercept or species mean acute value.
Plant values
Result
( ug/l )
110
Effect
96—hr EC50,
chlorophyll a
96—hr ECSO,
cull numbers
Reference
U.S. EPA, 1978
130 U.S. EPA, 1978
-------
Zn Zinc
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Species Mean Species Mean
Acute Value Acute-Chronic
Rank* Species ( ug/l) Ratio
24 Mumm lchog, 70,600 -
Fundulus heteroclitus
22 Starfish, 39,000 —
Asterias forbesi
21 Polychaete, 24,600 —
Nerois diverscolor
20 Winter flounder, 9,460
Pseudop I euronectes amer canus
19 Sandworm, 8,100 -
Nereis virens
18 Soft she Ied clam, 6,330 —
arenarla
16 AtlantIc sllverside 3,640 —
Menidla nienidia
15 Mussel, 3,380 —
y jIus edulis J januIatus
14 Po lychaete, 2,440 —
. jj ilo p I tat a
5 HermIt crab, 400 —
Pagurus longicarpus
4 lobster, 321 —
Homarus amer-icanus
3 Oyster, 310 —
Crassostrea j gInIca
1 Hard shelled clam, 166 —
Mercenar Ia mercenar I a
Ranked from least sensitive to most sensitive based on Species mean
acute intercept or value.
-------
Zn
Plant values
Zinc
Effect
Growth Inhibition
Growth inhibition
Interaction with
copper on 9 rowth
Decrease In l I
numbers
Bioconceritration Duration
Factor ( days )
1,530 12
20 34
16,700 140
85 50
43 I I ?
225 I)
500 21
282 35
8,800 22
Reference
Munda, 1979
bryan & Hummerstone,
1973
Shuster & Pringie,
969
Prinyle, at al. 1968
LIsPer, 1917b
Phi I lIps, 1971
Pontreath, 1913
PhIllips, 1916
Bryan, 1966
Result
( ug/l )
100
200
50
100
Re f e r en c e
bryan, 1969
L aek, øt dl. 1916
Brook, et ai. 1976
Kayser, 1977
i e
Kelp,
Laminarla dlgitata
Alga,
Skeletoneffia costatue
Alga,
Skeleton costatuin
Alga,
ThaiasSlO5ir rotule
Bioconcentration data
Species
Alga,
Enteromorpha prol I fore
Polychaote (adult),
Nerels diversicolor
Oyster (adult),
Crassostrea vlrglnlca
Soft—shell clam (adult),
arenaria
Soft—shell clam (adult),
aronaria
Mussel (adult),
Mytlius edulls
Mussel (adult),
Mytilus edulls
Mussel (adult),
Mytilus eduiis
Crab (adult),
Carclnus moenes
Chemical
Zinc suilote
Zinc sulfote
Zinc sulfate
Zinc sulføte
Tissue
Soft parts
Soft parts
Soft parts
Soft ports
Soft parts
Muscle
Chemical
Zinc sulfate
Zinc sulfate
Zinc chloride
Zinc chloride
Zinc chlorIde
Zinc chlorIde
Zinc chloride
Zinc chloride
Zinc chloride
-------
E! LN 7 U © ik fl U 1 L!ft LF L JIL
L !L ©L 1r L JIkU J
U f l1 AC1r
12.0 BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS AND INPACT ANALYSES
12.1 Land Use and Demographics
12.2 Traffic and Access
12.2.1 Baseline Traffic Report
12.2.2 Traffic Requirements of Construction and Operations
12.2.3 Traffic Impact Analysis by Alternative
12.3 Recreation Resources and Visual Quality
12.3.1 Baseline Recreation Resources Report
12.3.2 Visual Quality Considerations and Criteria
12.3.3 Visual Impact Analysis by Alternative
12.4 Engineering Costs Estimate
12.5 Financial Impacts by Alternative
12.6 Noise Analysis
12.7 Odor Analysis
12.8 Area Geology
12.9 Sludge Disposal Overview
12.10 Archaeological and Historical Resources Report and N1IPA
Compliance Summary
12.11 Legal and Constitutional Constraints on Long Island and Deer
Island
12.12 SDEIS Screening Report
-------
12.1 Land Use and
Demographics
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
12.1 LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS
12.1.1 Summary
12.1.2 Existing Development and Activities on the
Island Sites
12.1.2.1 Deer Island
12.1.2.2 Long Island
12.1.2.3 Nut Island
12.1.3 Land Use in Neighborhoods Affected by the
Treatment Plant Alternatives
12.1.3.1 Point Shirley, Winthrop
12.1.3.2 Squantum, Quincy
12.1.3.3 Houghs Neck, Quincy
12.1.4 Community Facilities in Each Neighborhood
12.1.4.1 Point Shirley, Winthrop
12.1.4.2 Squantum, Quincy
12.1.4.3 Houghs Neck, Quincy
12.1.5 Demographic Data
12.1.5.1 Introduction
12.1.5.2 Population
12.1.5.3 Age
12.1.5.4 Families
12.1.5.5 Employment and Journey to Work
12.1.5.6 Income
12.1.5.7 Housing Characteristics
12.1.6 Regional Population Projections
-------
12.1 LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS
12.1.1 Summary
Two of the three alternative sites, Deer Island and Nut Island,
are currently occupied by primary wastewater treatment plants operated
by the MDC. Deer Island is also the site of the Deer Island House of
Corrections for Suffolk County run by the City of Boston, and the
location of an abandoned military installation, Fort Dawes. Nut Island
is occupied exclusively and entirely by a wastewater treatment plant.
Long Island, the third proposed site, is occupied by the Long Island
Chronic Disease Hospital operated by the City of Boston. A former
military installation, Fort Strong, is located at the northern part of
the Island. The remainder of the island is largely undeveloped and
unused.
Houghs Neck in Quincy, Point Shirley in Winthrop, and Squantum in
Quincy are neighborhoods in close proximity to Nut Island, Deer Island,
and Long Island, respectively. These neighborhoods would be most
affected by proposed treatment plant construction and operation.
All three neighborhoods are predominantly residential. Point
Shirley has a population of about 1,000 residents; Houghs Neck and
Squantum have about 4,000 and 3,000 residents, respectively. Of the
island sites, the Nut Island site is closest to residential neighbor-
hoods; approximately 180 homes lie within half a mile of the site. In
comparison, about 80 homes and the prison lie within a half mile of the
Deer Island site and only the hospital lies within a half mile of the
Long Island site.
12.1.2 Existing Development and Activities on the Island Sites
12.1.2.1 Deer Island
Deer Island ceased to be an actual island when, in 1936, Shirley
Gut became filled in. The island is within the corporate boundary of
12.1—1
-------
the City of Boston. The City owns about half of the 210 acre island.
The MDC owns about 75 acres and leases another 5 acres or two parcels
from the U.S. Navy. The United States government own the remainder of
the area encompassing about 25 acres. Figures 12.1-1, 12.1-2 and
12.1-3 show the island and its present land uses and ownership.
The Deer island House of Correction is a complex of 20 structures
(one of which was constructed in 1852) occupying approximately 40
acres. The prison, which has an inmate population of approximately 400
and a tota1 staff of 200 guards and employees, has deteriorated over
the years and has been under a Court Order to upgrade its detention
facilities. Studies by the City have shown that the most cost
effective approach to upgrading would he to build a completely new
prison rather than to rehabilitate the existing collection of old
structures. Construction of a new prison on Deer Island or at some
other site has been considered by the City. Relocation elsewhere on
the island is presently considered a possibility for a new prison,
however, no final decisions on prison relocation or new construction
have been made.
The MDC sewage treatment plant is the other major active land use
on Deer Island. The original sewage pumping station was established in
1889. The existing plant was designed in the 1950’s and completed in
1968. Wastewater treatment facilities occupy about 26 acres. There
are approximately 20 employees at the facility (over four shifts).
Fort Dawes was established in 1941 at the southern tip of Deer
Island as part of the defenses for President Roads in Boston Harbor.
It is essentially abandoned today. The land area of Fort Dawes remains
under U.S. Government ownership. Remains include concrete bunkers and
gun emplacements. This site is being proposed for excessing by the
U.S. government.
Deer Island is zoned “B-i, General Business” by the City of
Boston, allowing all con nercia1 and residential uses, but excluding
industrial or other non-conforming uses without a variance. The
12.1—2
-------
17eer k’I nd
12 H
-------
FOkT /4
- \ - 7’
__• -\ 7-
‘ -I.,.
crry o .
(OP l s4 4)
%S
‘S
.. \•
•: t )#ir
— i :ci— ——;i;:::;:;:1i
_ _ - ‘
I\
MDc PC R I tA1 JD
Tg.EATMek 41 PLANT
ARfl ICIAL 4-1H.J..
‘ I OVER C i
i EM JT P
J e s
cZ T % - :
,Z 1 ‘—- —-: \S\ .5. -
- S -
A’ 5 c•
S -
• - - - : -
OPE1 J A2 A
OLD wc eu
I’IERS
EXISTING CONDITIONS DEER ISLAND SITE
-L 12i-7
PI rAR.tl
PU.R I3L 4 —
Ub O
/
,s ..
‘ —
/
/ /
/ “. r_
I
I
—S
/
7,
—S.
- - 5-
¶_ _‘ - -- -- - —4’
‘I ‘ : — -- A8A J P
--‘-S
-------
04
SCALE IN FEET
SOURCE: MCD Deer Island
Fast-Track Facilities
Plan , Havens & Emerson!
Parsons BrinkerhOff,
August, 1984.
400
400
LEE ND
— — EASEMENTS
MEAN LOW WATER
PARCELS B&C;MDC LEASED FROM NAVY
L MDC
ET. CITY OF BOSTON
OWNERSHIP OF LAND U.S. NAVY
ON DEER ISLAND -ri .IZ. —3
— PROPERTY LINES
-------
existing non—conforming uses of the prison and treatment plant predate
the zoning classifications.
12.1.2.2 Long Island
Long Island, approximately 213 acres in area, is the largest
island in Boston Harbor. It is owned by the City of Boston and is
connected to Moon Island and Quincy by a two-lane bridge built in 1951.
Figures 12.1-4 and 12.1-5 show the island and its present land uses.
The Long Island Chronic Disease Hospital, operated by the City of
Boston, Department of Health and Hospitals, occupies about 60 acares of
the middle of the island. The hospital facility is used to treat
alcoholics and provides care for the chronically ill, homeless, and
elderly. A staff of approximately 400 serve a patient population
listed as approximately 400. This island site has been used to care
for and house the City’s indigent and sick since 1882. Some of the
structures in the Hospital’s 28 building complex date from this period.
Some are unused and in disrepair. A preliminary investigation of the
potential historical value of these buildings is presented in Section
12.10 of this SDEIS.
Past and present City administrations have proposed closing the
Long Island Hospital. The most recent review, released as a report in
May 1984, (Boston in Transition) for the administration of Boston Mayor
Raymond Flynn, considered a 5-year plan to reorganize the provision of
medical. and social services to the City’s chronically ill, homeless and
elderly. This plan proposed closing the Hospital on Long Island in
1989 and consolidating its services with the existing chronic care
facilities at the City’s Mattapan Hospital. No future use for the
hospital facility was identified, and further study was recommended.
At the present time, the Mayor’s plans for the hospital reportedly
include less use for provision of medical care and increased use as a
shelter for the City’s homeless, compatible with the joint goals of the
City and State to develop recreational uses on Long Island (see
correspondence in Section 10.1).
12.1-3
-------
Lone k land
(2.1 -4
-------
%. TO SOUANTUM,
s ,, UINCY (1 2P00 FT.,
‘S
BARRIER BEACH
(1900 FT.)
VACANT or
UNDEVELOPED LAND/
PROPOSED PARK-
PASSIVE USE
(13 is)
\ c .
\ WE t# i, e* J
AND SEA WALLS
.- ‘
LONG IkAND HOSPITAL
(SO acr.s)
— —
rHOSPITAL SEWAGE
7 ’. TREATMENT PLANT
/7
— iL
LONG
I ISLAND
/ LIGHT
‘ 1819)
PROPOSED * \
STATE PWIK- \
INT SIVE 1111
4O.otss)
EXISTI JG CONDITIONS LONG ISLAND SITE
12.)-5
-------
The southern part of Long Island is occupied by an abandoned Nike
missile base of approximately 12 acres, and a historical cemetery of
unknown area (shown as about 4 acres). The balance of the southern
part of the island is presently undeveloped and in a natural state.
This area of Long Island also includes about 4 acres of freshwater
wetland, about 11 acres of salt marsh and about 1,900 feet of barrier
beach.
Long Island has served as a burial ground several times in its
history. Archaelogists have found records indicating there may be over
2000 marked and unmarked graves on the island. These include graves of
thirty-six British soldiers killed during the Revolutionary War, 79
Civil War veterans, former patients and inmates of the facilities on
the island, and possibly many of the former inhabitants of the island.
Some of these date from the late 17th to 19th centuries.
The northern part of the island is the location of the former Fort
Strong. It contains numerous concrete fortifications that date back to
the turn of the century. It was in use until after World War II. A
lighthouse that was installed in 1819 is still in operation. This area
of Long Island is the primary focus for recreational development
proposed by the Nassachusetts Department of Environmental Nanagement
(DEN) as part of its plan for the Boston Harbor Islands State Park.
Passive recreational use is also planned for southern portions of the
island (see Section 12.3).
Long Island is currently zoned by the City of Boston (1965 zoning)
as “B-I, General Business”. This classification allows any commercial
use as well as all classifications of residential use. It does not
allow industrial uses or other non-conforming uses without a variance
from the City of Boston, Zoning Board of Appeals. The hospital on Long
Island predates this zoning.
12.1-4
-------
12.1.2.3 Nut Island
Nut Island in Quincy was once a 4-acre island just north of Quincy
Great Hill on Houghs Neck. In 1893, the MDC built a road to the island
and enlarged it to accommodate a pumping and screening station and
outfall. In 1949, the island was again enlarged. The present primary
treatment plant and sedimentation tanks were constructed in the follow-
ing years. The entire 17-acre island is owned by the MDC and is taken
up by the wastewater treatment plant. Figures 12.1-6 and 12.1-7 show
the island and nearby areas.
Nut Island is zoned by the City of Quincy as “Industrial B, Heavy
Industry”. This classification allows operation of a wastewater treat-
ment plant as a conforming use.
12.1.3 Land Use in Neighborhoods Affected by the Treatment Plant
Alternatives
The Squantum and Houghs Neck neighborhoods of Quincy and the Point
Shirley neighborhood in Winthrop would primarily be affected by the
proposed treatment plant alternatives. These communities are described
below.
12.1.3.1 Point Shirley, Winthrop
Winthrop is a largely residential town of approximately 19,000
people situated on a peninsula that forms the northern boundary of
Boston Harbor. The Point Shirley neighborhood is a narrow peninsula
connected to Deer Island. It. is located near Logan International
Airport. The only route by land to Deer Island passes through Point
Shirley.
The neighborhood is predominantly residential with approximately
450 houses and a population of about 1,000. Host of its homes were
built as su er cottages which over the years have been winterized and
used for year-round residences. A few neighborhood commercial uses are
12.1—5
-------
Nut lslaiicl
l2.I (
-------
Source: Metcall & Eddy.
Nut Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant FacIlities
PlannI g Project, June 1982
1 1 MDC NUT ISLAND WASTEWATER
1 I TREATMENT PLANT
EXISTING CONDITIONS NUT ISLAND SITE
QUINCY
U
HOUc H6
1 4ECK
SAY
LEY -L
j\ 9’1Il jJS 1 ’Ar vP J
[ I tILI7I J(i
P E -AERMk
3
OUTFALL ’
200
0
€PEMENThl1c?
SCALE IN F((1
200
Dk EsTEk
OUTFALL
-------
found amongst the residential areas. These commercial uses are located
along the main truck route to Deer Island. Approximately 80 homes in
the neighborhood are within a half-mile of the treatment plant.
Significant community buildings and facilities are listed and shown
graphically in Section 12.1.4 below.
Zoning in Point Shirley, and throughout much of Winthrop, is
“Residence A, Single Family Use”. Prior to 1955, this classification
allowed lots with a minimum area of 3,500 square feet. Between 1955
and 1982, the minimum lot size requirement was increased to 5,000
square feet. In 1982, the required lot size for single-family houses
in all “Residence A” zones was increased to 7,000 square feet.
Point Shirley residents are significantly affected by the current
operations of nearby Logan Airport, the Deer Island House of
Corrections, and the Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. Residents
of Point Shirley must contend with disruptions caused by daily low
flying jet planes, occasional disruptions associated with the prison
operations including escaped prisoners, and periodic disruptions caused
by faulty operations of the existing treatment plant. Over the years,
these have affected the quality of life of area residents by
concentrating negative impacts of these major regional facilities at
one location in close proximity to residential concentrations.
12.1.3.2 Squantum, Quincy
The Squantum section of Quincy is a peninsula that separates Dor-
chester Bay from Quincy Bay. It is connected to North Quincy by a
causeway. Quincy is a large manufacturing city with a 1980 residential
population of 74,743. It enjoys a rich historical and cultural back-
ground founded on granite quarrying and shipbuilding.
The Squantum neighborhood which had a 1980 population of 3,080, is
a relatively densely-developed residential area. Other than limited
neighborhood commercial uses, major land use is single-family resi-
dential development. A few small apartment buildings and a limited
12. 1-6
-------
number of two-family houses are in evidence. Significant community
facilities are listed and shown graphically in Section 12.1.4.
Zoning in Squantum, updated by the City in 1971, is predominantly
“Residence A, Single-Family”. Minimum lot size is 7,650 square feet.
There are a small number of “Residence B, Multi-Family” Units along
Dorchester Avenue in Squantum and some “Business-B, Neighborhood Com-
mercial 1 ’ establishments. The large salt marsh adjacent to East Squan-
turn Street is zoned as open space.
Squantum is also the site of the former Squanturn Naval Air Station
which has a land area nearly as large as the developed area of Squanturn
(500 acres). The Naval Air Station site was purchased several years
ago by Boston Edison. It remains largely undeveloped and no reuse
plans have been proposed for most of it. The Boston Harbor Marina,
located on a portion of the Air Station site, will likely be a perul-
anent. component of any future development. Construction has recently
begun on an approximately 140-unit townhouse condominium complex, which
perhaps will set the tone for future development of the site.
Current zoning on the Naval Air Station site is primarily “PUP,
Planned Unit Development”. Quincy’s PUP zone allows any use except
heavy industry. Portions of the site are also zoned for light indus-
try, general business, and open space.
Squantum is also near Moon Island, a 45-acre island which is
connected to Squantwn by a two-lane causeway and sits between the
mainland and Long Island. Moon Island is owned by the City of Boston.
One-third of the island is taken up by 4 huge granite sewage storage
tanks. The tanks were built in 1884 and designed to store 50 million
gallons of wastewater to be released on the outgoing tide. The outfall
from these tanks is now used to discharge untreated waste-
water flows during wet weather when sewage flows normally routed to
Deer Island exceed the treatment plant’s influent pumping capacity.
12.1—7
-------
The Boston Fire Department operates a fire fighting training
facility on the northern end of the island. The Boston Police
Department operates an outdoor pistol range on the southern side of the
island. Access to Moon Island and Long Island is restricted by a guard
at a gatehouse located at the beginning of the causeway to Moon Island.
12.1.3.3 Houghs Neck, Quincy
Houghs Neck is a peninsula forming the southeastern boundary of
Quincy Bay. Nut Island is no longer an island but is a 17-acre pennin-
sula that divides Quincy Bay from Hingham Bay. Houghs Neck is a
densely developed residential area; its housing was developed origi-
nally as summer residences. Nearly all homes have since been converted
to year-round residences.
Half of the housing stock was constructed prior to 1939. There
are some neighborhood commercial uses in the area including food
stores, restaurants, marinas and boat rentals. These are located along
the major access routes. The Quincy Yacht Club, occupying a section of
land facing Hingham Bay, and a boat rental business on Houghs Neck
provide access for boating and fishing in Quincy and Hingham Bays.
Significant community facilities are listed and shown graphically in
Section 12.1.4.
Zoning in Houghs Neck is predominantly “Residence A, Single-
Family” with 7,650 square foot lot minimums. There are some “Resi-
dence B, Multi-Family” homes (6,750 square feet minimum lots) and some
“Business B, Neighborhood Commercial” establishments.
12.1.4 Community Facilities in Each Neighborhood
In each of the neighborhoods, there are a number of community
facilities such as schools, parks, recreation areas, and local busi-
nesses that may be affected by proposed construction activities. These
are listed below.
12.1-8
-------
12.1.4.1 Point Shirley, Winthrop
Community facilities located along the major access route to
Deer Island are numbered and listed below and on the following map,
(Figure 12.1—8):
1. Neighborhood commercial uses such as convenience stores are
located along Revere Street and at the corner of Shirley Street.
2. Temple Tifereth Israel is located on Veterans Road. BINGO and
other activities are scheduled in their adjacent function hail.
3. The Shirley Street Elementary School is located on Shirley Street.
Although not directly on Veterans Road, the truck route, the
school is within 200 feet of Veterans Road.
4. A park and tot lot is located immediately to the west of Veterans
Road.
5. Several neighborhood commercial uses are located at the Washington
Avenue and Shirley Street intersection.
6. The Cottage Hill Yacht Club is a prominent boating facility
located on Shirley Street.
7. A public boat launching ramp is located south of the Cottage Hill
Yacht Club and directly off Shirley Street.
8. Yirrell Beach is a major public beach serving the Point Shirley
area.
9. Holy Rosary Church.
10. Point Shirley Association meeting hall.
12. 1—9
-------
N
JT
I ft. I
6 •M -ft l
/ I. S
., 1 .L- .5 5
.—- J.S. • ••
10 • • •
I .M• •
.
,.‘i.s. .•.•
S. • •
—I S •
• • ,
f_,’
I,,
. c .) A ’ Frede c
q 0 - k’ , iOP r
/ IQ
D ns e olo
Tn ater.
\
N
‘T ida Ftat S
- . — ‘== i
HospitaL. - Sc.b
ji
II
BOSTON
4R OR
Logan 4 rt i togan
A 3r e nat3 .
ort
WINTHROP
I,
ROP
:Tc .4 •Ft .1
c I 1i —’
Ii .:
Lught
;. / \\
( 1 i/wI kJ
(N,
7/ \ /
S
LO N
Al RT ‘ ‘ óa Flat
Cough in
Par
N
\,
2;:
LOGAN INTERNATIO 7
Governors
16 Island
1 eo-eati on
.h urái e
ornmerc,aJ
i11 Vubbc- uk1iri ’
L umLer ref’erence ’
specific u’ eS.
* *
*
H
Ocean Spray
It
U
The Five Sisters
i. *
I,
-FLSJZ.k
TH RO
—
Sato
BOSTO
‘ ,Ortent HeigHts ,
Beach
-4-
P
(
*
C,’
-------
12.1.4.2 Squantum, Quincy
Community facilities in North Quincy and Squantum are also located
along the major access route to Long Island. These facilities are
numbered and identified below and on the following map (Figure 2 .I- 3):
1. North Quincy High School is located on the corner of Hancock
Street and East Squantum Street.
2,3. Neighborhood commercial uses (convenience stores) are located
along East Squantum Street near Botoiph Street and on Atlantic
Street at East Squantum Street.
4. Moswetuset. Hununock is an MDC park that is a popular gathering
place for high school age children.
5. The Myles Standish School is a former elementary school that is
currently leased to the Quincy Elks. Activities such as BINGO are
regularly scheduled here.
6. Boston Harbor Marina and other business, recreational, and com-
mercial activities are located off East Squantum Street. A
commuter boat service to downtown Boston is temporarily in opera-
tion during the reconstruction of the Southeast Expressway. The
Boston Harbor Marina is the largest marina in Boston Harbor.
7. Nickerson Beach is a small public beach used by residents of
Squantum.
8. Squaw Rock is a public park area several acres in size.
9. Two former military buildings (part of the abandoned Nike base)
currently house various social service programs.
10. The Robert I. Nickerson American Legion Post #382 is located in a
former military structure at Squaw Rock.
12.1-10
-------
- *.1
TidaI DO C I I ESTE R U
I/ /i ‘ B A Y . Sculpin
/ / T - Ledge
Hill! N
I l u ll • Pumping d a t flat : *
h! / /ak 1L ... :‘I . ATT::: .. t
Thimble N Island
IsI d . c
Mlib /: - . --
B ac J/ - - - Head
8M Squaw Roc
/ / Com emi Tower
/f - / Pt . Ud .
1/ / ... Nicker - - -- —
- B c // 1I d
/ ) Flat LE E
\ ‘*//‘)? i çp TI sc ook ,
- /
Tenean Mud u r I ; , =
•ech / j / 6 \ \ 0 Ommerc4aJ
\ - - *
I \ V 1 1 n umE’ r
/1 Q k spec c
- / / ‘1:” Mud
r p nt t /f
- / ((_ ...
I /X / / - -
I */ /
- if 1 JDriv in :. :.:: .:e 1..
it e it€r \ I \I / -- - iii _ -Ti i at
I / - 2 -
(_) 0 44 ‘, - P t ygrô ,jr1d N
d owe 1 / II
c v
f’ub( uikfrri 3
references
useS.
Q
U
I
N
C
Y
-------
12.1.4.3 Houghs Neck, Quincy
Community facilities located along the major access route to Nut
Island are numbered and identified below and on the following map,
(Figure 12.1-10):
1. Our Lady of Good Counsel Church is located on Sea Street near
Samoset Avenue.
2. Adams Shore Branch Library.
3. Neighborhood commercial uses such as convenience stores are
located at several intersections along Sea Street.
4. Rockland Street playground and field.
5. Most Blessed Sacrament Church.
6. Saint Thomas Aquinas Hall is located close to Sea Street at the
Corner of Darrow Street and Manet Avenue.
7. The Atherton Hough School is located on Sea Street and Manet
Avenue.
8. Houghs Neck Congregational Church is located on Manet Avenue,
close to Sea Street.
9. Houghs Neck Con nunity Center and Manet Community Health Center.
10. Neighborhood Counnercial uses are located on Sea Street.
11. Hurley’s Boat Rentals is a well known private business providing
small boats for fishing to many South Shore and Boston residents.
12.1—il
-------
r / F at — —
OMMUNITN1 FACILITI SO NOTE T\
NE K, 9 II4 Y Light
Hangman Z ‘- West
Sch / O*SW a 1 ScA’took, Island
\ / I 1
I ecyea or1
U I N C Y h urcJi e’
mer aJ
pt&i .
rlurnL2YreFerenCeB
Q U I N (. Y B A Y Sew \
t ch
/ //I
/ ‘‘1 / I I / I - -
, 4 - Seal Rock 1 \ 13
p Tidal T al Flat / Ho gh
‘7 1A uv isc Cern
S 4 4 t t Q. / ‘o 1fil_ 9 anet
1 - / I (H RLC5 ‘ bach
Flat /1 -
D;c l / Sch IqHLtnS S I ii it ST ( ccoon
— Island
- Anns 1 Pumpin
-------
12. Quincy Yacht Club
13. Site of the demolished Great Hill Elementary School has recently
been regraded to provide increased open space next to Brill Field.
14. John F. Brill Field is a heavily used playfield.
15. Broad Neadows School is located on block away from Sea Street.
12.1.5 Demographic Data
12.1.5.1 Introduction
Data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census for Squantuin, Point
Shirley (including Cottage Hill) and Houghs Neck (including Germantown
and Adams Shore) was assembled to provide a demographic overview of the
affected neighborhoods. The data not only provides population figures,
but also a breakdown of population groups, including elderly and
school—age children, employment figures, and other socio—economic data.
While this data is useful in providing broad statistics on the affected
areas, it is not the basis for assessing site specific impacts since
census data is highly generalized.
Of greatest interest, from the 1980 Census, are data describing
age breakdowns of the population, family type, school enrollment,
journey to work, employment, income, and housing. These subjects are
highlighted below. Attachment 1 provides census tables centering this
information.
12.1.5.2 Population
Total population, as recorded by the Census tract designations
(which are not specific to either Houghs Neck or Point Shirley) show
Point Shirley (including the Cottage Hill area) at 4,395 persons,
Houghs Neck (including the Germantown and Adams Shore neighborhoods) at
9,590 persons, and Squantum at 3,080 persons. Estimates of the number
12.1-12
-------
of persons in the respective neighborhoods nearest the sites are
approximately 1000 persons in Point Shirley, 4000 persons in Houghs
Neck, and 3000 persons in Squantum.
12.1.5.3
The median age of all individuals in Houghs Neck and Point Shirley
is 30 years, which is slightly below the median for the Boston SNSA
(Standard Metropolitan Statistical. Area as defined by U.S. Census) at
31 years. Squantum has a higher median age of 35 years old. The
median age for females in Houghs Neck and Squantum is significantly
higher than the median age for all individuals. Median female age in
Houghs Neck is 33, while it is 38 in Squantum. Pre-school children
represent about 4% of the population in each area and in the SMSA.
School-age children represent about 22% of the population in the SMSA
as well as in Squantuni and Point Shirley, and 28% in Houghs Neck.
Those 65 years of age and over comprise 12% of the population in
Squantum and Point Shirley, and 14% of the population in the Houghs
Neck area.
12.1.5.4 Families
The number of families (defined by the Census as related persons
in the same house and averaging 3-plus persons) was 816 in Squantum,
2,435 in Houghs Neck (including Germantown/Adams Shore), and 1,023 in
Point Shirley (including Cottage Hill). Of these, about 14%, 25%, and
21% respectively, were headed by single mothers with children under 18
years of age.
12.1.5.5 Employment and Journey to Work
In all three areas, the census reports that 2 or 3 workers per
family is common. This indicates a significant number of families with
both parents or with parents and children in the labor force.
12. 1-13
-------
Most employed persons (16 years of age and older) in each study
area drove to and from work. Between 16% and 21% of those driving use
carpools. Among those working, 15% in Squantum take public transporta-
tion, compared with 21% in Houghs Neck and 26% in Point Shirley. The
average travel time to work from these areas was 26 minutes.
12.1.5.6 Income
The average per household income (in 1979) was $24,000 in
Squantum, $16,600 in Houghs Neck, and $19,200 in Point Shirley, com-
pared with $22,500 for the Boston SMSA. The median income in the SMSA
was $15,000. Twenty percent of the households in the Houghs Neck
census tract reported public assistance income, although the combined
Census area including Germantown and Adams Shore was partly responsible
for this statistic. Six percent reported assisted income in both
Squantum and Point Shirley, and nine percent reported such income in
the SMSA. Thirty-seven percent of Houghs Neck (including Germantown!
Adams Shore) households also reported Social Security income compared
with twenty-nine percent in Squantum, nineteen percent in Point Shirley
(including Cottage Hill), and twenty six percent in the SFISA.
The percentage of families below the poverty level in Squantum was
3.5 percent; in Point Shirley (including Cottage Hill), it was 8.5
percent; while in Houghs Neck (including Germantown/Adams Shore), it
was 15.9 percent. Within the SMSA, 7.3 percent of all families were
below this income level. The inclusion of Germantown, an area with a
concentration of public and elderly housing, in the Hougha Neck Census
Tract, is likely responsible for both the lower and higher numbers in
these categories.
12.1.5.7 Housing Characteristics
In 1980, a total of 1,096 housing units were reported in Squantum,
3,527 units in Houghs Neck (including Germantown/Adams Shore), and
1,882 units in Point Shirley (including Cottage Hill). Of these, 82.6
percent in Squantum were owner-occupied, 56.8 percent in Houghs Neck,
12.1-14
-------
and 41.8% in Point Shirley. In Squantum, 84 percent were single-family
houses. More than half of the homes in Houghs Neck (60 percent) were
single-family, while only 34 percent in Point Shirley were single-
family. Point Shirley had almost equal numbers of 2-family and 3- to
4-family homes, as well. Houghs Neck also showed significant numbers
of multiple unit homes, (influenced by the Germantown and Adams Shore
areas).
One-half of the homes in Houghs Neck and Squantum, and three-
quarters of the homes in Point Shirley were built 45 years ago or more.
Forty-two percent of owners of owner-occupied houses in both Houghs
Neck and Squantum have lived in their houses 20 years or more. In
Point Shirley, the comparable number is thirty-one percent.
In Point Shirley, a significant percentage of houses were built as
seasonal structures. Most have been converted to year round use.
Fully one-half of the houses are renter-occupied. Because many of the
structures are old and are converted summer homes, the average housing
values are reported to be lower in Point Shirley than the average value
for houses in the SMSA. In addition, the community’s location adjacent
to Logan Airport, the Deer Island House of Correction, and Deer Island
Wastewater Treatment Plant also tend to suppress house values. The
1980 Census places the median value of owner-occupied housing units in
Point Shirley at $43,800. The median value in the SNSA was $56,000 in
1980.
There is a wide range in the housing styles and values in Squan-
turn. For example, along Dorchester Street, the main road to Long
Island, houses are generally modest in size and character. Houses on
Crabtree Road facing Quincy Bay are larger residences. The median
value of houses in Squantum was $49,500, compared with $56,000 in the
SMSA. Median house values in Houghs Neck were reported to be $36,100,
again influenced by the values in the other neighborhoods included in
this figure.
12.1—15
-------
12.1.6 Regional Population Projections
Population change within the Metropolitan Sewerage District (MSD)
has traditionally been considered one of the principal factors affect-
ing future wastewater flow. Sewerage facility planning studies of the
past devoted considerable effort to the projection of future population
so that proposed facilities could be sized accordingly. Typically,
such projections used population and per capita water use to estimate
sewage flows and size facilities.
Until 1980, almost all population projections showed a continued
growth in Boston’s regional population. However, the 1980 Census data
revealed a demographic change which occurred in the Metropolitan area
between 1970 and 1980. For the first time in almost two centuries,
population in the Boston Metropolitan Area (defined as the 101 cities
and towns in the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, MAPC, district)
actually declined. The population totals for the region were reported
as 3,013,912 in 1970 versus 2,884,712 in 1980. This represents
slightly greater than a four percent decline in population over the
decade -
Out-migration has been greater than in-migration in Massachusetts
since the 1950’s. The net out-migration was especially heavy in the
1970’s. Prior to the 1970’s the region’s substantial net out-migration
was masked by large natural increases (births). It was the combination
of a decline in natural increases in the Region together with continu-
ing net out—migration that produced the decline in population.
While the Boston region’s population declined overall, shift of
population within the Metropolitan region continued to be dominated by
population outflow from urban areas to lower density suburban comniuni-
ties. Population losses were particularly heavy in such urban communi-
ties as Boston, Chelsea, Everett, and Somerville, while population in
coninunities such as Framingham, Quincy and others along the South Shore
grew. The commercial building boom in downtown Boston, as well as in
12.1-16
-------
the suburbs, has tended to obscure the fact that permanent population
in the Metropolitan region is slightly declining.
This SDEIS, therefore, assumes that population within the
Metropolitan Sewerage District (MSD) overall, will not change dramati-
caLly in the foreseeable future due to either population gain or loss.
Growth and expansion that may occur within the MSD will largely result
from in-state movement, most likely from urbanized to suburban areas.
Therefore, existing, essentially stable, population figures should be
used in planning for wastewater flows. Consideration of further shifts
in the population within the region (from the northern to the southern
MSD systems, for example) is required to develop future wastewater
management plans and to limit any future expansion of the currently
proposed harbor wastewater treatment plants (see Section 5.6).
12.1—17
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
CENSUS TABLES AND BOUNDARY MAPS
-------
Quincy Bay
r ---‘
“4
Lb
Hingham
FIGURE Al
CENSUS TRACT MAP
501:
HULL
4228
)
/
__ 0’
4223
WEYMOUTH
-------
FIGURE A2
CENSUS TRACT MAP
jO3
17O
i 705
1 1 10 1
1108
k
51
512
-------
FAM .T fl’Pf IT eia 09 OWN OIILO S
Table P-i. Generd Characteristics of Persons: 1980
- ‘-- --- . 1.w . s A .i4 II
Squantum Houghs Neck
Tmct
4 128
4174 ___________
C.nsus Trodi
T
% 5 99.’
10,. 1199.’
Ills 19yss
20 1. 24 ,s.s
251.31 .‘
33,. 44 . ‘ —
451.54 v . . ’ -—
551.64 .s1
63 74 s ’
75 ‘ .
3 .d 4 . ‘
16 —,
15 v, . ’ . —
2% i. . ’ .il —
60 i .d .
62 i —
tirley
Point S
16.05
l3 5 —
SI .9 ‘ --
101. I I 99.’
Ills I, s
201.24 , .
231.31 .
351.14 s
431.51 . ‘
551.64
6$ Is 71 v. . ’
75 —
3 . 4 ‘ -—
16 v, . ’ .d
15 99.’
2%
60 .s . .
42 s .4
NOuSamID 1TPI M lBAflO,6 1U9
si.
L i.
• S.’_.
156 SMSA
16.3 337
144 969
163 531
213 633
265 39%
236177
469 729
— . 375
29% 05%
271 077
191 613
141 06%
5610$
192 263
09026.6
917 479
473 246
419 163
31.2
453 6.19
70 430
79991
104 6.2$
132 044
144 62
24% OIl
159 067
151 630
148339
III 436
101 294
21383
174 171
24 lOS
036614
289 6.54
260 76$
328
743 35?
660 173
990660
66902$
321 632
260 64%
525 596
1033492
110 425
35 970
67 214
2.69
3.33
344 744
311 209
212 312
102 434
95393
63 311
37 316
5 110
23456
3 079
1 49021
322 490
636 295
525 596
254 111
510 962
116. 06.2
40602
113 623
842406.
t _ . 577
511 444
20 141
3016.9
42 225
184510
396023
$16340
33 326
IS] 894
68 910
SOb
251
314
253
326
381
311
130
526
662
10 10
864
1295
1050
‘
190
246
322
5 11
10 14
129
406
£44
281
262
2496
2369
21 11
627
552
231
7276
6536
6218
I 560
60
3621
3490
3285
751
66%
30.8
67
126
160
I l l
215
173
227
Ice
82
5197
251
446
694
507
442
371
2317
86
120
1.53
171
285
506
203
207
230
170
1 56
16
1321
1254
1169
36%
322
116
4048
3826
1096.
26
1929
1854
1752
462
423
3% 4
3
1019
263
23%
676
1272
—
-
2.85
3.39
9590
9 590
3363
2435
921
6.29
1727
43 16
—
2. 55
426.7
1172
1023
567
767
142
266
53
25
2 42
3.20
441
282
109
lOS
114
42
—
—
1276
1276
516
. 503
229
20
—
143
467
290
116
105
104
“
12
74
2
816
666
2433
121$
2596
1023
431
349
676.
290
1721
831
1832
76.7
685
114
75
611
369
211
34
146
1184
432
695
12
22
1235
58
140
127
710
196
l ’ s
1334
3q
693
26
177
67
4 162
116$
1 787
644
368
720
244
142
Pii 6.3 i u — _______
—4’
-
- 4
Ob .
.4 8 ‘ ____.___
4 I I i .i.
40,6. .4k.. i4 IS Is$
t40u 4 . 4 II ys . ’...... —
I_s “ . —
• III, . ’
. 4 I I 99.’
MA TAL STAJUS
8.. . 4. ii..’d ____
. 5 , ---
, 1399 s — _________
c-a-
CENSUS TRACES
-------
Census Tracts
T p w
--
— ip af d
Nol ei 1.d
S.3.c?,d uU , O?,V oolI:
lrqkol. . 14 e gr (s)
Fieo 6 .14 off • ‘3
011.1 gr04 *)
fl. SMS*
763 387
I 553 411
5093
203 930
57 983
45 880
2’ 055
4 253
434 363
279 051
4 393
45 518
30 61$
55 337
27 986
37 364
1 780
323 346
854 355
357 785
224 353
340029
357 155
157 576
442 434
368903
63 012
Squantum
4174
3 316
1502
293
21
S
37
69$
331
24
23
36
57
123
66
965
609
109
387
337
127
707
12$
24
Houghs Neck
11.11
437$
9
4 191
625
144
372
63
33
2 354
559
12
“9
31
20
346
‘9’
6
334
3 494
I 305
922
3204
579
64$
2 344
498
243
1805
4 393
2 376
336
16
46
is
699
703
25
66
33
379
68
‘5
33
— 374
3416
513
329
463
373
173
792
434
8$
Table P4 Ancestry of Persons: 1980
. 11Stfl 6mO4 . 1 I . 1 L ill F 010.109 O# fl0 j 6I010 4101I 01 o O ’8. 10 A 1114 8J
Point Shirley
N_ —
—-- -------
- ---------- -
61111 . 1
S m — —
—
5 68
Offiur 0i W _ —- --
013.19 1.19 (13
-------
fable P .9. Social Characteristics of Persons: 1980
(DI II III IIIIIIIIII ° 11’ - WI “* 6 A _I III 4 1 (01 .0 1% 04 1010& W,10pIlóor% A ord $j
Squantum Houghs Neck Point Shir ey
Census Tracts
TrorO
4174
NATiVITY AND PIACI Of ItEfif
— ____. 763 s oi
1 . 0 . 0 . —. 483 211 2 905 9 087 4 103
0* .. 1 51*1. *4 _____________._. I 928 2 595 8 489 3 591
0an, 6ffwe .* S lut. _________.. 535 232 3422 sa -
0 * . . Its.s. M c. _ __ . _ .. — _ - - —- - - . 29 072 -
200 000 171 5Q 3 797
tANGUAGE 5PD IN At 140 181 AND 831L 1!Y TO SP1A
p _I _ I 5 1* 1 i. .__.._.___._* $29 . — 2 215 746
Spsâ • lIIq0gs 01*01 i$._ £mq 6 48 or I__________ 48 5 13
9 c 1 .1*.0101jsak(n l6M(u48IIWIIIM_ —.._..._.. 11.3 11$ 310
IS y..i . . _ -_ — . . . . - 01’ 330 2 364 6 549 3 4.59
263 198 I I 314 788
p .I o . 9 ,s 0hWI . 0S0IWIII*4_. ._ .._ 17.0 - 1.6 104
S0400L ENtOWAUIT AND TY99 Of 504004.
$12335 93 2 709 97
P 4 1 * 1 *. ! . — —— _—.———-—-— . . . . 30 455
21 154 72
______ 32 07* 57 125
9 w . . ,. —__._____——---— -. 39 3 6 9
n __ .. __ w.- 11 1* $ . __ ._ .- — —_ —— — — — —— 313 322 I 259 421
Pr-. , . ,. 31 103 27
(f 04 IWl) -— — - .----—- 196 255 036
2* 531 75 Il
— ____ 739 693 397 185
UA&S 01 504004. COMPWTh
1 4593*7 2013 S 543 2
0 1*4 _ . _-—_— 37 323 $ 1$
5 10 19. 0 1 . . . . . .. _______ 63 105 59 I SO 65
5 00 458 99
4 q 1 1 tdm1( I to 3 - 201 209 I 4 372 3 14
4 ‘ -_ - . - ._ . ——- - — - — ——__ -—- . 653 035 058 2 549 I 222
CoIs s . I 1 *3 9 5 0 1 __.. 271 358 399 663 634
40101*9011 ___ _. 457 311 502 66
f id *4 ço* 0t%_. . ._ . ...__ .. 11 01.8 47.5 82 6
W 35 1 044y1 S 1 69 178 547 200
_______— - 380 459 I 641 473
9w I —_— — — -— — - —— - . .—- -- 2 391 2 673 2 955 2 330
o smasa IN 1915
P _ _ Is _________ 456 61’ 2 9*4 141
5.01 ___________ * 594 850 2 041 6 2
965 69 905 2 1
- 109921 165 445 759
_______ *4 tP_ SM5A ___ . . . .. - 305 530 635 I 1 73
_I 5036 270 247 n.
1MM ______ -— 214 6S 100 I 272
-- - _________ 56002 - 69 53
_____________________ 56 181 — 27
JOI* 118T TO WOIS
W.6._ 308433 1516 4001 2771
9w ,r .4*4,, 733 380 93 , I 224
Cor—_**4_.___.________________.____ flI 997 , 373
_. 204 235
-_.- -___ - ._ —___ 110309 190
w v._. or r .oi . . . . .__. _ 89 429 14’ 464
III 003 I I
01*1*. ____ — —_ — — —- IS 923 — 23 —
0.14.6 II —_ ___. . .__ 18892 II 29 20
_____.______ 1.13 II I I 19 1.35
0.10 *01 IS **.*1 — . _WI . 23.5 74.0 24. 0
W otsdaSMSAo dm*4.. c . 527 2 III
82 686 I 251
Ias *4 lout.. y -_ 302 U 74 192
frso6i . .. — — 14837 I ’ 941 16
C.’ddqs — — ‘ 41 549
41 5005 _ ..___ . . 42781 12 1
41 . 006 i3657 — $37
(so . . Of! — 35 859 22 iS
41.008 _ . 11864 - - 7
O I l — 16 SI? : — 24
4 ,. . 10 4218$ — II
— . a — 21
— — - I —
WMII_I 019 — . 42 6 0 —
*or I Ii — _________. 68 693 13 1$ 59
4, 1*15 46598 — 37
— ____ 44732 — —
41.051 63739 55 96
.4 Soot . .. WIn. 5MM 98 $96 664 7 024
WSP4 . 6 ..ti.d. 5MM *4 r,o .d.ors ___ 68 931 31 33
41.019 13686 113 —
$rDc*1t . 0. Mutt. 5MM I I 743 - -
Woltsd . lnoMo , _ £4 002 2; 33 33
P_s *4 0114 WI po .1.d 113 047 430 12 209
CENSUS TRACTS
-------
Table P.10. Labor Force and Disability Characteristics of Persons: 1980
Census Tracts
LABOR FORCE STATUS
e ie- 16 y e -i — e-
Laöer forct
P,qceoe of pasan 16 yeas p64 e-r
0o. 11a MOor face
Percent of oe6se labor foic.
. 16 ye —i
-
Percent of 16 yeas end
Qe*on labor force
Percent of 646* MOor force
Wlaft o*tt CNf&I0 endet 6 yeas
6. labor force
Maead. M bend pasad
force ____
Oe pate- 16 19y.i.
Not .orpded at MOod
Not 6.96 MOod S..
OCCUPAI1ON AND SflICTTh INOUSTRI8
pate- 16 ye—o —
aed piofeu.and Nodotfy oat.pat .o .n
10 104*0. OdlIi*0IVaIWS. end a of
Tiduucd. idle. ad adee- asen o .p9at oen anatn
Tedvene- end tidied — oc0
Sd .. om 01an
di *0 — oc . — datod
ote _, *0 w. odle
5.1*0, occ*0ohe-. eoci9I erotec?ate end houufiofd
oratenq. —. ad Neienq orctpat .o*0
tide- prOdXhOII. oft. 064 repea Od . 100
IperO lor S. fobncocors. end laborerS
Mada eneratas. ossen .Ofers. end mspectas
TraoOorloI*0I 064 motend n.oevlq orcupatati
didas. — dee-n. helpers. and boorers
f id. 064 trade
end related eateicen
CEASS OF WORKER
ad — ottlais
.t *0l *016*0
Land goeenene.W auties
ffe-ç *016*5
MOB FORCE STATUS IN 1919
‘ate- 16 yeae 0.6 aa. 6. faber fe-sM 1979
Percent of pate- 16 yeas end
Wa . d idrn 1979 —
60 a tore weaba
I.ltuoSy woOed 35 or ma, hoega pa week
50 ie 52 weeki
Uw .ay woiked 35 a eat. f lai l S per week
WaIl .e-mplaytee .lam 1979 ._
Paicrut of thus. a labor fo.ctei 1979
Ike- .d IS a lea. .1s
Me-. alibi of yb . -*0
0$SA*IU1Y STATUS OF NONINST1TUTIONAL PERSONS
Me l.. 16 1S64 ye-i
4.6.. work disab6ty
Npt a labor forc.
PelitOled froth *016*9
k. .d.. iON 64 yeas
Vitli a eat thsably
Not labor force
P6,een,ed Iran ’ tlh .q
Poise- 161.64 yeas
W.lf . 0 p .6k TronlOortOtmel thi*bity
With a work d.sabo4y
P,n. OS yeas
1.5th a — trensportalat 6iOoity
WORKERS IN FAMItY IN 1919
No wate
Me- P andy orate
water
Mean lotNoyr icome
1 w a*en
fared, .ncat*
3 01 lt l *010015
Mean tandy etcea
I De- a. istewee.. hosed on a — i.e l.trod.ctea. P r e .easq at ipaddi. ii. adotharwen foi d,fntno.n of terms i .e opoend.,es A pod B
Point Shirley
11* 5MM
192 61$
405 573
641
399 302
336 220
63 082
4.5
175 416
633 199
53 9
63338.8
607 752
25 636
40
125 620
49 453
538 783
280 012
215 985
‘2 711
II 018
6 537
1 818
5 603
334280
401 018
166 293
234 725
457 101
52 563
12$ 172
276 366
76 759
5 250
28461
145 048
6 973
129 434
162 935
84 573
36788
41 514
261 429
259 816
365564
046 450
222 156
123 594
64660
53448’
70.0
512 952
120 724
926 591
931 813
604644
242 014
15.8
79 669
13.5
854 426
65 668
32 637
27 655
951 700
59 662
42 319
34 531
834 126
34 521
31443
321 037
53 IS)
79 674
$9 995
203 900
522 8.63
268 057
528 860
120 772
538 626
Squantuin
Tiort
4,74
2 473
I 626
65 8
I 628
I 576
50
3.1
1303
668
51.3
468
639
29
43
120
60
739
347
281
I 378
496
213
265
587
54
165
368
222
95
166
94
49
22
23
214
322
426
I 112
342
211
64
I 740
70 4
I 731
I 274
I 052
I 051
912
276
15.9
66
121
“a
75
40
28
1029
77
42
29
2 017
‘9
9
436
22
56
$11 753
267
$25 05.4
330
5.26 603
48
536 967
Houghs Neck
Tract
4178
7 312
4 389
600
4 389
4 054
335
76
4 072
2 02)
49 6
2 021
I 933
88
44
493
242
1809
937
883
267
55
23
24
8
4 034
595
255
340
I 474
109
303
I 012
709
127
575
10
652
664
267
165
232
610
907
842
3 124
821
5)8
99
4 715
645
4 629
3 168
2 544
2 604
2 798
1060
22 9
504
178
2 777
337
174
114
3 258
29 1
246
I SO
6 034
46
133
I 276
326
401
$7 405
709
$14 759
879
$22 150
485
533 723
256$
7 1.2
2 547
I 967
I 694
I 584
I 400
481
IS 8.
204
151
3601
7 479
688
2 415
7348
27
S I
231
S I
14
II
234*
600
276
324
900
94
22?
58.4
3”
I 901
363
162
78
117
$6 897
304
$15 121
364
321 953
209
540 815
CENSUS TRACTS
-------
T able P-I I Income and Poverty Status in 1979: 1980
7010 a i a, 4s i 04 10 10 c? . 7 a d.4n. .oog 04 Ioo.s. .. A od 8
Squantum Houghs_Neck Point Shirley
ensus Tracts
Tiact Ir aci
w. 4174 eos
1 (07*8 118 3979
,, , 1 us a 741
121 400 270
S )XX) 1 a 5 7 .4 99 7060) 7e
p300 ‘a $9999 67 650 9 32
10000 ‘a 5)1.999 136 479 56 370
1 3.000 ‘a $19999 — ___. 132 239 50 289
— 121 439 es 24 7
25.000 Ia $34999_ .. .._ _ _ — —. — — — 16$ 497 312 50 95
15.000 ‘a $49999 lOS 131 98 253 165
S O O00acwac. 66343 54 47 57
— 5)8 9 $13 934 515 985
$72 474 524 058 516 665 519 233
- 53$ $33 5 2 3 2 134 870
$25 190 524 542 520 238 $19 515
528 979 $25 618 520 sn 997
2)4 I 24$ 871
_ _ _ $12 294 $15 269 56 83) $13 4 )4
________________________ $14 8)8 sii 760 510 070 515 477
*79 8 01 2 480 994
_ _ _• I -I $24 943 $19 432 519 813
526 526 943 $19 - 523 225
. s4 L_L1& IS yaa — 412 098 31$ 1 011 952
— $7 79$ $12 143 54 93) $10 574
99 61) $14 764 54 6)6 sio isa
* — 58 183 5$ 0 1 $3 571
1C0808 flfl IN 1979
,,e 1 ass 352 I 74 !
10 501 282 2 108 I S03
__ szs 115 523 074 $18 337 $19 571
4*5aO SIQI , ,PVCOI,. 236 7)0 3)7 I 248 33$
__. 54 757 54877 54091
10 6 toe
$7 $52 $4 770 52 4)7 52 131
18*18 FAMILY 118(07*8 IN 1979 57 FAMLY TYPS
$26 $43 $19 580 533 335
W 8 m ,ia ,d l5 ,u — $26 354 524 532 5)1 770 520 78S
1064i* dldieO 4Ir 1l ___._ $74 735 $28 577 230 525 0)0
U1i64 ________.__.__. $28 lit 52$ 282 in $24 477
acj10r I 5 qs’ $30 098 526 254 52 752 523 484
d ea a IS 9I % 525 324 529 675 804 523 345
114 610 $13 377 516 58$
I8 e $10 27) 510 548 13 607
l$. __ 5)9 497 $18 827 517 970 $21 55)
£ 81(0801 LIVnS 80 1978
472 403 501 2 410
I 1979 _______ 528 an 638 1 120
‘ ai10d ac l8’ ,as 336 745 330 I 308 460
_____ 112 1)8 84 614 788
63423 ‘3 3 ”
10* 4druudac lI9es -- _ 63 207 43
. 6 ‘aa 20 980 76 725 26
110 042 173 212
I
Lj___J_______ .._,.____..__. 3 ) 1077 957
110 057 120 555 115
64 I £ -- 448 S18 3 01* 4 257
II a ______. Ui 74) 712 2 71! 933
— 665 151 7)2 2 933
b 5IsI7ys ’ a 52) y 2 18? 743
‘a 59 sa I 551 911 1 749 5 080 2 703
449 50) 6 )5 I 769 45)
320 9)4 456 1 716 455
(0801801878 SUflW POV58TY 15718.
4 158$ 25 394 it
Pn10 6.64. 73 3.5 $
.a 10*Na 1979 I c 708 30 186 40
*4 . 4 d 0 IS viaco __ 37 976 25
io64sbs*md e 28 024 75 277
— 1979 9 5) 8 13.3 20
80*4 S II 25 378 16 271 39
80*4 . 80 d ’a. 6 12 547 76 102 S
‘i 63 ‘ — .d s 050 — 28
Ld IL.L Sac • ___ 4
— ———_——————— $5 9$) 161 154
‘ ac10 8.4. _ 200 5.6 15.5 16 4
20782 7
P.. Sac • p..10p I J* _ . _ __ J -- 232 197 124 1 442
9a 10 800 I I 10.0
dac I C 56 657 43 125
R .6.Ndd .46ac ,wd . ISw . 84624 43 7 77 125
5*4.4 d t S ‘a I 1 ye 62 66$ 36 1)3
I ‘a 59 ‘25 343 4$ 608 777
37 )77 15 lOS 76
65 .1 a. .r 29 58 7 87 46
ICONS 80 9979 sftOW SPIORIO POV83TY IIVR
— 4 _ p1a109 U I
8.4. 75 acrC10 04 pOac1 4.4 6 6 4 I 5’ 65
5.4. 12$ 04 4.4 733 5) 20.7 13.0
$e4. I SO ‘ a.cra04 p. . .?, I 770 7)9 26.7 783
5*64. 200 p.? 04 Pac . ?V 4.04 25.3 76 9 1 25.6
EP4SUS TRACTS
-------
Table H-i. Occupancy, Utilization, and Finandol Characteristics of Housing Units: 1980
C.nsus Tracts
T.I ‘ 5 q i— — ——
V . * siod -
n.u-IOUNO HOUSING UNITS
T. by 8 .. S ib 014g1 .6 NisiMM .
if — I._
.,.. .6si. hkisi. sid M1q4 -* --
y — N
F. 0 1 4 v -
v it u
M .ö. — as644 -
F. r
Va is is it ,. 2
M. . isi usD4
‘5 11,64 . U’S o Y
D4 9. o mld
0* . . 4 -
8o .ds d
LaóMg C 1.I. Fb Wg fir b s. Us.
0_,_ us .id —
F. — W
Vwf .r .itorfcii 1eu I*—- --
1 .. .
2 p .’
3
4 p i ’5
Sp.
6 p ., -
7 psnasi -
S .
‘ 55*.. — — 5 —-------—-—
‘55*.. GIis W*Sd - -___—
‘55*.. 9. .45—---——
P .S.. Pir 8...
1.00 . I-
1.01 si
1.54. r-
VAU
— — — —
1 .5 I I , . $10.
510. tu$14.9 99 _ ..___. —... — ——----———————— — ——-
515.000 ?.
$20 000 $24.999. ——..——-—---— ----—
$30. ,o
535.000 to
140.000 to 149.999
550.000 ii $59999
560.000 ,o $79.999
580 ‘o 599.999
5100.000 so $l4v.9q9____ .. _______—--————--
$ 150,000 15 199 .9 99 —
1200.000 is
co ii*a ion
::::: ‘ J
‘bo.*. “0*. Aa64i P isl . . 4 çus *.uf.d ‘ I
(1. i.is. if $99 5is. — S o ,dsD. F. JJ _ ..L... _ if I ris• — ippásai A . 4 SI
IP. 5MM
043 715
5 755
037 930
527 456
53.2
507 154
42 713
335
4 146
3 954
463504
403609
42 577
760
6 191
15 580
47 270
4 555
3 066
$62000
23 474
10 261
$494
4 804
2 67!
II 759
3273
16 213
3 146
10 573
1 0 06
Squantum
4474
10%
S
1 094
905
53.9
902
9
174
474
2
12
$5750
2
$215
5
3
4
2
Houghs_Neck Point
4475
$ 521
52
3 415
2 002
59.5
4989
7
10
I 364
1338
6
9
S
412
I’
40
e o
47
14
$158
to
I I
28
2
30
I
47
031930
1081
4
341S
5
24790
50279
122116
470 323
205 310
196 057
124431
144 648
5.2
5.3
6.4
4.0
15
80
116
210
362
192
112
5.5
5.8
6.0.
3.6
70
451
78 9
869
736
366
183
5.0
5.0
5.7
3.9
260644
296 380
459 572
131754
14459
35194
15670
7960
2.29
2.94
1.19
1 8 9I
231
330
113
155
404
48
17
II
2.43
2.62
1.50
3343
829
975
515
444
293
169
96
39
2.37
2.64
2.05
999660
964073
1079
1 044
29
6201
4
4 51900
4825
2943
5561
II 375
45227
23052
27040
10 .407
70220
96989
44431
32641
8461
8 31
2
3
42
28
32
56
74
217
499
146
34
19
4
1S
26
33
90
181
224
293
282
414
185
80
9
3
—
4184
I
—
556000
549800
556400
173
$233
1 U2
48
834
A ,iis is6 .. tokiso. .4 AM.4
A . 4 tod ‘ 5D4
Yiscy SSstvs
766
44 4
7 90
966
976
4
4
9
$21
62
300
35
27
$211
y __ . t — II
*.. — — . .
M,*..
‘ 55*.. — 15
P .,.. U I
— —
534
24
13
262
3.47
404
380
99
145
5.0
5.1
6.0
4.3
3 363
3 202
149
42
1150
$409
CENSUS TRACTS
-------
Toble 11-7. StruClUral . Equipment, and Household characteristics of Housing Units: 1980
Da s u i N tu . . is i.s o4 1 1 ‘ i S’9 of 59 *dI. ias 84ro t.oo br d.84nons . 1 ,en, . ii . oç soörn A and 81
Census Trocts
SELECTED OCTERISIICS
Con lsI kflc*an. f .t4hli
I can e* baibnoom pkjo I batMo)
Cdss%tlffi
Søaic. of tan. ubbc osoieo ai pm .1a cairçsvy
— 4 ._. —
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
I. d.. di’C 4
2
3 .d 4
5ea9
I0 . .49
YEAR STRUCTURE IUILT
1979
1975 1978
I ., , . —
19601. 1969
19501.1959 —--——
1940 1.1949. —
1939ai .W
HEATING £QUIPMBIT
an baO W
Canard IOa-
Oitan dscIr ,o
C TED
ak roa ar b. .o -_- --- - -
Ms IrI rbboo —--- ----- -
0vi.an
1 tS baflisals — h baiWol
2 or awl coarcOl I IOwl
— . —
——
I aw.cbas b ao Ibal —-
NOU H(AITNG Rift
99’
laillud. IU or I?
Y000fl AYAIL&W
3 an —,
YEAS HOUSEMOIDRE MOVED O UNIT
0asan —
I979IoMarc6lOal -
1975
19 40o.. -
8959 an
i nd —
8979.. MairA ‘°‘
1975 oo 8928
1970w 8974
1949 an
OURACTUIS11CS 0$ ROUSING W4ITS wins
HOUSDIOLDER 01 SPOUSE S YEARS AND OVER
O.ooi — alai
L arq coiiVhf S pbr for eocbw.s ais _
—
Nsi aluofanw
INCOME IN 1979 $ELOW POVERTY LEVEL
bad - .
101 or awl 9M P
t_ —S — far uó w os
101 or awe ponaw oar VOCal
8.ai_ — O
Parcear bib.’ 50wlV floal
Cs. pbs far endiane Moo. ....
101 or awe pen ar aara
bib , 8 ranuare — far .ocbaw ai .
808 an awe iwe par mar.
liar SMSA
03$ 139
I 025 559
162 715
148 051
442 764
67 455
I 023 701
876 722
490029
154 785
42 392
72 283
22 890
63 535
2 225
10 613
39 127
72590
140 272
145 863
103 948
525 666
620 662
263 096
14 869
Al $08
76 668
$41
“ .44 .
IS 077
37 656
521 141
848 343
140 865
828 836
443 519
265 302
18 969
16 419
324 545
7239
80 493
soom
11095
586
899209
411 694
284 533
95 224
527 141
39462
103 617
50 477
132 086
871 499
463 519
145 297
168 813
68 655
50 754
223 421
117 744
2 944
87 425
6 250
22109
42
.28 606
704
303
IS
77 624
16.1
75 018
4 535
2 578
251
SquantUm
4874
1093
1093
277
147
4’,
I 093
I 073
917
49
61
59
7
16
54
279
313
£31
103
314
4 $
35
1091
89
‘Cs
127
273
138
‘ Is
IC ?
4
9
430
41
‘Is
7
36
503
430
124
63
153
135
49
38$
l ’s
31
83
28
43
316
280
29
1
23
2.5
23
11
5.9
II
Houghs Neck
1 ,5 ( 1
4878
3 445
3 429
454
203
I 085
107
3 465
3 439
2 069
876
726
190
86
288
18
II
315
375
432
508
I 176
I 981
946
23
267
245
3
3 363
54
51
2 002
463
446
174
1 341
545
8
24
I 296
8
339
I 649
71
849
I 353
$45
317
2 002
121
249
296
478
858
1345
3.45
460
321
235
97.
528
506
6
Point Shirley
1 852
I 877
191
138
529
70
1 * 37
852
626
522
400
35
69
6
I ?
1299
379
28
33
10
1772
348
919
366
126
7 * 6
6$
88
120
165
245
305
2 7
18
6
140
7.0
140
29.2
39.
47
‘4
5.1
64
4
137
13.9
2$
CENSUS TRACTS
-------
Table H-8. Financial Characteristics of Housing Units: 1980
(Dorm . ortottotem baud aus i ii . bioro xtau. lor oriaiuq of p o&• i totro i1aut. r’or d..A. of rar,m to, opp, A..o A tod 8(
Squantum Hoiigh Neck Point Shirley
Census Tracts
m. SMSA 4174 805
! su8sd __ - _ . or I huaud 1 aUpi 409 071 1 $22
MORTGAGE STATUS AND SELECTED MONThLY OWN8$
COSTS
W ith om ort9 oq. 284 942 526 I 113 34
105 — — —
$100 to $199 I 965 — 6
$200 to $299 21 818 5 6
0.3001 *0.399 —- 68665 17
?0 $599 120 743 237- 145
oro , — 71 I 102 82 24
0.469 $4
pm 124 129 305 7 142
LiuTAu$1 0 0 959 — —
$100 to $199 21 522 20 26
S2 0 0orn.c ra 101 648 285 00 16
— $262 $272 $238
HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1979 IT SELECTED MONT1 T
OWNER COSTS AS PERCENTAGE OF INCOME
Li. s thu 0.10.000 — 50 162 9 461 74
I.u thu IS puiteri 191 — — —
15 to 24 p.mot ..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ I 869 —
25te29pu i it...... 30 19 — —
30 por ,ot or ouu 42 621 97 69
Mo i(anV o tud. _ .. ... _ .. 2462 — 1
50+ 50+ . 50+
$I0. O00to$ 19.999 _ — 82 100 196 3 3 153
tail ,% IS porceiw * 5 376 — 2 12
IS to 24 — 23 084 67 40
25 to 29 peic e iw 14 59 19
30 — 33 751) 70 82
Notcoopupid —-— “-
— 27.5 27.6 . 31.1
$2O. or torn 276 _ . 978 256
( its th o m IS pettottt — — 122 161 5 18 55
15 1 .24peicei t l 110 117 261 65
25to29p.rceot 23712 30 I 3%
30 porciot or now 20 812 47
No t t ut od — 145
16.2 16.9 . 13.7
440 151 I 349
GROSS RENT
[ ito thu $80 23 047 — 249 —
1801.0.99 _ __ 12 • I — 59 —
0.10 Dm $149 — __ 24 714 6 1 6
$150 to $199 42 724 14 175 120
12001.0.249 70089 47 196 178
$250 I. $299 — — — 82 343 28 I 285
$3 00to $349 76 488 40 156 159
03501.1399 _ —_ 48853 17 7% 122
$l00o rn.o,e — ____ 69 362 16 28
pm 9 13 II 21
__ ——- -- — -—- - $282 $265 $194 $282
04wt . 4ttwto. dot t.deiotIodlid 33 7 30 42
rut $345 $217 $252 $3435
HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1979 IT GROSS RENT AS
PERCENTAGE OF INCOME
(its th u s $10000 135 533 30 823 310
liii thus IS p100auW 4 471 — 46 —
IS ,. l9 p o r ce.4...... 9043 — —
2Oto24por ceiut 18103 — 11
25 to 29 parcmnt 14 616 — 15
301.34 p a rc mof 13 222 $ 6 38
35p. t omt o r m s o r. 116 sos 22 224
Not couputid 12 574 — 22
461 50+ 28. 50-4-
$I0.000 , o$I9.999 — - 153 744 39 332 421
too thus IS parcum — 13 341 12 13
1St. 19 PIVCI t 26 570 27 11
20 to 24 porciot 33 225 26 Ii 118
25 to 29 corcot i_.. ...... 30 454 — 93
30 to 34 p ercent 19 363 13 I 59
35 parties or 22 __ 7 I 29
Not toncotod _ — — 3 103 244
Methus 24.6 20.1 23.7
520 . 0 0 0or no ,, — Ill 874 62 94 349
(too thom IS percent 52 688 21 106
5 to p,. ent 37 223 17 2 52
20 to 24 patriot 16996 —
25 to 29 parrotst 5 - H
30 to 34 percent 1 769 — — —
35 percent or nor. —_ 488 — — —
Not computed 2 971 4
156 16.6 16.4
CENSUS TRACTS
-------
12.2 Traffic and
Access
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
12.2.1
12.2 TRAFFIC AND ACCESS
Traffic and Transportation Baseline
12.2.1.1
12.2.1.2
12.2.1.3
12.2.1.4
Summary
Nut Island
Long Island
Deer Island
12.2.2
Generic Overview
12.2.2.1
Alternative Transportation Modes for
Construction Materials and Workers
12.2.3
Construction Traffic Impacts By Site
12.2.3.1
12.2.3.2
12.2.3.3
Deer Island Construction Traffic Impacts
Long Island Construction Traffic Impacts
Nut Island Construction Traffic Impacts
12.2.4
Operations Traffic Impacts
-------
BOSTON HARBOR WASTEW TER FACILITIES SITING STUDIES
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION BASELINE
1.0 Summary
This report describes the existing patterns of access for the three
major alternative s tes under ccnsideration for treatment of wastewa-
ter from the Boston area. Sites at Deer Island, Long Island and Nut
Island are considered. Present traffic volumes are compared to
roadway capacity as determined from reference sources. Each of the
roadways is briefly described and apparent design defects noted.
The analysis indicates that most of the roadways providing access to
the sites carry traffic volumes which are presently less than their
theoretical capacities. Nonetheless, ursioralized intersections and
existing roadway limitations including sharp curves, steep grades, and
pocr sight distances limit the amount of traffic which can safely be
carried through the neighborhoods studied.
Information contained in this report will be used as the basis for
projecticns of future conditions and comparison of the transportation
impacts of wastewater treatment facility siting options for Boston
Harbor.
2.0 Nut Island
Nut Island is located on the northern tip of the Houghs Neck peninsula
in the City of Quincy. In 1893, the original Island was enlarged and
connected to Great Hill on Houghs Neck to accommodate an MDC sewage
pumping station and outfall.
Access to the Nut Island facility is via Sea Street from Route 3A,
also known as the Southern Artery. The Sea Street - Southern Artery
intersection can be reached via Route 3A (Hancock Street) or over
local Quincy streets (see Figure 1).
1
-------
/
‘. lge ’ -
/ çir
Pane
4 I
7,. ,. -S MERRYMO IJN
-- 1 tp e
.2 ;iw g i I U
! Oi p i
‘1 41 PKjI I
i iI) THE /
t
.1 1 -
•‘\ , “ ‘ e
r
• 44rr 2W1 ‘or
• CL rvIri9
•S e ep I ariO
‘MuL+iPIe,I i ’n4me r
U€’E ’ J £ 2L*”t2
S 4 I
S 4 Vea,ie Rocks K
N I &é .a S . Seal Rock
Tidal Flat • —
: “
S . 5 ’ I ’ I . •lo •
r.i 19
lroa il M,xl,ss .4; .
S-h / i . . . 5 .
Broad Meadows r\
‘SS :g
axon — I d.
Field • • I ,
4 ; 4 4 . . I . • . 1. . -•“ , b’ \ (; rniaJi
— ...... a — •..• ‘ A • 11)1 . t ida Flat ‘ . ..
is * ••• ‘ . L - ...— “t (4 .s i
I- T , ,e I 11’ •• I . e ; :ver Flu I’
+
North
Q 1! INC Y
BAY r
Hangman
Island
0 100 ‘ 2LXXI 3cU’
West lea 1
Q U I N C Y
>0
m
—>
c 2 j
z0
c J
a.
>
C,
C,
CD
in
in
0
C
ID
°C)
m
0
2
C)
W a K
f1d . I H
\
A .
II
‘5
.
u\ ‘i
•Ii i briF.
Quincy
+ oS uI(a (
B A Y
C,
rn
C
C D
0
“4€,
[ )‘sposal
Qui
Great 1 y 11
I;rf ’a i liii
S. ii
vi i w
s—S———-, , i 1
/ Hou i N i
M T
I I
i i ( .• ’ , i. i. I , .4 j f
.t & ii 4 -
S , 4 DARIj OW iS
1
rb—
Tidal
Rock Island
ull P
rid
hIs
Maruet
TJ ach
Rock lslar
Head
/
A /
Wessat
Cove
.4’
/
/
/
-------
Sea Street is a four lane roadway. An eastbound left turn lane has
been adoed at Quincy Shore Drive. Sea Street continues as a four lane
roadway through the Adams Shore area to Houghs Neck. t Houghs Neck
it reduces to a 24 foot, two lane roadway.
All traffic to and from Nut Island must use Sea Street. At its
westerly end, Sea Street is a high volume, high capacity highway. One
measure of the volume of traffic on a roadway is expressed as average
daily traffic (ADT). This refers to the average number of vehicles
using the road during a 24-hour period. It is a measure of traffic
volume by which all roadway sections can be uniformly described. A
volume measure derived from ADT, Design Hour Volume (DHV), refers to
the number of vehicles using the whole road during the hour when
traffic volume is at peak conditions, commonly called “rush hour”.
The westerly end of Sea Street had a 1983 ADT of 36,850 vehicles and a
two-way DHV of 2950 vehicles per hour. East of the Quincy Shore
intersection, the Sea Street 1983 ADT was 20,400 vehicles. At the
Rockland Street—Winthrop Street intersection with Sea Street the 1983
ADT was 7,350 vehicles.
The following table presents the 1983 ADT volumes and peak hour
volumes (Design Hour Volumes) for locations at which the Massachusetts
Department of Public Works (MDPW) has traffic count records.
3
-------
TABLE I
TRAFFIC COUNT RECORDS IN THE VICINITY OF NUT ISLAND*
Two_Way* One-Way One-Way
Location Lanes ADT DHV DHV Capacity*
Quincy Shore Drive 4 24,150 1,950 1,365 2,800
Sea St., west of 4 34,300 2,750 1,925 2,800
Quincy Shore Drive
Sea St., east of 4 20,400 1,650 1,115 2,800
Quincy Shore Drive
Sea St., east of 2 7,350 600 _** ***1,600
Rockland St. —
Winthrop St.
Southern Artery 4 32,700 2,600 1,820 2,800
south at Sea St.
Sea St. at Southern 4+ 36,850 2,950 2,065 2,800
Artery
* Source: Highway Capacity Manual , 1965.
** Use Two-Way DHV figure for comparison
***Two_Way Capacity
The capacity and Level of Service for the major roadways in the study
area was determined from capacity tables in the Highway Capacity Manu-
al (Highway Research Board, Special Report #87, Washington, D.C.,
1965). It has been established that a AD” Level of Service provides
acceptable operating conditions for an existing roadway facility. Un-
der this classification level traffic is considered to experience some
slight delays and speed reductions. The Highway Capacity Manual indi-
cates that a four lane roadway at a °D” Level of Service can acconimo-
date 2800 vehicles per hour on two lanes in one direction. Assuming
that 70% of the design hour volume (DHV) occurs in the direction of
peak flow, the current one-way peak hour flow on Sea Street west of
Quincy Shore Drive for example, would be 1,925 vehicles (70% of
2,750). Since two lanes in one direction can accomodate 2800 vehi-
cles, the existing traffic can be accomodated on the existing 4-lane
roadway system.
4
-------
According to the Highway Capacity t anual , the two lane, two—way por-
tion of Sea Street has a capacity of 1600 vehicles for both directions
of travel. The existing DHV through this section of the access route
is 600 vehicles per hour. This indicates there is more than suffi-
cient capacity on Sea Street for existing traffic. The above table
indicates that all of the major local access roads have excess peak
hour cepacity to accommodate present traffic flows.
From Sea Street, Sea Avenue provides access to Nut Island over Great
Hill. The Avenue ascends and descends the hill at a steep grade. Ad-
jacent land is densely developed for residential use, cars are parked
on the street, and the pavement width is 22 feet.
The capacity of Sea Avenue is difficult to measure because of its
sharp curve and steep grade. It is a street designed primarily to
serve the abutting residences. Because of its sharp curve and steep
grade, Sea Avenue should be considered unsafe for large traffic vol-
umes and especially heavy trucks. Photographs of these roads follow.
3.0 Long Island
Long Island is located in Boston Harbor and is connected to Moon Is-
land and Quincy by the Long Island Bridge. Vehicular access is avail-
able only by traveling through Quincy to the Squantum area and Moon
Island. Moon Island is connected to Squantum by a narrow causeway.
Squanturn is a peninsula connected to North Quincy area by a causeway
across a large marsh. The causeway, East Squantum Street, intersects
with Quincy Shore Drive. Both Quincy Shore Drive and East Squantum
Street connect with Route 3A, (Hancock Street) in the City of Quincy.
The major access routes to Long Island are Hancock Street and Quincy
Shore Drive from the north, or Hancock Street and East Squantum Street
from the south and west. Quincy Shore Drive is a four lane MDC Park-
way prohibited to trucks. East Squantuni Street, between Hancock
Street and Quincy Shore Drive, is a heavily used, narrow roadway
5
-------
Intersection of Sea Street, Sea Avenue and Island Avenue. Large open paved area promotes
unsafe traffic operations,
View north along Island Avenue showing former Great Hill Elementary School, recently
demolished.
-------
View of south side of Sea Avenue. Note parked cars, curve and grade of street.
View of Island Avenue intersection with Sea Streei.
iI
-------
view ot norm end ot Island Avenue trom entrance of Nut Island plant.
. %I J
View of the north side of Sea Avenue. Note the steep hill and resulting poor site distance.
-------
View of Nut Island treatment plant.
I’l
l’
a
View of entrance to Nut Island, Quincy Bay and Boston skyline.
-------
through the densely developed North Quincy residential area. East
Squantum Street leads directly to Dorchester Avenue which follows the
northerly side of the Squantum Peninsula and directly to the Moor Is-
land Causeway and Long Island Bridge (see Figure 2).
Because of the restriction on truck traffic on Quincy Shore Drive, the
only truck route to Long Island is East Squanturn Street. The inter-
sections of East Squantum Street with Hancock Street and Quincy Shore
Drive are both signalized. Additionally, East Squanturn Street has two
intersections along its 1 mile length with flashing signals and pe-
destrian actuated crossing lights. The width of East Squantum Street
varies but is generally 2 lanes. Due to illegal parking near two in-
tersections, there is not always a full lane available in each direc-
tion. There are two very sharp curves in that segment of road between
Hancock Street and Quincy Shore Drive.
The causeway segment of East Squantum Street is entirely different in
character from the section discussed above. Due to the lack of devel-
opment on the causeway, this section of East Squantum Street is free
flowing with one lane in each direction.
East Squantum Street changes to Dorchester Street in Squantum. Dor-
chester Street fronts on Dorchester Bay and has residential develop-
ment on only the southeast side of the Street. Dorchester Street
curves very sharply around a steep grade near Squaw Rock. The sharp
turn, narrow street width and steep grade make the area particularly
hazardous.
Table II presents Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and Design Hour Volume
(DHV) figures derived from Massachusetts Department of Public Works
(MDPW) traffic count records updated to 1983. Review of the hourly
count records revealed that the DHV is approximately 8 percent of the
ADT. This relationship was utilized to develop the DHV figures shown.
in
-------
ia’ ’in rumping
\\ fpx P Sharp
1 — ’ curve
r’
Thimble
/ Island
r — —
—OId A,r ’abe
/ Corn erc aj I
Nic
t • I7 r - 44
7i- ,L f /
\\ —‘IrrrnroYe .i
\\ ‘\
‘t’t I is flu
‘ “ ‘ ‘‘I ’ \ // Mud
i ( •‘
\ jI Jordan” i a/ [ ç
1/\ \\\\ ‘ •: Wareh u e
\\ \! J’(’ LI I/]
t r q \ II uu ,r
e
NT LPCHANG 519na lowers S
-
/
—j c1ude pre en
Hospital city r FF N
Moon
>0
m 1
—U)>
zo
.cp_
‘S
I I
m
C)
m
0
-Ti
0
C
m
N)
• _ /)ChapeI
hocks
1 FL
Access Control Gate
(Public Access Restricted)
:
I
0
cr
(D
0)
0
>
2
a
z
0
-1
I
0
C
z
C)
1:
xis
fraf
,- . Ii
Signal
Q U IN ( Y
Nar vw
OtiI 1OC I acc65
or’r e’ on one
Ide only.
North
2 ’
irl9 lrUCJ(
IC
3fltjaI
rc ia I
L$e ,.
0 U
Shore 17r,ve
CKS ALl OWEO)
B A Y
7—
Mixer
Quincv
(i40 fl L
‘ ir1t’
-------
TABLE II
UPDATED TRAFFIC VOLUME ESTIMATES IN LONG ISLAND VICINITY*
1983 Two-Way One-Way One-Way
Location Lanes ADT DHV* DHV Capacity *
Quincy Shore Drive 4 24,350 1,950 1,365 2,800(1 Way)
west of East
Squantum St.
Quincy Shore Dr. 4 25,300 2,000 1,400 2,800(1 Way)
east of East
Squantuni St.
E. Squantum St. 2 10,450 850 ** 1,600(2 Way)
north of
Quincy Shore Dr.
E. Squantum St. 2 5,200 400 1,600(2 Way)
south of
Quincy Shore Dr.
E. Squantum St. north 2 8,300 650 _** 1,600(2 Way)
of Hancock St.
Hancock St. (3A) east 4 21,650 1,750 1,225 2,800(1 Way)
of E. Squantum St.
* Source: Massachusetts Department of Public Works;and Highway Capacity Manual,1965 .
** Use Two-Way DFiV Figures for Comparison
With a two lane, two-way capacity of 1600 vehicles for both direc-
tions, it can be seen that the two lane facilities can acconinodate
more traffic. Assuming a 70%f30% directional split of existing
traffic on the 4 lane roadways, the capacity volume of 2800 vehicles
for one direction of a four lane facility is more than adequate for
the existing demands. Photographs of the local access roads follow.
4.0 Deer Island
Deer Island is located at southern tip of the Point Shirley. Deer
Island ceased to be an actual island when Shirley Gut was ffl ed in
1936, connecting Deer Island with Point Shirley and the Town of
Winthrop. Although the only land access is through the Town of
12
-------
I
View of the sharp curve where Dorchester Street ends and the roadway to the Moon Island
causeway begins. This area represents a hazardous area, particularly for heavy trucks.
View of the Gatehouse and access control point to Moon Island and Long Island.
-------
Winthrop, Deer Island is within the corporate limits of the City of
Boston.
Access to Winthrop is available by only two routes. The major access
route is via Saratoga Street in East Boston. This becomes Main Street
in Winthrop at the Bridge crossing Belle Isle Inlet. The other route
is through Revere via Winthrop Shore Drive. Both roadways are part of
Route 145 (see Figure 3).
The Town of Winthrop has designated a truck route through the Town
providing a relatively direct route to Deer Island. Both the truck
route and Route 145 are shown in Figure 3. The truck route utilizes a
segment of Veterans Parkway. This route has minimal impact on the
cornunity. It is also accessible from Revere Beach Parkway via
Winthrop Avenue and a short section of Winthrop Parkway where truck
traffic is not prohibited.
Traffic counts were taken in Winthrop to develop a baseline traffic
condition for use in evaluating impacts. Twelve (12) hour turning
movement and classification counts were taken on June 13 nd 14, 1984
at the Shirley Street and Veterans Road intersections with Washington
Street. In addition, mechanical recorder counts were taken between
June 11 and June 15, 1984 on Shirley Street south of Revere Street and
on Shirley Street between Pontos Street and Petrel Street. The
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for 1984 and the peak hour (Design Hour)
volumes developed from the counts are as follows:
TABLE III
UPDATED TRAFFIC ESTIMATES IN VICINITY OF DEER ISLAND
2-Way
Location 1984 ADT % Trucks 1984 DHV % Trucks
Washington St. 7,700 5% 625 3%
Veterans Rd. 2,700 6% 225 3%
Shirley St. (south of Washington St.) 6,700 6% 525 7%
Shirley St. (north of Washington St.) 1,900 5% 150 7%
Shirley St. (between Revere & Cross Sts.) 4,200 6% 350 3%
Shirley St. (between Pontos & Petrel Sts.) 4,700 5% 375 3%
14
-------
‘xT :
— ; 1ss•. -
.. . -,
J. . .•.•Acc Vi&j
;_. -i•....
,j%% .•:•i O6t fl
:1 - — • •j /
-I, * s —, -
‘V — - ‘
7 ‘— O
- -f -
Qr er-
H 1 hts - “ •
e
1?
/
‘I
/
T I-
/
I .
I
NTH
/
/
LOGAN
N TJONAL AIRPORT
Governors(
T idal
P in
- r
1
Tip1 5t .
/
I ever 7
>,
0
*
**
**
*
North
1000’
a0 ’
HR 0
-Veterans
3Gco,
4-
4 s .
V m1mo = ei
-: L7i Y Gof
-. The Five Sisters
. __
i ii siirIeySt
-Court-- Winthrop
Park
Prison Control Gate
/
one’ b 1 y
P
BOSTON HARBOR
FACILITIES SITING
SDEIS
LEGEND
FIGURE 3
MAP OF WINTHROP
S
PPTON
c’1ea a
Route 145
— Designated Access Route
Existing Truck Route to Deer Island
C. E,Maguire, Inc.
-------
The two way capacity of these two lane urban streets is approximately
1600 vehicles per hour total for both directions. While the roads
have excess capacity, it is usually the intersections that limits the
amount of traffic that can use them.
At these unsignalized intersections, the left turn out of northbound
Shirley Street into westbound Washington Street and the left turn out
of Veterans Road into eastbound Washington Street are heavy. Both
appear to be used to a level where additional traffic cannot be
accomodated efficiertly. Any significant increase in these movements
will require that the intersections be signalized.
Analysis of these intersections, assuming traffic signal control
revealed that an additional 700 vehicles can be absorbed.
A visual inspection of the truck route through Winthrop revealed
several deficiencies. The route is poorly marked and therefore is
difficult to follow. Part of the route is directed through residen-
tial areas of Winthrop over streets that are narrow and not conducive
to heavy trucking. However, there appears to be no better overland
alternatives available. Photographs of these conditions on local roads
follow.
16
-------
View northwest along causeway that connects Winthrop with Deer Island.
View along Shirley Street in Point Shirley.
-------
View north along Shirley Street in Point Shirley.
View north along Shirley Street in Point Shirley.
-------
12.2.2 Overview
12.2.2.1 Alternative Transportation !lodes for Construction Naterials
and Workers
The incidence of potential traffic impacts along routes leading to
the proposed wastewater treatment plant sites is based on the volume and
duration of construction truck, bus and/or auto traffic compared to
existing roadway capacity, volume and surrounding uses. Another
potential traffic impact may result in the affected neighborhoods closest
to the work sites as all are predominantly residential areas with narrow
streets, closely abutting homes, and roadways not designed to accommodate
heavy trucking. Land uses further from the proposed treatment plant
sites along the remainder of the access routes are mixed commercial and
residential, and these roadway segments can better accommodate con-
struction traffic. Current traffic on these routes is of a low volume,
predominantly automobile, and well below the capacities which the local
roads can adequately carry. The description of the areas, including
their existing land use, traffic patterns, and access is contained in the
first part of this section.
Without mitigation, the projected levels of construction truck and
worker auto traffic during four to nine years of construction (at the
respective sites) would have major adverse impacts on area residents as
well as upon the usage, access and condition of local roads. Because of
the unacceptable level of impacts associated with such truck and auto
use, alternate methods to transport workers and materials during the
construction period will be implemented to the maximum extent feasible.
Table 12.2-1, below, shows the projected volumes and duration of
trucking and auto traffic during construction of a consolidated secondary
treatment facility (the largest size alternative proposed) if delivery of
all materials relied solely on trucks and workers commuted by auto. This
table represents the maximum truck volumes which could be expected
12.2.2-1
-------
TABLE 12.2-1
ESTIMATED “ALL-TRUCKING” AND AUTO TRANSPORT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A 500 MGD SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT 1
Estimated Estimated
Construction Activity No. of Trucks/Autos Duration
and Sequence per day of Activity
Construction Excavation
Equipment Delivery 20 (Peak) 5 days
Excavation 490 (Peak) 2 yrs.
.2
Concrete ilix 20 (Avg.) 5 yrs.
75 (Peak) 1 yr.
Reinforcing Steel 1 (Avg.) S yrs.
Materials for Job 25 (Avg.) 6 yrs.
Personnel Autos/Trucks 3 1,300 (Peak) 6-12 mos.
630 (Avg.) 7 yrs.
Superviso y & Inspection
Personnel 10-20 (Avg.) 7 yrs.
‘Includes construction of inter-island tunnels. These estimates are
averages based on the total volume of a material, and on estimates made
in the MDC Site Options Study (1982).
2 The wide range in the number of trucks is due to showing the average and
peak conditions of concrete pouring. The peak would be experienced for a
limited duration over the course of construction (corresponding to the
work force peak).
3 The peak work force is shown to reflect a possible “worst case” peak
impact occurring for a 6-12 month period (as per Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. MDC
Site Options Study , Vol. II, 1982). The average work force level would
be more typical over the duration of construction. The number of autos
would vary depending upon the degree of pooling done; it can be assumed
that most workers would drive to the job alone.
4 Such activity is of a minimal level and would involve light trucks and
autos.
Source: CE Maguire, Inc.
12.2.2-2.
-------
since it is based on construction of a consolidated 500 MGD primary and
secondary treatment facility at one site.
As can be seen from the traffic volumes shown in this table, peak
traffic could easily exceed 1,000 autos and 500 heavy trucks per day
during construction. Given existing daily traffic volumes in the
affected neighborhoods as low as 2,000 to 7,000 vehicles per day (see
Section 12.2.1), peak construction traffic relying solely on overland
vehicle access would cause significant and unacceptable adverse impacts
on the communities around a site. Such impacts would include wear and
tear of heavy vehicles passing over local roads not designed to
accommodate such traffic, introduction of traffic congestion particularly
during peak commuting times, and major disruption from noise and fumes
experienced by residents and businesses along these access routes. As
shown in the baseline description of existing local roadway conditions
(Section 12.2.1 previously), safety concerns and existing roadway
limitations in the adjacent communities and neighborhoods closest to the
three proposed sites would severely constrain such volumes of con-
struction traffic.
Siting alternatives involving smaller-scale treatment facilities
would require somewhat fewer auto and truck trips to a site. However,
this reduction in total traffic volumes, based on reduced materials and
workforce numbers, would result in shorter duration of construction
activity, but would reduce the projected peak daily traffic volumes only
to a limited degree.
Based upon these projections of peak traffic impacts and the
existing conditions of local roadways closest to the sites, it was
concluded by EPA and the Commonwealth that an all-trucking method of
construction transport should be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.
Noreover, previous comments from residents of the affected communities,
State agencies, and the tIDC indicated that trucking should be minimized
in favor of other available transportation methods.
12.2. 2-3
-------
Similarly, it was found that since individual auto (or light truck)
travel by construction workers would be a further potential disruption to
local conditions, due to the large numbers of workers involved, parti-
cularly during peak work periods, direct commuting by workers to con-
struction sites should be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.
The principal transportation alternatives to direct trucking of
materials and commuting to the site by workers are barging of construc-
tion materials and busing of construction personnel. These are discussed
below.
a. Barging
Barging of construction materials is an available and feasible
method of transport, particularly in the case of a large-scale project
such as the MDC harbor treatment facilities. Barging would involve the
use of tug boats and barges to convey most construction materials from a
barge terminal (or terminals) to a pier facility at the construction
sites. Materials handling equipment, such as cranes and forklifts, would
be employed at the piers to move materials from truck trailers to barges
(and vice versa). A roll-on, roll-off (RO/RO) operation, whereby
trailers are loaded and unloaded directly to the barges, may also be
employed. Whatever the specific materials handling methods employed,
barging (in combination with other techniques for materials storage and
staging as discussed in Section 5.3 of Volume 1) is an effective alter-
native that would pose no significant impact on the communities adjacent
to the proposed sites and could be accommodated at existing waterfront
industrial terminal/pier locations or a new terminal facility, whichever
proves most cost-effective and environmentally acceptable. The specific
impacts of such added facilities at prospective locations will be
addressed during final facility design.
Barging of construction materials is estimated to add between $20
million and $40 million (current dollars) to the cost of the project.
This cost is based on the additional equipment (piers, barges, tugs, and
handling equipment) and labor necessary to conduct full-scale barging
12. 2. 2-4
-------
operations in Boston Harbor at one or more treatment plant sites. Barges
typically can hold 2,000 to 3,000 cubic yards of material compared with
heavy trucks that have a 25 to 30 cubic yard capacity. One barge trip
can, therefore, replace 80 to 120 truck deliveries. A minimum barging
operation would involve one tug boat and two to four barges operating
between one or more construction sites on a daily basis. This level of
barging would add an insignificant number of commercial boat trips to
existing levels of harbor boat traffic, and would pose no impact to
commercial or recreational boating traffic (as per personal communication
with U.S. Coast Guard).
An all-barging solution, with no trucking whatsoever, would be
impractical, however, and not likely to be undertaken by a contractor.
This is due to several factors. Chief among these are accepted con-
struction practices which indicate that trucking of excavation equipment
would be the first major on-site construction activity undertaken.
Delivery of heavy equipment and machinery on-site is, therefore, needed
at the start of a job. Table 12.2-1 indicates a maximum of 20 truckloads
over a one-week time span that would be needed to bring this equipment
on-site. If this equipment were to be barged to the site, all on-site
piers and a central staging/terminal area would have to be obtained and
constructed. Tugs and barges would have to be purchased, and handling
equipment would be required to be in place before the first equipment
deliveries to a site could be made and excavation work begun. This would
delay the start of site work, adding time and costs to the project.
Since the duration and volume of trucking for this initial on-site
activity are relatively modest and manageable (with traffic controls), it
is recommended that trucking be used to carry out this minimal start-up
activity. At the end of this equipment’s use on the job (approximately
one week), it could either be trucked or barged off-site. An additional
factor involves the need for some materials, due to their size,
fragility, or unscheduled delivery requirements, to be delivered by
truck.
Based on such circumstances, a maximum commitment to barging would
still result in minimal truck volumes, ranging from approximately 4 to 8
12.2. 2-5
-------
trucks per day on average, for the duration of construction. Because an
initial commitment to barging would allow a great deal of flexibility in
scheduling of barge trips, any increased peak demand for materials
delivery could be accommodated by barging without need to significantly
alter the minimal additional trucking required.
b. Busing
Transportation of construction workers by bus is the most reasonable
alternative to individual worker auto travel. Another alternative is to
provide ferry service for construction workers, however, the potential
limitations of such service, involving weather and higher costs of opera-
tions, make this transport mode less feasible than busing. Ferry service
will, nonetheless, be considered to the maximum extent feasible.
Under a shuttle busing method, workers would assemble at a large
parking area such as Orient Heights IIBTA Station, Wonderland, or Logan
Airport for Deer Island, and the UHass-Boston Campus, Naval Air Station
site or the Expo Center for Nut Island or Long Island. From there,
workers would be taken by shuttle buses to the work site. Each bus could
hold about 50 workers and departures may be staggered to lessen any
effects on local traffic. The addition of buses on local roads is not
expected to result in significant congestion (see Section 12.2.3).
Busing may require that construction workers be paid for their time
on the buses. This would be in addition to the costs of bus operations
for a four to nine-year period. Buses would either be leased or bought
by the Contractor for the duration of construction. They may be kept on
site or can leave and return as needed. Preliminary cost estimates for
busing of construction workers range from $10 million to $20 million
(current dollars).
A recommendation to bus construction workers is also supported by an
analysis of available parking areas on or near the proposed work sites.
Additionally, discussions were held with area contractors to determine
general construction practices and feasible methods to accomplish such a
12.2.2-6
-------
transport method. In examining the likelihood of construction workers
driving directly to the work site, two issues were examined. One was the
availability of sufficient area on-site to accommodate parking for
construction personnel. Another was the likelihood and effects of
construction workers parking along local residential streets within
walking distance of the work site.
With regard to on-site parking, between 4 acres (average work force
levels) and 9 acres (peak work force levels) would be needed for con-
struction of secondary treatment facilities; primary facilities would
require between 4 and 5 acres. Given the existing site constraints at
all sites, a contractor would not be expected to provide on-site parking
for construction workers. These involve adjacent on-site land uses or
environmentally sensitive areas, particularly under secondary treatment
alternatives, plus the likely premium to be placed on available on-site
open space for necessary storage and laydown area. Under a primary
treatment option on Deer Island or Long Island, available open area may
be found on-site; however, consideration of the impacts of construction
worker traffic on local neighborhoods would make worker commuting
undesirable. At Nut Island, limited area under either primary or
headworks facilities would preclude on-site parking.
Construction worker parking along local streets in Winthrop and
Quincy is also constrained due to the narrowness of these roadways and
their residential character. The anticipated opposition to worker
on-street parking from local residents and public officials also limits
this option.
At Deer Island, Point Shirley streets are between 1/2 and 1 mile
away from the site, a distance not conducive to workers parking in the
neighborhood and walking to the si e. Streets are na and may not
safely accommodate construction worker parking. Attempts to use these
local streets for large scale parking may impede existing and con-
struction truck deliveries, violate local parking regulations, and could
pose access problems for local residents. A security gate at the prison
controls access to the site.
12. 2. 2-7
-------
At Long Island, local street parking in Squantum is over 3 miles
from the site and access to the island is controlled at a security gate
located before the causeway to Moon Island. Construction workers would
not conceivably park in Squantum and walk to the site.
At Houghs Neck street parking on Quincy Great Hill is within walking
distance of the treatment plant site. However, workers parking on the
narrow streets of Houghs Neck would pose access problems for construction
trucks and residents alike. Local parking regulations would also be
expected to limit worker on-street parking.
Limitations to local on-street parking at all sites, therefore,
suggest busing of construction workers is a feasible alternative.
Additionally, if an agreement were reached to pay workers for their bus
travel time, this would be a very strong incentive to use shuttle bus
service in lieu of driving to a site. Other worker concerns, such as
transport and security for craftsmen’s tools could readily be accom-
modated by a contractor on the job. In discussions with area contractors
(personal communications), it was determined that a shuttle bus method
was feasible within the framework of a large-scale construction project
such as this one. Likewise, any concerns and special requirements of
unions and workers that might arise could be addressed. The cost of such
methods would be added to the project costs for construction.
Table 12.2-2 presents an estimated mix of barge, truck and bus
transport that would minimize adverse construction traffic impacts along
access routes to construction sites. These transport figures are
presented for facilities sized at the following treatment levels:
Consolidated secondary treatment - 500 MGD; consolidated primary
treatment - 500 MGD; split primary treatment - 350 14GB (north system),
150 MGD (south system); and headworks. Also note that construction of
headworks facilities assumes no barging , since construction of the
necessary on-site piers to accommodate barges would induce significant
12.2.2—8
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
construction activity and duration at a site, more so than the minimal
construction necessary to build a headworks. It may be necessary,
however, to include barging and piers with headworks facilities if tunnel
conveyance of wastewater flows is chosen. The analysis of traffic
impacts in the SDEIS and the conclusions presented in Section 4.0 of
Volume I assumes a mix of barges, trucks, and buses as presented in this
table.
It is not possible to project total daily vehicle trips as an
absolute figure since some trips are on a daily basis, while others are
weekly or monthly over varying durations of construction activity (based
on the extent of a particular activity and its total material volume).
The traffic analysis is based, therefore, on individual truck volumes
over local roads according to the separate construction stages projected
in this table. For example, for a consolidated 500 MGD secondary plant,
impacts are analyzed separately for a maximum of 20 trucks per day (peak)
for one week’s duration, followed by consideration of the impacts of a
projected eight trucks per day (average) for a period of 5 to 6 years.
Peak truck traffic during this stage of construction would not be
expected to increase greatly, since barging would accommodate peak levels
of materials delivery. Worker transport involves a peak of about 26 to
28 buses carrying workers to and from a site each day for 6 months to 1
year, and 12 to 14 buses on average for 5 to 6 years. Construction of
smaller-sized facilities would not significantly alter the projected
daily truck totals, due to the predominance of barging for materials
delivery. Rather, construction of smaller facilities would reduce the
duration of an activity. The number of daily buses would be signifi-
cantly reduced for smaller-sized facilities.
12.2.2-10
-------
12.2.3 Construction Traffic Impacts By Site
Local access roads in the vicinity of the three proposed treatment
facility sites have excess capacity to accommodate the projected volumes
of trucks and buses during construction (as discussed in previous
sections). The focus of this analysis is whether or not these roadways
are adequate to safely accommodate this type of construction traffic at
an. acceptable level of impact, given the residential character of the
neighborhoods closest to the sites, and the narrow streets along portions
of the access roads.
12.2.3.1 Deer Island Construction Traffic Impacts
Deer Island can be reached by two routes along local access roads
which are several miles long from the regional network point of entry.
Either local route requires travel along streets in either East Boston or
Revere leading into Winthrop and to Deer Island (Figure 3).
Saratoga Street through East Boston and Winthrop Parkway through Revere
are the external roadways of State Route 145 which pass through Winthrop
on Main Street, Pleasant Street, Washington Avenue, Veterans Road, and
Winthrop Parkway. Although Route 145 proceeds through Winthrop and into
Revere, commercial vehicles cannot use this road in its entirety.
Winthrop Parkway through Revere is prohibited to commercial vehicles,
thus it could not be used without exception for truck access into
Winthrop. In addition to this numbered route, a truck route has been
established from East Boston through Winthrop to Deer Island. That route
follows Main Street, Shirley Street, Veterans Road and then back to
Shirley Street. It is assumed that this route, because of its easier
access and designated truck use, will be the preferred traffic route to
the Deer Island site.
All the above named roadways are two-way, two-lane streets except
for a short segment of a one—way pair in Point Shirley, Eliot Street and
Shirley Street. The traffic volume data, as presented in Section 12.2.1,
revealed that the local roadways had no capacity problems; however,
analysis of the turning movement at the Veterans Road/Washington Avenue
12. 2—11
-------
and Shirley Street/Washington Avenue intersections revealed the left
turns are currently operating at capacity during peak traffic periods.
Since any increase in truck and bus traffic will increase the number of
vehicles making left turns, the intersections will have to be signalized
to permit all traffic to pass through safely and efficiently. In
addition, it will probably be necessary to prohibit parking on the
one-way roadway sections along the route to ensure that the smooth flow
of traffic is not impeded.
As mentioned previously, the truck route through Winthrop has, in
some instances, been assigned to residential streets because there are no
other alternatives available. The mixed residential-commercial character
of the route, and indeed throughout much of Winthrop and East Boston,
suggests that the existing traffic flows through those communities
already include significant numbers of both light and heavy trucks on a
daily basis (estimates of local truck traffic are between five and seven
percent of total peak hourly daily traffic).
An increase in trucking and busing along the route may require
additional traffic signals and/or crossing guards to ensure safe opera-
tions during peak periods of high truck and bus activity. The parking
practices along Shirley Street, south of Washington Avenue, should be
reviewed to ascertain whether any changes are warranted because of the
increase in wider truck and bus vehicles.
Considering the possible traffic levels of consolidated secondary
treatment facilities, the estimated 20 trucks per day at the outset for a
5-day period followed by an average of 8 trucks per day for an active
construction period of approximately seven years will generate a slight
impact as far as added volume to existing roadway capacities is
concerned.
In Point Shirley, because of the predominantly residential character
of the neighborhood and the narrow streets closest to the site, potential
moderate impacts may occur involving disruption to residential abutters.
Noise, diesel fumes, and the perceived recurring construction activity
12.2-13
-------
will be a disruptive element in the neighborhood. An additional 26
construction worker buses daily (peak for one year) and 12 buses (average
for six years) would add to these annoyances. The greatest potential for
moderate adverse impacts occurs as a result of the busing activity during
the approximately one year peak period. Some mitigation such as
staggered travel and traffic supervision at rush hours would minimize any
disruption that might occur.
The potential adverse impacts at this site would involve about 190
homes and 15 businesses which abutt the approximately 2.3-mile access
route through Point Shirley (including the segment of road leading from
Cottage Hill) to the Deer Island site. The associated effects of the
other alternatives would result in a lesser level of impacts from those
noted above.
Based on comments received expressing concern about traffic impacts
along the greater length and higher residential density (combined with
commercial mixed uses) of local routes through East Boston and Winthrop,
a more detailed description of local roadway effects in that area is
provided below. The following descriptions are keyed to the map in
Figure 4 so that each road segment described can be followed. It
should be pointed out that even with this site’s greater associated local
roadway length and density of abuttor uses, the existing relatively
higher traffic volumes along these local roadways (compared to the other
sites) are readily accommodated given these roadways’ high traffic
capacities. Moreover, the existing mix of autos and trucks through these
two communities is sufficiently high at. present, so that residents and
visitors alike must exercise caution when either walking or driving these
routes. Therefore, the addition of relatively small numbers of
construction vehicles, compared with existing traffic volumes, would not
be an appreciable change, in terms of traffic conditions, from the
current conditions.
1. All truck traffic approaching Winthrop for access to the Deer Island
Sewerage Treatment Plant will have to use McClellan Highway for
access to Bennington Street (Route 145) and then to Saratoga Street
12.2-14
-------
a 7 d ,: T i
‘c çh
o k !I .. c& cc / - I -
em TA /
— re / .. -
4
‘p , —
I / U ga - o
t n / , < so
tidal FIat / [ WTNTHRO ’P
BOSTON
7 T Idal /
I .
P .S
—-iii
i 1 rb uMvAà.
RES
— .
k
‘l z ’ •
BOSTON
i / .. mn-
I M
Td
& L 1 LLLi 1
T H R 0
‘ Ocean Spray
BOSTON 1L L OT ! r
4 R Ob •)4 The F e Sisters
/
Cottage L
1 $p hroP
‘rda I Flai ç,’ /
t t ) “\Snake •.
— — - -
tidal Flat Cough lin
Li ht P 7 f L f /
N %\ .
-
A
/
• ‘•• Sewage \
Disposal j
-
° .‘ Deer
tI 1and
w /
I -.
-—— -—
- ‘4
z
•
at
/WINT
/
/
Eiu4k
LOGAN
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Fi c Sta
YMaapot
Tidal Flat
Gover
-------
in East Boston. McClellan Highway is a six lane divided highway
with partial control of access and signal control at the cross
streets left open. The addition of twenty trucks per day to this
high truck volume roadway would not be an appreciable increase or
create any additional adverse impact.
2. Bennington Street (Route 145), accessible via ramps at the NcClellan
Highway interchange, is a four (4) lane divided highway with
provisions for parking along both sides. The roadway, which passes
mainly through a residential area of East Boston, contains five (5)
signalized intersections to Saratoga Street. This high volume
facility can absorb the projected 20 trucks per day with only
negligible effects resulting from the additional traffic.
3. The first location along this route that may pose some difficulties
to truck traffic is the right turn from Bennington Street into
Saratoga Street and onto the bridge over the MBTA tracks. This
bridge is fairly narrow (approximately 36 feet) and the two lane
westbound approach does not leave much width (approximately 14 feet)
to accoimuodate the turning trucks. It is assumed that, although
this turning radius appears tight, this movement will be accomp-
lished without undue difficulty since numerous trucks presently are
using Route 145 for access to Saratoga Street and on into Winthrop
on a daily basis (estimated to be 20 to 30 trucks hourly during
weekdays), and if necessary traffic supervision can be provided.
4. Saratoga Street is a two lane roadway approximately 36 feet wide
with parking permitted along the south side. Adjacent land use is
predominantly residential until it approaches the Belle Isle Inlet
where it becomes coumercial and light industrial.
5. Across the Belle Isle Inlet Bridge Saratoga Street becomes Main
Street. Just across the inlet is the Pleasant Street intersection
where Route 145 is directed south on Pleasant Street and the Deer
Island Truck Route is directed east on Main Street. This inter-
section is traffic signal controlled with the eastbound Main Street
12.2-15
-------
traffic having a continuous right into southbound Pleasant Street.
If delays to through traffic are unacceptable to the truck drivers,
they may choose to use Route 145 as the access route to Deer Island.
This will have to be discouraged by strict enforcement.
6. The Deer Island Truck Route should be designated by advance signing
on the Main Street approach to Pleasant Street and reiterated by
well placed signs at the intersection. The use of the Pleasant
Street - Washington Avenue route (Route 145) by trucks should be
discouraged. The pavement width is approximately 32 feet with one
lane in each direction; parking is prohibited along both sides of
Pleasant Street. Such roadway widths and distance are acceptable
for the traffic levels proposed. Pleasant Street is predominantly
residential but does have the Winthrop Hospital on the east side
between Tilston Road and Lincoln Street. A very sharp curve occurs
near Sargent Street where the roadway becomes an east-west facility.
7. Washington Avenue is the extension of Pleasant Street from Winthrop
Street to Shirley Street. Washington Avenue services a mixed land
use with the south side being predominantly residential while the
north side becomes commercial at its easterly end. Washington
Avenue ends at the designated Deer Island Truck Route.
8. As stated previously, at the Main Street - Pleasant Street inter-
section the Deer Island Truck Route is directed easterly along Main
Street. Main Street has a curb to curb pavement width of approxi-
mately 38 feet and is utilized as a two lane roadway with parking
permitted along the south side for most of its length. The Hermon
Street intersection is signalized, as is the Winthrop Street -
Revere Street intersection. This latter intersection is on flashing
operation although the installation appears to have been designed
for “stop and go” control. At the Winthrop Street intersection the
Truck Route swings northeasterly on Revere Street. Signage for the
truck route is not evident at this location and can only be verified
at the next major intersection, Shirley Street; this condition can
easily be corrected. The Revere Street - Shirley Street inter-
12.2-16
-------
section does have a Deer Island Truck Route sign directing trucks
east on Shirley Street.
9. Revere Street has a pavement width of approximately 40 feet and
functions as a two lane facility with parking permitted along both
sides except for one block on the south side where parking is
prohibited.
10. Shirley Street is basically a residential street, 30 feet wide with
parking permitted on the south side only to Veterans Road. The Deer
Island Truck Route is directed south on Veterans Road to Washington
Avenue where it dog-legs onto Shirley Street which proceeds to Deer
Island. The Shirley Street - Veterans Road intersection is
controlled by a signal flasher that shows red to Shirley Street.
Veterans Road is a two-way facility with parking prohibited on the
east side to Washington Avenue except for the last block where one
hour parking is permitted on Saturdays. Washington Avenue, between
Veterans Road and Shirley Street, is utilized as a bus loading and
holdover area. This is not expected to be a problem with the
addition of construction vehicles as this block of Washington Avenue
has been widened to acconinodate such traffic.
11. Shirley Street south of Washington Avenue has short term parking
along both sides to Perkins Street. South of Perkins Street parking
is permitted on one side of the designated truck route. The route
through Point Shirley neighborhood is predominantly residential and
not generally experiencing high traffic volumes. Streets are narrow
and parking occurs on-street.
The addition of a maximum of 20 trucks per day for one week followed
by about 8 trucks daily for the duration of construction (5 to 7 years)
should not create any significant problems along any of the local roads
identified above. Potential traffic impacts in these areas would be
slight. At Point Shirley, the narrow roadways and residential character
of the neighborhood would result in moderate impacts to abuttors from the
added volume of trucks and buses. Any potential difficulties encountered
12.2—17
-------
because of double-parked vehicles or loading/unloading operations along
the narrow sections of this truck route could be monitored and mitigated
by traffic control personnel during periods of peak construction traffic.
Alternatives which site less than secondary treatment facilities on
Deer Island (see Table 12.2-2 in the previous part of this section) would
result in comparable, though somewhat lesser, truck volumes and con-
struction durations than those noted above. Reduced bus volumes by about
half would also result. Under these lesser sized alternatives at Deer
Island, roadway capacities in the community overall would not be
adversely impacted, while any disruptive effects on residents and
abutters in Point Shirley from traffic noise and odors, particularly
during peak construction periods, would be slight and of limited
duration. Mitigations discussed above would help to alleviate the
disruptive effects of this traffic. (See Section 4.3.3)
Options which reduce facilities at Deer Island to a headworks/pump
station have only slight traffic impacts since the smaller scale fa-
cilities proposed would result in the least truck and bus volumes for the
shortest duration. The awareness on the part of residents that this
alternative involves a major reduction in treatment facilities would be
expected to minimize the degree of annoyance perceived.
12.2.3.2 Long Island Construction Traffic Impacts
Access to Long Island is via East Squantum Street over local Quincy
streets from the Expressway (Route 3) or via Hancock Street (Route 3A)
(see Figure 2 ). Better vehicle access would be afforded via Quincy
Shore Drive (Norrissey Boulevard) due to this roadway’s wider streets and
shorter distance to the site, but this MDC parkway is prohibited to com-
mercial vehicles including trucks and buses. Approval is needed from the
MDC to use this roadway. It is anticipated that such restriction can be
temporarily removed; however, if this cannot be accomplished, traffic
impacts to a greater number of residential abuttors along the existing
truck route would result.
12.2-18
-------
No capacity problems are expected along local roadways, although
many of the signal controlled intersections are currently operating at
capacity during the peak traffic periods. The potential impacts along
the existing access route are not a function of volume or capacity, but
rather one of potential disruption to abuttors due to roadway conditions.
Overall, projected truck and bus traffic generated by construction
alternatives at Long Island (see Table 12.2-2 of Section 12.2.2) would
result in slight to moderate adverse impacts. The traffic effects of
constructing a 150 HGD primary plant would be slight, as the projected
four trucks daily (average) over four years would translate to one truck
every 15 minutes over a one-hour period. This level of trucking could be
accoi nodated on local roads with no significant adverse effects. The
peak of 10 trucks daily for five days is also manageable with only slight
adverse impacts for the brief duration of this activity. The 2 to 3
buses daily would pose no adverse impacts to local roadway conditions or
residential abuttors.
In the case of a larger 500 MGD secondary plant on Long Island,
potential adverse impacts would be moderate. The average traffic volumes
would be seven trucks and fourteen buses daily. The existing capacity of
local roads is sufficient to handle construction traffic under these
conditions. This increase in traffic over existing conditions will
result in only slight increases in noise, odors, or disruption to
abuttors and can be minimized by addition of traffic mitigations as noted
below. The truck peak of 20 vehicles daily for five days will result in
moderate impacts and will require additional traffic controls including
staggered departures and traffic supervision to minimize any adverse
effects. The effects of up to 28 buses per day for a one-year peak would
pose the greatest potential disruption along local roads resulting in
moderate impacts, and will also require traffic control measures to
minimize potential moderate adverse impacts for this limited duration.
An advantage of Long Island’s access route is the minimal abutting
development along both sides of East Squantum Street north of Quincy
Shore Drive, with only one side of Dorchester Street (east side) having
12. 2—19
-------
residential development. Moreover, if trucking and busing could be
allowed on a portion of the MDC’s Quincy Shore Drive (as noted above),
potential disruptive aspects of heavy trucking and peak bus traffic upon
residents and abutters through residential areas of North Quincy could be
minimized. This also would lessen, somewhat, the likelihood of competing
local traffic.
The potential adverse impacts at Long Island, with allowance of
trucking and busing along the MDC parkway, would potentially affect a
total of about 225 homes and apartment buildings through Squantum and
North Quincy for approximately 3.5 miles. If use of Quincy Shore Drive
is not possible, the number of homes potentially affected would increase
to about 260 with several businesses along a length of approximately 4.5
miles.
One location in Squantum appears to have a potential for adverse
traffic constraints. Dorchester Street, through Squantum as it
approaches the Squaw Rock Park after the pavement reduces to a 24-foot
width, has a fairly steep grade as well as a sharp curve to the right.
Residents in this location will experience increased noise and diesel
fumes from trucking and buses because the construction traffic will have
to negotiate the hill and curve in a very low gear, shifting repeatedly.
Speeds in the area during construction will have to be reduced to 15 or
20 mph to ensure safe operations. It is recommended that this roadway be
widened and improved along this segment to accommodate the requirements
of heavy trucks and the projected peak number of buses.
It is recommended, further, that the pavement structure of
Dorchester Street, as well as along East Squantuin Street, be analyzed to
ascertain whether the pavement needs to be reinforced or replaced, or
whether it is adequate for the projected truck and bus traffic. In the
event that the truck restriction cannot be temporarily lifted to allow
use of Quincy Shore Drive, the portion of East Squantum Street between
Hancock Street and Quincy Shore Drive will probably require augmentation
of the pedestrian signals with crossing guards at times of heavy trucking
and bus activity.
12.2-20
-------
Any adverse traffic volumes that may occur during peak traffic hours
may be lessened by judicious scheduling that brings in trucks and buses
either in staggered fashion or during off-peak traffic periods. For
those times when peak traffic is unavoidable, police supervision at key
intersections may be necessary on a periodic basis over the course of
construction.
Traffic signs in the area will have to be upgraded. All major
intersections, grades, and curves will have to be identified by standard
warning signs and other traffic control devices as may be appropriate and
acceptable in conformance with local and State requirements.
Another issue common to all Long Island siting options involves the
use of the bridge connecting Long Island to Moon Island and the Quincy
mainland. This bridge was built around 1951 and is of steel beam con-
struction with concrete supports. A recent inspection of the structure
by engineers for the City of Boston 1 concluded that the overall bridge
span was in fair condition but has deteriorated below its design stan-
dard. It is estimated that rehabilitation of the bridge would cost
approximately $2 million (1984). With rehabilitation as proposed, the
structural integrity and capacity of this bridge will accommodate heavy
construction vehicles during the proposed construction period.
12.2.3.3 Nut Island Construction Traffic Impacts
Vehicle access to Nut Island is through Quincy via local roads from
the Route 3 Expressway or the Southern Artery (Route 3A). The main local
access to Nut Island is via Sea Street and Sea Avenue in the Houghs Neck
section of Quincy (see Figure 1).
1 11W. Lochner, Inc., Engineers for the Boston Public Facilities
Department, Inspection of Long Island Bridge , (July, 1984).
12.2-21
-------
Examination of construction transport estimates (Table 12.2-2
previously) reveals that the average numbers of trucks at Nut Island that
will be generated by construction activities vary between 8 per day over
a three year period during construction of a headworks to 4 per day for
five years for a 150 MGD upgraded primary treatment plant. Note that the
truck volumes for a headworks option are higher than for a primary
treatment option because no barging of materials is anticipated with the
headworks option (as noted previously).
The potential for adverse construction traffic impacts on residents
is slight at Nut Island under either a headworks or primary treatment
alternative. This is due to the small number of trucks (4 to 8 trucks on
average) and shuttle buses (2 to 3 buses) projected at this site daily.
This traffic would pose little prolonged impact to the approximately 270
homes and 20 businesses along the 2.5-mile stretch of roadway passing
through Houghs Neck. Potentially disruptive elements of construction
traffic, including noise and diesel fumes, may be felt during recurring
brief periods of time over the course of the construction period.
Initial truck traffic for equipment delivery on-site would generate
about 5 trucks per day for 5 days under a headworks option, to a maximum
of 10 per day for 5 days for a primary treatment plant. The impacts of
such small numbers of trucks are also slight in terms of the local
roadway’s capacity to accommodate their travel. For example, if the
estimated daily truck traffic occurred in a one hour period, the 5 trucks
would mean one truck every twelve minutes for one hour only (twice per
day), a relatively low volume of trucking which would pose only slight
disruptive effects on abutters.
The disruptive impacts generated by heavy trucking, although slight,
could include recurring noise, vibrations, odors and dust. Noise and
odors would be the most significant impacts of trucking on nearby
residences and businesses. At Sea Avenue, where roadway grades will
require trucks to travel at slower speeds and in a lower gear, greater
noise and diesel fumes will be generated as the trucks pass. This would
represent a relatively brief period of annoyance recurring over the
12.2-22
-------
construction period. Because the area is densely developed, the roadway
grades cannot be significantly reduced or the alignments altered without
extensive damage to the abutting properties.
Although the projected daily truck volume is a slight increase in
terms of existing roadway traffic, the three to five-year duration of
construction activity by heavy trucks could eventually damage the Sea
Street pavement which already exhibits surface deficiencies. The
pavement structure of Sea Street should be analyzed to determine its
structural integrity. Roadway repaving and repair work may be necessary
both prior to and following the start of construction.
Buses carrying construction workers to and from the site would also
regularly travel through Houghs Neck and Quincy. For headworks options
at Nut Island, two buses would be required to transport workers to and
from the construction area. Operation of two buses would have no adverse
effect on area traffic flows and their impact on abutting Houghs Neck
residents would be slight. For construction of a primary plant (150
MGD), 2 buses would be the average number required over the 5 year
construction period with an increase to 3 buses for the approximately one
year peak workforce period. The affects of this number of buses would,
similarly, be slight.
Since the major pedestrian crossings along the access route to Nut
Island are protected by traffic signals (most are pedestrian actuated),
pedestrian safety does not appear to be a problem during the construction
period; however, some additional safety measures such as warning signs
and crossing guards during times of heaviest truck or bus traffic may be
appropriate. Schools near the site are a particular safety concern (see
map in Section 12.1) and may require special crossing guards during those
hours when children are walking to or from school. (See Mitigation
Measures, Section 4.3 of Volume 1.)
The four-lane section of Sea Street should not be adversely impacted
by the projected truck and bus traffic. Existing capacity and safety of
the roadway should be maintained and is adequate to accommodate the low
12.2-23
-------
volume of construction traffic projected. The two-lane section of Sea
Street as well as Sea Avenue will require that drivers exercise care and
adhere to the accepted “rules of the road” to ensure that safety is
maintained at all times. Again, it may be necessary to provide added
safety measures such as flashing signals, signs or signalmen during
periods of peak construction activity and heaviest truck traffic.
The existing bus turnaround area at the intersection of Sea Avenue,
Sea Street, and Island Avenue, for example, may require additional super-
vision to ensure safety and smooth traffic flows during certain high
usage periods of the day. Because of the low volume of projected truck
activity, truck trips could be scheduled at other than peak traffic hours
to minimize potential disruption of neighborhood commuter traffic.
Because the potential impacts of truck and bus traffic along the
access route appear to be slight and of a relatively short (3 to 5 year :
duration, very few special actions will be required to mitigate the
potential impacts generated. Actions that can be taken include:
upgrading traffic signs along the route, identification and clear marking
of the access route to eliminate confusion; provision of warning signs to
identify all steep grades, curves, and major intersections for drivers;
and, if conditions warrant, special actions such as traffic supervisors
during school hours or in summer months (See Mitigation Measures, Section
4.3 ).
12.2.4 Operations Traffic Impacts
The relatively low volume of truck and auto traffic occurring daily
over the twenty-year course of plant operations would be a slight impact
on areas adjacent to treatment facilities at any site. Table 12.2-3,
following, indicates the existing operations traffic at each site,
followed by the projected additional traffic under the various treatment
levels. Current daily truck and bus traffic, as shown, is significant
at all sites and would continue at a comparable level from operations of
proposed treatment facilities. Projected treatment plant staff auto
traffic would also be comparable to present levels of auto traffic at
12.2-24
-------
each site. Roadway conditions would not be adversely affected by the
auto travel by staff at any site.
12.2-25
-------
TABLE 12.2-3
EXISTING & PROJECTED TRAFFIC LEVELS
Existing i
Conditi
Trucks (Daily) 12-14 2-3 5_74
Staff Autos (Max. 6
Daily Shift) 65/60 35 180
Buses (Daily) Every 24 minutes 7 Every 20 minutes 8 15 buses 9
Proposed 10 HDWKS. 350 50011 12
Treatment Facilities Pump Sta MGD MGD HDWKS. 150 MGD 150 MGD 500 MGD
Trucks (Daily) 2-3 3-5 4-7 1-2 2-3 2-3 4-7
Staff Autos 13
(Max. Daily Shift) 14 53 93 8 37 28 86
1. Includes traffic at the DI House of Corrections which is about equal to the current figures reported for the DI
treatment plant, (MDC, Site Options Study, 1982, Vol. II, Pgs. 2-36).
2. Existing traffic associated with Long Island Hospital operations, involving autos, buses and trucks. Source:
MDC, Site Options Study , 1982; MDC, Deer Island Facilities Plan (1984, Unreleased); and personal communication
with Long Island Hospital Plant Superintendent (11/15/84).
-------
Table 12.2—4
CONSTRUCTION MiD OPERATIONS WOREFORCE LEVELS AND
ASSOCIATED VEHICLE NUMBERS
Peak Construction Workforce 1
Total No. Total Maximum
SDEIS Outfalls & No. o Avg.CoflSt . of 2 staffing Daily Shift an
Site/Facilities (Acreage) Treatment Tunnels Totals Buses Workforce Buses Workforce Staff Autos
Ia.2 01/Primary & Secondary (lISA) 1240 70 1310 26 630 13 227 93
NI/Readworks (2A) 25 45 70 2 5 1 20 8
lb.2 DI/Primary & Secondary (lisA) 1180 70 1250 25 560 19 215 86
NI/Primary (18A) 80 45 125 3 95 2 83 37
2b.1 DI/Headworks S Pumping (5A) 65 35 100 2 85 2 34 14
NI/Headworks (2A) 25 50 75 2 85 2 20 8
LI/Primary & Secondary (96A) 1240 165 1405 28 720 14 219 90
2b.3 DI/Primary (52A) 395 35 430 9 285 6 fl8 53
NI/Ileadworks (2A) 25 50 75 2 65 2 20 8
LI/Primary & Secondary (82A) 1180 165 1345 27 690 14 209 86
4a.2 01/Primary (62A) 585 70 655 13 590 12 136 60
NI/Headworks (2A) 25 45 70 2 55 1 20 8
4b.2 DI/Primary (52A) 395 70 465 10 305 6 118 53
NI/Primary (18A) 80 45 125 3 95 2 83 37
-------
3. Includes both light and heavy trucks, and chlorine deliveries.
4. Includes large tractor-trailer delivery trucks (approximately 5-10 per week) and oil truck deliveries (2 per
week).
5. Figures are separate for DI Prison/MDC Staff; based on current MDC staff practice of 1.33 occupants per auto
and prison staff practice of mostly individual travel. Maximum MDC daily shift corresponds to the 7 A.N. to 3
P.M. main work shift; the remaining two MDC maintenance shifts are estimated to have small numbers of staff.
6. Total daily staff (24 hours) results in approximately 300 autos per day.
7. Public bus service to Deer Island and through Point Shirley is from the Orient Heights MBTA station and is
served by the Rapid Transit Bus Company; buses leave daily (weekdays) every 24 minutes between the hours of
5:20 AM and 12:15 PM. Additionally, a shuttle bus also serves Deer Island daily, leaving from Winthrop Beach
to the site.
8. Public bus service to Nut Island and through Houghs Neck is from Quincy Center and is served by the MBTA; buses
leave daily (weekdays) every 20 minutes between the hours of 4:45 AN and 1:18 AN. Buses go to the Sea Street
landing just below Quincy Great Hill.
9. Bus service to Long Island currently involves 8 MBTA buses daily used to shuttle as many as 200 homeless to the
hospital for overnight stays. This service has been in operation since February, 1983. Additionally, 7 buses
are used by the hospital to shuttle their staff to the site.
10. Includes only operations of wastewater treatment facilities; no sludge operations are included.
11. Applies to both primary and secondary treatment plants.
12. Secondary treatment plant only.
13. Assumes one occupant per auto.
-------
Table 12.2-4 (cont.)
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS WORKFORCE LEVELS AND
ASSOCIATED VEHICLE NUMBERS
Peak Construction Workforce ’
Total No. Total Maximum
SDEIS Outfalls & No. o Avg.Coos 9 . of 2 Staffing Daily Shift ang
Option Site/Facilities (Acreage) Treatment Tunnels Totals Buses Workforce Buses Workforce Staffing Autos
5a.2 DI/Primary (52A) 395 35 430 9 285 6 118 53
NI/Headworks (2A) 25 50 75 2 65 2 20 8
LI/Primary (18A) 80 165 245 5 675 14 63 28
5b.2 DI/Headwork & Pumping (SA) 65 35 100 2 85 2 34 14
NI/Headworks (2A) 25 50 75 2 65 2 20 8
LI/Primary (52A) 585 165 750 15 675 14 102 46
Notes :
‘From M&E, Site Options Study, Vol. 1, Table 8-4 (pg. 8-12).
2 Based on capacity of 50 people per bus.
3 From M&E, Site Options Study, Vol. 2, Table 3-9 (pg. 3-16); includes figures for either tunnel or pipeline construction whichever is greater.
4 From M&E, Site Options Study, Vol. 1, Table 7-15 (pg. 7-45).
5 Based on estimated one person per auto for maximum daily shift (corresponding to 7 AM to 3:30 PM shift); data from M&E, Site Options Study, Vol. 2.
Note that current MDC employee practice at the treatment plants is that staff commute in a ratio of 1.33 persons per auto.
Source: CE Maquire, Inc. (November, 1984)
-------
12.3 Recreation Resources
and Visual Quality
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No .
12.3.1 Recreation Resources
12.3.1.1 Existing Environment and History of
Harbor Islands
A. Geology
B. Vegetation
C. Wildlife
D. Cultural History
.1 General
.2 Land Uses on the Harbor Islands
.3 History of Long Island . .
.4 History of Deer Island . .
.5 History of Nut Island . .
.6 History of Noon Island . .
The Affected Environment: Long, Deer, Nut,
Islands
Long Island
.1 Topography
.2 Soils and Geology
.3 Vegetation
.4 Wildlife
.5 Land Use and Cultural Features . .
the Boston
Since 1630
and
12.3.1.2
Noon
A.
1
• 1
2
3
3
• 3
• 4
5
6
• 7
7
8
• 8
8
8
• 9
10
10
1
-------
Page No .
.6
Noise . .
10
.7
Viewshed . .
11
B.
Deer
Island . .
11
.1
Topography . .
12
.2
Soils and Geology . .
12
.3
Vegetation . .
12
.4
Wildlife . .
13
.5
Land Use and Cultural Features . . . . . .
13
.6
Noise . .
13
.7
Deer Island Viewshed . .
14
C.
Nut
Island . .
14
.1
Topography . .
14
.2
Soils and Geology
14
.3
Vegetation . .
15
.4
Wildlife . .
15
.5
Noise . .
15
.6
Land Use and Cultural Features . . . . . .
15
.7
Nut Island Viewshed . .
16
IL
Noon
Island . .
16
.1
Topography . .
16
.2
Soils and Geology
17
.3
Vegetation
17
.4
Wildlife
17
.5
Land Use and Cultural Features
17
11
-------
.6 Noise .
.7 Viewshed . . . .
Existing Recreational Facilities
Transportation to the Harbor Islands State Park
Harbor Island Facilities
Current Recreational Plans -
General
1972 Comprehensive Plan .
1984 Master Plan Update
The Affected Islands: Long, Deer,
.1 Proposed Long Island Plan.
.2 Proposed Deer Island Plan.
.3 Proposed Nut Island Plan
.4 Proposed Moon Island Plan.
Page No .
18
18
18
18
20
12. 3. 1.3
A.
B.
12.3.1.4
A.
B.
C.
D.
26
26
28
Nut, Moon . . . 30
30
31
32
33
12.3.2 Visual Quality
12.3.2.1 Overview
12.3.2.2 Hypotheses in Landscape Preference
12.3.2.3 Impacts of Secondary Treatment Alternatives .
A. Alternative 1: All Deer Island
B. Alternative 2: Split Deer Island and Nut Island
C. Alternative 3: All Long Island
D. Alternative 4: Split Deer Island and Long Island.
34
35
38
38
40
40
43
111
-------
Page No .
12.3.2.4 Impacts of Primary Treatment Alternatives. . . . 44
A. Alternative 1: All Deer Island 44
B. Alternative 2: Split Deer Island and Nut Island. 44
C. Alternative 3: Split Deer Island and Long Island 44
Bibliography/Sources . 47
iv
-------
BOSTON HARBOR SDEIS
BASELINE INFORMATION: RECREATION RESOURCES
AND VISUAL QUALITY
12.3.1 Recreation Resources
12.3.1.1 Existing Environment and History of the Boston Harbor Islands
The recreational potential and visual quality of Boston Harbor and
its islands are in large part influenced by the natural environment and
past and present human use. Recognizing this, the following discussion
reviews the origins and existing environment of the harbor and islands
and discusses how human use of the islands have altered them.
A. Geology
Boston Harbor is part of the Boston Basin (or Lowland), a low,
flat plain generally at an elevation of less than 50 feet above mean
sea level. Formed millions of years ago by geologic activity, the
basin is surrounded by a ridge of bedrock which includes the Blue Hills
to the south, and the bedrock hills to the west and north of the city.
The bedrock in these areas has been partly smoothed and covered in
glacial drift from recent glacial activity, the last of which ended
about 10,000 years ago.
Within the Boston Basin, drumlins (long, oval hills formed of
glacial drift) are very common. Over 100 of these geological phenomena
are found in the Boston Area (see Figure 1) . Some of the drumlins have
become islands due to the rise in sea level in the post glacial period
(4000-2000 BP). The drumlins are the most distinctive topographic
features in the relatively flat Boston Basin and include several that
were sites of revolutionary battles, such as Bunker Hill.
* IfflC Reconnaisance Survey Report, 1982
1
-------
a
Drumlins of Boston Harbor
urc :
0
OLD 1P.
‘d’.
4 Peddôck s
0 /6.
\, — /
y—
N
-
0
o
o
tJee lS .
0
0
-
•
AJut/c,.
-O
2
- .- --- ---—
c.
/
-------
The structural geology of the Harbor Islands follows the regional
northeast/southwest trend of the Boston Basin.* The exposed bedrock of
the Brewster Islands is apparently linked with the granite bedrock of
the Quincy formation. This perhaps indicates that all the Boston
Harbor Islands have a bedrock core overlain by debris. This loose,
unconsolidated debris that covers the islands is at the mercy of the
elements. As a result, all the islands, and especially the headlands,
have been extensively altered by the natural forces of storms and
erosion since their formation.
B. Vegetation
The vegetation of the Boston Harbor Islands has been significantly
altered by man. Records from early colonists indicate that the islands
were at the time of settlement covered in forests of native trees which
were cleared to allow for agricultural use and for firewood.
During the Great Depression (of the 1930’s), the Civilian Con-
servation Corps planted 100,000 pine trees on the Islands only to have
most of them removed for military fortification construction during
World War II.
Currently the upland vegetation on the Harbor Islands is dominated
by herbaceous and shrub species--typically grasses, brambles, and
sumac. In some places the vegetation is thick and virtually impene-
trable. Common shrubs include bayberry, poison ivy, rose, and black-
berry. Trees include maples, birch, apple, pine, poplar, peach, choke
cherry, oaks and elms.
* FifiC Reconnaisance Survey Report, 1982
** MAPC, p. 17.
2
-------
C. Wildlife
Birds are the most abundant form of wildlife found on the islands.
The high grasses, tall rocky cliffs, and thick brush provide an abund-
ance of food and sites to breed and find cover.
As for mammalian life, rats are the most numerous of all. Other
mammals include cotton tail rabbits, raccoons, grey squirrels, and
skunks.
The shorelines and intertidal areas surrounding the Harbor Islands
support an abundance of marine invertebrates, some of which are impor-
tant food sources for terrestrial (as well as marine) animals.
Perhaps due to the lack of pesticide spraying, there is an unusual
abundance of insect life on the islands. The Comprehensive Plan (1972)
recorded wasps, bees, grasshoppers, beetles, butterflies, and
caterpillars
The abundance of fish in the Harbor and a year-round fishing
season attracts many sport and recreational fisherman. Typical fish
caught include winter flounder, mackerel, striped bass, smelt, and
codfish. In addition, soft-shell clams, blue mussels, crabs, and
lobsters are also found in great quantity.
D. Cultural History
D.1 General
All of the Boston Harbor Islands have been greatly altered by
human activity. Prior to the arrival of European settlers, Indians had
raised crops on some of the Islands and fished off their shores.
With the advent of European settlers came a variety of new uses (such
* Netropolitan Area Planning Council, Boston Harbor slands comprc:,
hensive Plan , 1972.
** Kales, p.6.
3
-------
as military fortifications) and the continuation of old ones (such as
agriculture).
The cultural history of the islands is important for several
reasons. First, the artifacts that are still extant on the islands
have great recreational, historic, and educational value. Second,
because the artifacts are fascinating to observe and study, they exert
a tremendous influence on the conceptual plans for future recreational
use of the islands. Third, many of the artifacts have authentic
archaeological value and, therefore, may affect the time tabling for
implementation of any future use on the islands, be they for recreation
or wastewater treatment facilities.
D.2 Land Uses on the Harbor Islands Since 1630
Since the advent of European settlement, there have essentially
been four different land uses on the Harbor Islands: agriculture,
recreation, public facilities, and military fortification.
Agricultural use of the islands predominated from about 1630 to
the eighteenth century. Land was cleared of trees and either planted
to crops or grazed upon by cattle.
In the eighteenth century, some islands became popular recreation
sites. Guest houses, inns and resorts were built. Illegal gambling
and boxing matches were other recreational pursuits staged on the
islands to avoid the watchful eyes of the authorities.
The era of public facility construction on the harbor islands
dates from the early eighteenth century and peaks during the final two
decades of the nineteenth century. It was during this time that many
ttundesirable t public facilities, such as poor houses, quarantine
hospitals, reform schools, prisons, wastewater treatment facilities,
and waste handling facilities were constructed. Present day ownership
patterns still reflect much of this era.
4
-------
The military use of the harbor islands dates from colonial times,
but it was not until after the American Revolution that permanent mili-
tary forts and gun emplacements were constructed, replacing hastily
mounted guns that were previously in place. Historically, Long Island
and Lovell’s Island, and to a lesser degree Deer Island, have been the
first line of defense for President Roads. George’s Island has served
to control Nantasket Roads. Outer Brewster Island, Greater Brewster
Island, Gallops Island, Peddock’s Island, and Bumpkin Island have also
in the past served as military installations.
After the Second World War, the military importance of the islands
declined and in 1946 the Federal government began to decommission
facilities and abandon their upkeep. Islands were sold to public
agencies for recreational purposes. Unfortunately, most of the his-
torical structures that were on the islands have been destroyed,
primarily due to vandalism and arson. This is a major impediment to
the reuse of facilities for recreation purposes, especially in terms of
the islands’ archaeological potential.
D.3 History of Long Island
Shortly after the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Company, Long
Island (which was granted to Boston in 1634) was cleared and leased to
about 40 tenant farmers. The existing lighthouse on Long Island Head
drumlin was constructed in 1819 and is an example of Federal Period
design. In 1850, plans were prepared to subdivide the island for a
residential community. The lots, however, were not sold and the plan
failed. At about the same time and for 37 years following, a colony of
fishermen lived on the island. Before the outbreak of the Civil War, a
battery of guns were constructed on Long Island Head drumlin. During
the Civil War, a conscript camp was set up on Long Island. Closer to
the southern end of the island there is a memorial to 79 Civil War dead
who were rejnterred on the island’s cemetery. The camp, which was
renamed Fort Strong in 1867, was extensively renovated in 1899 when
several batteries of six- and twelve-inch guns were built. During
World War I, 1500 men were quartered in the Fort. Fort Strong was
5
-------
declared surplus in 1946. The City of Boston destroyed some of the old
military structures in 1968 - the rubble of which litters part of the
Head.
Long Island Hospital began its history as a hotel, which was built
when the island was a popular resort. Ten years after the hotel was
built, in 1882, the City of Boston purchased the hotel to house the
poor, paupers, unwed mothers, and later, homeless men. Today, the
Hospital consists of about 20 buildings covering about 60 acres of the
island. The hospital provides care for the homeless, the elderly, and
the “chronically” ill.
D.4 History of Deer Island
During King Phillip’s War, colonists first detained and later
imprisoned captured Indians on the island. In the 18th and 19th
centuries, Deer Island, like Long Island, was also used for agriculture
and was the site of a resort hotel. In the middle of the 19th century,
at the time of the great wave of Irish immigrants, the island was used
as a quarantine hospital. In 1852, a poorhouse was constructed on the
island and later converted into the Suffolk County House of Correction.
In 1938, Shirley Gut, which separated Deer Island from Point Shirley
was practically filled in. The U.S. Army decided in 1940 not to dredge
the Gut to simplify access for the construction of Fort Dawes. Deer
Island has remained connected to Winthrop since then.
A sewage pumping station was constructed on Deer Island in 1889 by
the Metropolitan Sewage District. In 1968, the facility was expanded
and upgraded into the existing Deer Island Wastewater Treatment
Facility.
During World War II, Fort Dawes was constructed at the southerly
tip of the island. A 12-foot high concrete wall was built to separate
the Fort from the remainder of the island. Since the end of the war,
the Fort has been abandoned and has fallen into disrepair.
6
-------
D.5 History of Nut Island
Nut Island was once a 4-acre island located just offshore from
Quincy’s Great Hill. In colonial times cattle grazed on the pastures
of the island. At one time, it rose “sharply on one side into a tall,
slightly concave highland, the top of which is fairly rounded and
covered with green grass and summer flowers, and slopes down again to
the water on the other side.” In 1876, a foundry company constructed
an immense gun emplacement on the island. By 1893, the NBC took over
the island and began both sculpting and enlarging it for a wastewater
treatment facility. The primary treatment plant, which covers most of
the island and replaced the previous facility, was completed in 1950.
D.6 History of Moon Island
In colonial times, Noon Island was put into agricultural use for
both grazing by animals and growing crops. In 1878, Boston began
construction of a giant 7¼ foot diameter sewer from Columbus Park to
Squantum beneath Dorchester Bay, and from Squantum to Moon Island under
the connecting causeway. On Noon Island itself, the city constructed
four huge granite storage tanks, with a combined capacity of 50 million
gallons, to hold raw sewage. Twice a day gates were opened permitting
the detained wastewater to flow into the Harbor with the outgoing tide.
When the project was completed in 1884, the Noon Island facility
received world-wide attention and Boston was hailed as having one of
the finest sewage disposal systems anywhere.
In 1959, the Boston Fire Department built a fire fighting training
facility on the northern end of the island. The Boston Police Depart-
ment constructed a pistol range on the island the following year.
* King’s Handbook of Boston Harbor, 1882.
7
-------
12.3.1.2 The Affected Environment: Long, Deer, Noon and Nut Islands
The four harbor islands that will be affected by the current SDEIS
planning effort are described in ths section. These descriptions serve
to highlight the natural and man-made features of these islands likely
to be affected.
A. Long Island
Long Island is the largest of the Boston Harbor Islands, being
213 acres in size. The island is connected to the mainland by a
two-lane bridge that is nearly 35 years old. Long Island is located
near the exact geographic center of Boston Harbor.
A.1 Topography
The topographic features of Long Island is shown in Figure 2 .
Both the large central drumlin and the drumlin at the head reach an
elevation of about 90’, and are the island’s dominant features. From
their summits, there are spectacular views of the entire harbor. The
two drumlins at the West Head are lower in elevation and densely
forested; consequently, views from them are not readily obtainable, nor
are they as commanding.
The side slopes of the central drumlin and the head are fairly
steep. Erosion caused by tides and storms have carved the drumlin at
the head into a steep cliff. Between these two drumlins there is a
flat area formerly used as the parade ground of Fort Strong, located at
the head. Finally, the two small drumlins give the West Head a softer,
rolling character.
A.2 Soils and Geology
Drumlins are typically composed of unconsolidated heterogeneous
mixtures of coarse and fine materials (till). The remainder of the
* MAPC, p. 54
8
-------
Long Island
topography
4eep S
we+i bI%t4
yi : MArC, p. 4 f’
Lo
(c YVMIR1)
t
I ,
ev t aI dru iIiii
E teep Iope5
Two swiafl dvo Iw
a+ West 14ea4
L
2 W14 ) V€ 1P C,
i I re Z
-------
island is composed of sands and gravels. Fine soils are found in the
marsh areas of the West Head. South of Bass Point, there is a sandy
beach of suitable for recreation.
A.3 Vegetation
The southern portion of the island supports dense picturesque
stands of mature red pine ( Pinus resinosa) , as well as apple ( Nalus
spp.), sumac ( Rhus typhina) , and poplar ( Populus spp. ) trees which
cover the slopes of the two small drumlins. Two wetlands are also
found near the West Head. A one-acre freshwater marsh is located along
the western shore, between the abandoned Nike site and the Long Island
Chronic Disease Hospital. Along the eastern shore there is a 12-acre
marsh near Bass Point with a characteristic vegetation of Common Reed
( Phragmites communis). Figure 3 depicts the location of vegetation
found on Long Island.
Between the West Head and the Hospital, there is an extensive
stand of scrubby vegetation, consisting of a staghorn sumac ( Rhus
typhina ) community, with scattered specimens of red pine ( Pinus
resinosa) , quaking aspen ( Populus tremuloides) , and cherry ( Prunus
spp) . At the Civil War Cemetery, rows of American elm ( Ulmus
americana ) have been planted.
Within the hospital grounds elms, maples, catalpa, and birch have
been planted. Scattered grasses and brush grow in the area between the
hospital and Long Island Head. The head features a grass - sumac
vegetation community with occasional specimens of apple, poplar, white
oak and red pine.
* NAPC, p. 50
9
-------
Long Island
vegetation
cu ac
ivr er€id I
OUYt & JiAJA P&) p. O
-
T7 /
— - -
whe J %ç
-
,_7 1
piô iee r
cpecies
Iei t a ,ccx ia+& wiTh
Hospita’ vOu ’ic “-eki
r ple, )ir de + f4iYi4?S
arel 1 uvf ra s5
C.ivil War eeviietevy
Th k, ‘ tuve, pleoscrnf pwie wccd5”
- son’e irck, aspen ‘&ce
ybe y vc 63e5
te Pv abViY& rnc..
I
TT
/ 1
// P
(
cvub y pioneer
species ..iaspev%
f ves i wcitev
wetIa nc4
w tvee at
Mt rnaY i
-------
A.4 Wildlife
According to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s (MAPC) 1972
Comprehensive Plan, Long Island wildlife includes ring-necked phea-
sants, songbirds, rats, meadow mice, and cotton-tail rabbits.
A.5 Land Use and Cultural Features
On Long Island, there is only one active land use, the Long Island
Chronic Disease Hospital. The hospital consists of some 20 buildings
occupying about 60 acres or a little under one-third of the island.
The Department of Health and Hospitals of the City of Boston runs two
chronic disease hospitals, the Mattapan Hospital and the one on Long
Island. Between the two hospitals, there are 445 licensed chronic
disease beds and only 300 patients.* Of these 300, only 160 are
certified to be legitimately in need of chronic disease care, and the
rest are homeless.
Other cultural features and artifacts on the island include an
abandoned military installation (Fort Strong), a lighthouse, (Long
Island Light), an abandoned Nike missile site, and a Civil War cemetery
(that was moved to Long Island from Rainsford Island). The locations
of these artifacts are found in Figure 4 .
A.6 Noise
Existing land uses on Long Island are not significant generators
of noise. At the hospital, the noise level is about 65-70 dB . Long
Island Head and the Parade Ground area adjacent to it, however, lie
directly under an approach runway to Logan Airport. Aircraft use this
runway year round, but because of seasonal variation in prevailing
winds, the runway is used much more in winter when prevailing winds are
from the northwest than in summer when prevailing winds are from the
southwest. Because Long Island Head is only 3 miles from Logan
* Task Forces to Mayor Flynn, p.532.
** Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., SOS II , p. 2-91.
10
-------
- Long Island
land
use and cultural features
FO 1 TRON&
ou 4at o&i
rev imi
(
1
tflW 4 MPW&,
w *fla.e,
p. 4 ,
— !
LOPIS
L4 fôuh4’ f * 4
u i e t i€e
rous4 4
Ub1 er%placeb’.lePt
LONc$ I ANO
Hcspi TAL
fon iev Mike
r i ,iIe sI 1B
CMI War
Ce iet y
pre ,ou4 asli
4uii*p II
+
-w
ce
-------
Airport, aircraft fly over at a fairly low altitude resulting in noise
levels as high as 8 -1OO dBA . Such aircraft flyovers are expected
to continue and would pose periodic high noise intrusion and disruption
to proposed park visitors (see Section 12.6).
A.7 Viewshed
As previously mentioned, Long Island is located near the exact
geographic center of Boston Harbor. The island is quite removed from
residential and commercial areas on the mainland. Only at a distance
of three miles is a residential area reached (Squantum and Point
Shirley).
Only portions of shoreline communities potentially have a direct
view of Long Island. See Figure 5 . These portions include: Point
Shirley, the south-facing neighborhoods of Cottage Hill, Court Park and
Cottage Park in Winthrop; South Boston east of Telegraph Hill; the
east-facing slopes of Squantum; the Wollaston Beach community of
Quincy; the Hough’s Neck area; and the west facing slopes of Telegraph
Hill in Hull. The Long Island Hospital, situated on a bluff in the
central part of the island, is visible from many locations;
particularly prominent is the large water tower.
Other harbor islands are over 1 mile from Long Island. George’s
Island, the most heavily used harbor island, is fully 2 miles from Long
Island.
B. Deer Island
Deer Island became connected to the Town of Winthrop in 1936 by
the progressive deposition of material in Shirley Gut. It is the
second largest of the Boston Harbor Islands, having an area of 210
acres.
* Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., SOS II , p. 2-91
11
-------
i &. I
-P ure 5
J
ff
QuiwcY
- -- — - View Lines
o i 1a, ,vire
-------
B.l Topography
Figure 6 shows the topographic features of Deer Island. The
dominant feature of the island is a large drumlin located in the
central portion of the island which reaches an elevation of approxi-
mately 105 feet. This drumlin is known as Signal Hill. Its summit
has been altered to permit construction of a wastewater treatment-
related lagoon. The side slope of the central drumlin facing the
treatment plant has been cut and made steeper. A much smaller drumlin
on the north side of the island reaches 60 feet in elevation. The
southern portion of the island (about 40 acres) is gently sloping. In
this portion, there is a second hill on the island which, though it
looks like a drumlin, is man-made. It was built to house three of the
bunkers of Fort Dawes. The shoreline of the upper half of the island
consists of either a seawal1 or riprap. The remaining shoreline is
either coarse sand or stones. A sandy beach is found on the eastern
shore near Fort Dawes. There are fine views over the harbor from both
the central drumlin and the flat southern tip of the island.
B.2 Soils and Geology
The drumlins are composed of a compact, heterogeneous mixture of
gravel, sand, silt, and clay (till). The remainder of the island has
soils composed of sands and gravels. Only on the eastern shore is
there currently a beach with fine sand.
B.3 Vegetation
Most of the island, including the central drumlin, is covered in
grasses, scrub growth, and brush. On the south-facing slope of the
central drumlin is a small grove of cottonwoods. There are few other
* Randall, p. ICA 158:4
MAPC, p. 47
12
-------
Deer Island
topography
I4ISk % I
107’
w 9 &) ‘44
.e
,py e fler dru lir%
414f 1vec.
4,
“C ’ +il1
b(
corts*ruc+ed to
‘iiou e
ker
LW& 6
-------
trees on the island. Figure 7 shows the approximate location and
sparseness of vegetation on Deer Island.
B.4 Wildlife
According to the 1972 Comprehensive Plan, wildlife found on Deer
Island includes red-winged blackbirds, ring-necked pheasants, song-
birds, meadow mice, raccoons, and rats.
B.5 Land Use and Cultural Features
Existing land uses on the island are shown in Figure 8 . The
largest active use on the island is the Deer Island Wastewater Treat-
ment Facility operated by the MDC. The Suffolk County House of Cor-
rection occupies a large area north of the treatment plant.
Other features include a 12-foot high concrete wall that splits
the island into an eastern and western half. It was constructed to
separate Fort Dawes from the remainder of the island. There are also a
number of abandoned land uses including an abandoned pig farm adjacent
to the House of Correction, Fort buildings, bunkers, gun emplacements,
and some industrial buildings.
B.6 Noise
The predominant contributors to noise at Deer Island are
overflights from nearby Logan Airport and neighborhood vehicular
traffic. According to Iletcaif and Eddy’s Site Options Study (Volume
II, pg. 2—43), the average day/night noise levels in the plant vicinity
are between 73 and 74 dBA. This is comparable to a very noisy urban
residential area (see Section 12.6 of Volume 2).
* MAPC, p. 45
** MAPC, p. 136.
13
-------
Deer Island
vegetation
rh’dB 2O Y f
yoCc ttc LWcOC(S
bI&d Iocus
i k4 evv es.
40 wee
e
‘Pt’,
7
S
C
MA , rk 7
I
-------
— Deer Island
land use and cultural features -
c,uffotk Cour Iy
Mouse o’P rec+icr
eev lsI r d
Wc teWatSY’
Treatr e’* c li
ir du tr a1
IoId 5 c.
12’ h k ccvicrete wall
t7 we
MA t r ‘
w4 j’tYe uIl&
*]J, f1 r-7
-Pi uve S
a
thandonea p
I
*
I
-------
B.7 Viewshed
The Deer Island wastewater treatment facility is located a scant
2,000 feet from Point Shirley and about a mile from Winthrop’s Cottage
Hill neighborhood. No other residential areas are located within a few
miles of Deer Island. See Figure 9 .
It is probable, based on the topography of these neighborhoods,
that clear views of the treatment plant area can be obtained from these
above-mentioned neighborhoods.
Signal Hill effectively blocks much of the view of the Deer Island
Wastewater Treatment Facility from Long Island Head.
C. Nut Island
Nut Island was once a four—acre island just off shore from
Quincy’s Great Hill. Today, it is connected to the mainland (at
Hough’s Neck) by filled land and totals 17 acres in size.
C.1 Topography
The entire island has been transformed by the construction and
engineering requirements of the Nut Island Wastewater Treatment
Facility. The island, at present, is a roughly rectangular, flat
peninsula, as shown in Figure 10 .
C.2 Soils and Geology
In constructing the wastewater treatment facility, the island’s
original soil cover has been supplanted by man-made fill material.
Presumably, its composition is variable (i.e., some sand, gravel,
boulders, and finer material).
14
-------
1iA A&l4I JPAk
P an4
‘ r tir ir - I •
N
\
I
Q U !iVCY
key:
View Lines
-------
Nut Island
topography
aveci
&uiIlCy C reat H’iI)
4’ cLeav view &ovy e3Yk y
1bu es to Nut IbIa d
fbLi) y
‘k71) y : ,%iAp , 4 . I 13
e . Y& 10
-------
C.3 Vegetation
The island’s perimeter is planted in grass. The MAPC recorded the
presence of a tree in the northwest corner of the island in 1972 (see
Figure 11) . Since 1972, there have been successional changes in the
vegetative communities along the perimeter of the island tending to
grasses and scrub.
C.4 Wildlife
The MAPC, in its 1972 Comprehensive Plan, does not record the
presence of any wildlife on the island. In light of the sterile
habitat and its lack of diversity, resident wildlife is likely to be
negligible or nonexistent.
C.5 Noise
Traffic noise and other noise generators from the Hough’s Neck
neighborhood and the Nut Island treatment plant are not significant.
The Site Options Study noted that the Nut Island Treatment Plant’s
isolated location insulates the site and its surroundings from
intrusive levels of noise. The Study presumed noise levels in Hough’s
Neck were typical of urban residential areas - a day/night average
noise level of 53 to 57 dBA with a typical average of 55dBA. Noise
monitoring done for the SDEIS by CE ?Iaguire, Inc., confirmed this
average noise level (see Section 12.6 of Volume 2).
C.6 Land Use and Cultural Features
The Nut Island Treatment Plant takes up the bulk of the island’s
area (see Figure 12) . No other land uses or cultural features are
present. The island has no known archaeological, historical, or
cultural artifacts.
* Metcalf & Eddy, Site Options Study, p. 2-27, 2-73
15
-------
Nut Island
vegetation
fr\AR ’, p.II’I
0 2 %V
ivl€-
-Th
40uY&e:
-------
Nut Island
land use and cultural features
u* bIav c1 Wo tw fer
T ee tv1ieV1t F4cilify
I
/ ‘114 ___________________
I ce PjQ U
I ? - ,
I
-------
C.7 Viewshed
Nut Island and its treatment plant are located a short distance
from Quincy’s Hough’s Neck community situated atop Quincy Great Hill.
See Figure 13 . The closest house to the treatment plant boundary is
only 280 feet distant.
Clearly, houses on the north side of Quincy Great Hill have direct
views of the treatment plant. Other residential areas that have views
of Nut Island include the Quincy Bay shoreline of Hough’s Neck (at
distances of 1/2 to 1-1/4 miles), and the Adams Shore area of Quincy
(at distances of up to 2 miles). Virtually all other residential areas
are over 3 miles distant.
Finally, Nut Island is only 3/4 mile from the picturesque West
Head of Peddocks’s Island; as a result, the facilities located on Nut
Island are clearly within that view from Peddock’s.
D. Moon Island
Hoon Island is about 45 acres in size. It is connected by road to
both Squantum and Long Island.
D.1 Topography and Natural Features
The dominant feature on Moon Island is a large drumlin that
reaches an elevation of 100 feet. There are fine views of Boston’s
skyline, Quincy Bay, Dorchester Bay, other islands, and the Blue Hills
from this vantage point. ( Figure 14 )
* MAPC, p. 59
16
-------
V1ew6 o
Nuti
ir -. M st1.
4 ure 13
‘1
4,
QIJIA/CY
V y:
iewLinee
t’ mab Ire
-------
- Moon Island
topography
flat area
7L4V € h %$! ’, p. 7
Ce, ( ‘ mc ,.
foyrrier ewmcje
‘ta k
flat 4vea
MOoi i l61ae 1
yt) Mlifr1
(max.&& i o’+)
- I —
C—,
-‘ -.------
42 ye J4
-------
D.2 Soils and Geology
The drumlin is a heterogeneous mixture of sand, gravel, silt and
clay (till). According to the 1972 Comprehensive Plan, the remainder
of the island is man-made and probably of variable composition.
D.3 Vegetation
The west-facing slope of the drumlin is in forest consisting of
white birch, maple, black pine, elm, oaks, and beech trees. There is a
grove of trees to the west of the sewage reservoir. Large elm trees
were planted alongside the road through the island. The remainder of
the island is covered in grasses, sumac, and other shrubs. (See
Figure 15) .
D.4 Wildlife
The MAPC has recorded observing brown thrashers, songbirds, rats,
meadow mice, gray squirrels, and skunks on the island. Moon Island
is reported to have a large rat population. It is also reported that
the fishing for flounder, mackerel and striped bass along the western
shoreline is good, particularly from the granite seawall on the
northern end near the sewage outfall.
D.5 Land Use and Cultural Features
The dominant land use and man-made feature on Moon Island is the
sewage reservoir. (See Figure 16. ) The reservoir takes up at least
one third of the western end of the island. The reservoir is composed
of four tanks that average 900 feet in length, 150 feet in width, and
17 feet in height. They were intended to hold raw wastewater overflows
prior to discharge to the harbor on outgoing tides. The reservoir is
currently in operation when sewage flows normally routed to the Deer
* MAPC, p. 57
MAPC, p. 58
*** MAPC, p. 136
17
-------
Moon Island
vegetation
( d1 iapIe, elwi, o k vee
N
suvvt c 1 blackbevvy
beed’i, ‘flO l )
e1 frees efri frees + su c.
— . F
&c U MA ’, r
I 1 uve 15
w fe irc$ rv*ap1e
1ac k p.n tvee
-------
Moon Island
land
use and cultural features —
ofcice 1
fovvv er sew4dIe
hoI4 tr4vjc
ce
axw4crteel
wo&k ler pier
De thvtePit
flY i 4 ’itIV j fr 1IP1Ih
4’OUYC&’. MA1 7 C 1 ?. 1
fbbee Dept’
Pi5toI r4 e
-------
Island treatment facility exceed Deer Island’s influent pumping
capacity.
In addition, the Boston Fire Department has a fire fighting
training facility on the northern end of the island. Adjacent to the
reservoir, the Boston Police Department has a small pistol range.
D.6 Noise
There is no known noise data on Noon Island itself.
D.7 Noon Island Viewshed
Noon Island is relatively isolated from other harbor islands and
shoreline residential communities. Thompson, Spectacle, and Long
Island, as well as the Squantum community are all about 11 mile distant.
Houses located on the east (Quincy Bay facing) side of Squantum
have views over to Moon Island.
12.3.1.3 Existing Recreational Facilities
Since the 1960’s, a number of recreational facilities have been
constructed on the Boston Harbor Islands. This section describes the
facilities that are available, as well as the existing transportation
system.
A. Transportation to the Harbor Islands State Park
The two principal ways for potential visitors to the Harbor
Islands State Park to access the islands are by independently owned and
operated ferry boat or by private boat. At the present time, there are
three private excursion boat companies which operate on a for-profit
basis. All provide transportation only to George’s Island.
18
-------
Some islands, such as Deer, Moon, Nut, Long, and Castle can be
physically reached by car, but only with varying degrees of obstacles
from the authorities. At the northern most point of Deer Island, there
is a prison gate house that effectively prevents visitors from entering
the island. At the Squantuin end of the causeway connecting Moon Island
to Squantuin is a gate house that, too, prevents access by the public to
both Moon and Long Islands. Nut Island is also inaccessible by reason
of the gate house at the entrance of the Nut Island Treatment Plant.
All of the ferry boats leave from downtown Boston, either from
Long or Rowes Wharf. Park visitors typically arrive in downtown Boston
by automobile, or take the MBTA. The HBTA provides inexpensive and
frequent service to the Boston waterfront from nearly all areas of
Metropolitan Boston.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has, via a recent bond issue,
authorized $7 million for the construction of a Visitor’s Center to be
built on Long Wharf in downtown Boston to serve as the gateway to the
Boston Harbor Islands State Park. This will centralize the embarkation
point for the majority of visitors to the Harbor Islands State Park,
enabling more people to take advantage of this recreational resource.
It will also make the gateway to the Harbor Islands State Park far more
visible for potential park patrons. It could also make the visitors’
harbor island experience more pleasant and understandable since the
water taxi schedule to other islands could be posted at the Visitors
Center.
To reach other harbor islands after landing at George’s Island, it
is necessary to take one of the smaller water taxis. At present, two
private enterprises are under contract to Massachusetts DEM to provide
transportation to other islands in the State Park. Water taxis provide
service to Gallop’s or Lovell’s Island or to Grape, Peddocks, or
Bumpkin Island. Water taxi service to islands owned by DEM is free of
charge to park visitors.
19
-------
By private boat, all the aforementioned Harbor Islands are acces-
sible in addition to the remaining islands, except Deer, Noon, Nut, and
Long Island where admittance is restricted). Table 1 and 2 list the
piers and boat launching sites in and around Boston Harbor. Table 3
lists where boats are available.
B. Harbor Island Facilities
The following is a list of facilities and recreational activities
that are available on the six Boston Harbor Islands that are readily
accessible by private excursion boat and water taxi:
o George’s Island - two picnic areas, food service (snack bar),
tours through Fort Warren (National Historic Landmark), fresh
water, walks and trails, large pier.
o Gallop’s Island - trails and paved paths, picnic areas,
viewing areas, wading beaches, wildlife (a seagull colony in
residence).
o Lovell’s Island - swimming beach with lifeguards, camping and
picnic areas, historic Fort Standish, and trails, as well as
dunes and a salt marsh.
o Bumpkin Island - paths and trails, pier, three picnic areas,
campsites, interpretive program.
o Peddock’s Island - camping and picnic areas, wooded trails,
and historic Fort Andrews. (There is a charge to visit
Peddock’ s Island.)
o Grape Island - camping and picnic areas, trails, berry
picking in season, historic agricultural interpretive
program.
20
-------
TABLE 11
PIERS
Boston
Castle Island
Kelly’s Landing, South Boston
Boston Harbor
Bumpkin Island
Gallop’s Island
George’s Island
Grape Island
Lovell’s Island
Peddock’s Island
Great Brewster Island
Hingham
Kehoe’s Boat Livery
Hull
A Street Pier
Pemberton Pier
Steamboat Pier, Nantasket Pier
Gun Rock
Revere
Captain Fowler’s Marina, Rte. 1A, Point of Pines
21
-------
TABLE 2
BOAT LAUNCHING SITES
Boston
Children’s Museum, Boston
Commonwealth Pier, Boston
Castle Island, Boston
City Point Beach, Boston
Kelly’s Landing, Boston
Charles River, Msgr. William J. Daly Recreational Center, Nonantum
Rd. • Brighton-Newton
Rainbow Park, Dorchester
Rowes and Long Wharfs, Boston
Hingham
Iron Horse Statue Area
Hingham Marine Center
Hull
A Street Pier
Pemberton Pier
Gould’s Boat Shop, Nantasket Pier
Nantasket Avenue
Hampton Circle
Quincy
Bay View Avenue, Boughs Neck
Quincy Bay Marina, Boughs Neck
Boston Harbor Marina, E. Squantum St.
Wollaston Beach
Mound St. Beach
Continental Marine, Washington Court
Bays Water Boat Rental, Bays WAter Rd.
Revere
Captain Fowler’s Marina, Rte. 1A, Point of Pines
Route 1A, Pine River
22
-------
Weymouth
North Weymouth Marine
Tern Harbor Marina, Back River
State Boat Ramp, River Street
Weymouth Back River (Take Neck St. off Rte. 3A)
Winthrop
Winthrop Public Landing, Shirley St. and Deer Island Road
23
-------
TABLE 3
BOAT RENTAL LOCATIONS
Boston
Boston Boat Sales, 170 Granite Ave., Dorchester
Boston Harbor Sailing Club, 72a East India Row
Hingham
Hewitt’s Cove Marina, 349 Lincoln St.
Kehoe’s, 3 Otis St.
Multihull Associates, 349 Lincoln St.
Hull
A Street Pier, Rowboats
Pemberton Pier, Rowboats, 173 Main St.
Pemberton Bait Shop, 173 Main St.
Priscilla Sails, 180 Cadish Ave.
Annapolis Sailing School, James St. Pier
Quincy
Gamble’s Landing Boat Rentals, 15 Baywater Rd.
Hurley’s Boat Rental, 136 Bay View Ave., Houghs Neck
Quincy Bay Marina, Houghs Neck
Harvey-Elliot Boat Livery, Harvey’s Lane
Harbor View Yacht Sales, 64 Washington Court
Revere
Capt. Fowler’s Marina, Whitin Ave. Ext. (Rte. 1A at Gen. Edwards
Bridge)
Simpson’s Pier, 90 Broadsand Ave.
Winthrop
Belle Isle Terrace
Crystal Cove Marina, 514 Shirley St.
Winthrop Sailboat Rental, 541 Shirley St.
24
-------
Table 4 summarizes the existing recreational facilities of the
Boston Harbor Islands State Park. Table S lists the existing recrea-
tional facilities in shoreline parks and recreational areas adjacent to
the harbor. Figures 17 and 18 depict the location of these facilities.
25
-------
Existing Recreational Facilities:.
Boston Harbor Islands
Key t ’ Owner ’hiP ; iSo ’$2’n 2. P M 3. MOC
4. U.s. C OVI 5. TrusteeS of Thor i r Acadervty(
i a Ite 4
(5
. (
I . .
0
)_
( 5
.—
0.
(5
(5
I . .
.
‘-‘
(5
‘
0
- (
c
( 5
E
.
C
‘ 5
0
‘
(0
0
—
(5
Si
.-
5 (
( 5
( 5
( . ‘
E-
(5
(J
‘
‘0
Si
,‘l
0 )
0 .
.-.
I”
0
0
—
.—
—.
0)
01
-l
Si
(5
U
‘
•
‘5
‘
0 )
(
•
)‘,
.‘- . (5
X ‘0
c i
so
— Si
(0 I .i .C
00 (1
40 •- ‘
(5 (0
0. I” ( ,
— 0 )
(0 00 00
In C -‘
I ,. )• •- 0)
n
C
‘
4)
I”
.
0.
•-‘
C
• ‘
(5
)
)
0
I .
01
4).
U —
0 ‘0 0
0 U I-’
()
•- (
0.
(0
i
I-’
01
Z
00
U
4)
(0
)
CIO
nO
I . ’
41
0.
00
C
- I
(5
-4
U.
•0
4 )
IS
0
00
0)
Long Island
I
.
Sheep island
2.
Rainsford Island
1
Slate Island
2.
•
•
•
Spectacle Island
1,2.
Deer Island
1 ,3,4
Callop ’s lsland
2
••
George’s lsland
3
• S •
•••
Calf Island
2..
S
Ct. Brewster Island
2
•
•
S
5
S
Green Island
2.
Little Brewster island
4
5
Little Calf Island
2
Thompson island
5
5
S
5
5
5
Middle Brewster Island
2
5
Outer Brewster Island
2.
5
Bumpkinl slafld
2.
555555
5••
5
Crapelsiand
2
•,• S•S•S 5 S
S
Hevitts Cove
2
5
5
Peddock’s Island
3
•
•
5
5
S
5
•
5
Raccoon island
—
Z
355
5
5
5..
,ource WaIIa e
Floyd A oc. - Lovell Island
Coric pt R n. Mass. Castle Island
PEM - 4ewsIe4ter
-------
Existing Recreational Facilities:
Boston Harbor Shoreline
40
40
40
‘-4
-4
44
.
U,
00
c
•0
U
4
40
4- I
(4
0
40
I I
4- . .
0
-‘4
4
-, -4
‘-4
4
Z
‘
40
.
U
( 4
44
- .
CO
40
40
4 . .
40
E
.
40
44
40
40
‘.1
00
(4
.4
0.
40
4
‘-4
C -.
44
40 4. . ,4 44 44 3
40 1. ‘4-1 0 (0 .-1 ) 0
.0 44 00 40 - -. E- E-’
U c 40 4-I c 00 U 40
(4 0 40 ,-I 40 40 — - 4 4) 1 . 00
4-4 4 .I 4 .0 0 0 0 4 -I 4 E- ’ 0
4) ( 0 5 U —4 .4 . -4 0 - —4 0
.-4 .0 5 0 0. .0 0 ‘-4 44 . .4
.0 0 ‘-4 •4 5 (0 U 40 4 . -4 0
4.4 40 3 40 40 ( 4 ‘-4 ‘-4 ‘-4 .0 ‘-4 40 0
U, U) U) , . 0 0 CO
Tirrell Beach
•
•
Coughlin Park
•
Pico Beach
•
•
Donavan Beach
Belle Isle
Reservation Park
•
Orient Heights/
Constitution Beach
•
•
•
Porzio Park
•
•
•
Lo Presti Park
•
•
•
Connomwealt Pier
Sugar Bowl
Kelleys Landing
•
•
•
•
L Street Beach
•
•
Columbus Park
•
•
•
U. Mass flarbor
Campus
•
Rainbow Park
•
•
•
Rarborside
Condominium Beach
Nickerson Beach
•
•
Orchard Beach
•
•
Willows Beach
•
•
Perry Beach
•
•
•
Edgewater Beach
S
S
Baker Beach
5
5
Mount St. Beach
5
5
source ’ l4PC
f ecr A -t1OnaI
faciIi4ieEi CZ.M
oe ’ôn f4Ar ’or
Acce ’ czLflcle
1ab) . 5
-------
Existing Recreational Facilities:
Boston Harbor Shoreline
( C
‘—4
(C
•0
I
a
(C
‘a
-‘-4
-I
a-)
(C
I-
U
*
4-,
‘C
CC
- . 4
4 - ,
(C
(C
0
4-’
CC
.c
—
Ca
U
(C
(C
(C
(C
.C
(C
(C
Ca
a -
(C
-a
a.
<
w
‘.4
a..,
4-a
-.4
C/
CC
- i
( C
U
CC CC ..
c
e
—a
Ca
E
•- ‘
)
U)
(C
‘a
—
t,
a- I )
.
a )
C
(C
..J
C C U I .
‘ ‘- — 0
0 C C ‘4
Ca (C c J (C
(C .-a 4
L) La- 0. X
(C
‘-a
a.
. 4
(C
(C
—a
-‘-a
(C
U
(C
4..
f-a
0
f - .
CC
.
f-.
C
(C
‘
*
-
-a
0
-
0
—a
‘C
0
Constitution Beach
•
•
•
•
Belle Isle Marsh
•
•
•
•
Marine Park
•
•
•
•
•
Caddy Meg. Park
Quincy Shore Dr.
Nantasket Beach
Hull
Revere Beach
Revere
Nahant Beach
•
•
•
•
•
Carson Beach
•
•
•
•
Wollaston Beach
•
Malibu Beach
•
•
•
Tenean Beach
•
•
•
•
•
Savin Hill Beach
•
•
•
Castle is. Beach
•
City Point Beach
•
M St. Beach
S
S
S
Pleasure Bay Beach
5
•
5
Winthrop-
Shore Beach
S
Winthrop Public
Landing
Winthrop—
Winthrop Beach
to-veil’s Island
•
5
5
5
5
George’s Island
5
5
5
•
Castle Is. PIerI
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CityPt.Beach
•••
5•••
6ource: MDC
ecre41ion4I
f c4iitiei , CZtv1
boston H b bor
Acce% E uide.
1 tbIe 5, awt+inii&%
-------
Location map: Boston Harbor Islands
Outer h ar ror ‘o ry.F
ostoP I arbor ) Ia,i4. t i$’e F Yk
—,. The
*
8rsers(4)
4 1 &afe Own r ship
ghw -ed b%h&) ,O 4Zn
kL*nd5 aquiy d. by
DEM c 5 pai* ôç SI-ole
Ptu’k (t*I o inc.k Je ( reeh,
c1 :oon 4 IGJ2 14)
QUINCY
w r&, r1 ’
i& - F ure 17
e
-------
Location map: Shoreline recreational areas
5Iio i BeocIi
l IoM
Pavk
Win+hro 8eo c ,
‘( rrel
Wo)1a tCh
Ft uYe
Oriev I
C
‘C.
Marw’e
P easvre 9a
ft
1
Beach
II
-------
12.3.1.4 Current Recreational Plans
A. General
Since the 1960’s, several reports have been published on the
harbor islands and recreation. In 1967, the Metropolitan Area Planning
Council (MAPC) published the Open Space Recreation Program for Metro-
politan Boston . Volume 2 of this report looked at the problem and
potential of the harbor, and recommended protecting and developing the
Boston Harbor and Islands for recreation.
Through the passing of Chapter 742 of the Acts of 1970, the
Massachusetts Legislature empowered the Department of Natural Resources
(now Department of Environmental Management) to take by eminent domain
islands of the harbor, and to maintain and improve them pending the
completion and approval of a comprehensive plan.
Since then, there have been formal plans produced in 1972 and
1984. Over this period of time, DEN’s attitude has changed little
about the value of the Boston Harbor Islands for recreation; however,
there has been a change in the extent of new construction and in the
priorities of which islands are to be developed first.
B. 1972 Comprehensive Plan
The 1972 Comprehensive Plan, which was published by the Metro-
politan Area Planning Council (MAPC) under contract to the Massachu-
setts Department of Natural Resources (now DEN), outlined an intensive
development scheme for the harbor islands. Included in the plans were
new facilities such as restaurants, conference centers, athletic
buildings, swimming pools, theaters and museums. Also included were
plans to restore and rehabilitate the many military fortifications and
to develop camping facilities and picnic grounds.
In the 1972 Plan, Long Island Head was to be developed as a major
terminus on ferry routes serving the Harbor Islands State Park. In
26
-------
addition, the plans called for a large Visitor Center as well as a
restaurant, conference and recreation center, dance hail, theater,
educational facility, multi-purpose athletic building, playfields, a
major outdoor recreation facility and group camping sites. These
facilities relied on the assumption that the Long Island Hospital was
to be relocated and that land area utilized for recreation.
The program for Deer Island included parkiand, playgrounds,
trails, a swimming beach, picnic areas, a boat dock and mooring area,
and a fishing pier. The plan assumed the relocation of the prison and
the utilization of that land area for expansion of the IIDC sewage
treatment plant, plus an additional 10 acres of filled land.
For Nut Island , the MAPC considered making the peninsula acces-
sible to the public and constructing a fishing pier. The plan
asswnption was that the sewage treatment plant use would remain and
become a recreation resource in the sense of allowing educational
visits.
On Moon Island , the plans advocated reusing the wastewater
reservoir as a fish hatchery (among several other alternatives), as
well as the development of an open area on top of the drumlin, for
informal recreational activities, such as picnicking. The existing
fishing pier was also to have been improved.
Much of the recreational development proposed in the 1972 Compre-
hensive Plan carried a distinctive water orientation. Some develop-
ment, such as the development of beach areas for swimming was linked to
then proposed efforts to improve water quality in the harbor. A wide
variety of both active and passive recreational facilities were
included in the Comprehensive Plan to provide a breadth of recreational
activities.
To transport park patrons to the islands, there was to be a
publicly-regulated but privately-owned ferry system consisting of four
interconnected routes, as follows:
27
-------
• Route 1: Main Line Run :
Boston Waterfront - Long Island - George’s Island - Peddock’s
Island - Nantasket
• Route 2: Inner Harbor-Dorchester Bay
Boston Waterfront - Deer Island - Long Island - Thompson’s Island
- Spectacle Island - South Boston
• Route 3: Serving Small Islands
George’s Island - Lovell’s Island - Gallop’s Island
George’s Island - The Brewsters - Calf Island
Peddock’s Island - Grape Island - Bumpkin Island
Route 4: Neighborhood loop (for future addition) .
Stops not specified
Three other neighborhood loops were described as having con-
siderable merit within the transportation system as a whole.
The first was a loop around Hingham Bay. It would serve Grape,
Bumpkin, and Peddock’s Island from the Hewitts’s Cove terminal. The
second neighborhood loop would cruise through Dorchester Bay and land
at Thompson’s, Spectacle, and Long Islands. It would stop at mainland
terminals located at ICelley’s Landing (South Boston), Columbia Point,
and Commercial Point (Dorchester). Finally, a third neighborhood loop
would link East Boston with the Chelsea Yacht Club, the Little Mystic
Channel, and the Charlestown Navy Yard.
C. 1984 Master Plan Update
Boston Harbor Islands State Park Master Plan
The 1984 update is largely a continuation of the 1972 Compre-
hensive Plan, but there are several notable differences. To a great
extent, the differences reflect the realities of ever rising develop-
ment costs and clearer definitions of the Harbor Island goals in
relation to the unique experiences available. The plan focuses
28
-------
development priorities on the actual islands and on substantial
improvements to the two primary embarkation points.
Development programs in the 1984 plan generally recommend a lesser
extent of construction and fewer high cost facilities. At the same
time, the carrying capacities have been reexamined to allow a higher
density of use. The combination of these changes obviously allows for
a much improved cost/benefit with the new plan.
The major themes that guide the development continue to include an
emphasis of natural forces, harbor geography, and harbor history.
Also, the theme of harbor transportation is now exploited positively by
recognition of the amount of time that an island park visitor spends on
the trip to the island and utilization of that for its interpretive
value to emphasize the uniqueness of the Harbor Island experience.
“Navigation aids, such as lighthouses and buoys, can be seen and
explained from the numerous vantage points within the harbor. Watching
the parade of freighters, tankers, tugs, fishing and lobster boats,
commuter boats and pleasure boats offers enormous interpretive
potential and focuses on the majority of the harbor which is water
rather than islands.I * Additionally, the normally negative sounds of
Logan’s air traffic can be made more positive by its inclusion as a
dramatic sight and sound segment of the overall transportation theme.
Other than Long Island, none of the Harbor Islands from the 1972
plan that have land access are part of the 1984 update. This
presumably is both a development cost recognition and a development
priority status for Deer, Moon and Nut Islands. DEN staff note that
the absence of these three islands is not an indication of their
prograninatic deletion from the Harbor Islands State Park System. They
are to be reviewed by DEN and updated once substantial completion of
the 1984 plan is achieved. Perhaps the wastewater treatment consider-
ations affecting those islands would also be resolved by then.
* WFA, p. 14.
29
-------
Total annual visitation to the islands is projected to increase
from the present 170,000 to about 600,000 by the year 2000 and with the
development and transportation improvements. The present private fleet
of five 350—400 passenger capacity ferrys will need to be increase to a
fleet of twelve. Seven service schedules will be necessary and are to
provide separate schedules for Long, Georges, Peddocks and Spectacle
Islands. Water taxi service is also to be expanded and is to include a
pair of 250 passenger capacity ferrys that will travel circuits among
the four major island centers. Smaller water taxis, with a volume of
service comparable to that of today, will provide connections to the
smaller islands.
D. The Affected Islands: Long, Deer, Nut, Moon
These four islands are being considered to varying extents and
combinations for the siting of expanded primary and/or secondary
wastewater treatment facilities. The following descriptions of
proposed recreational development on the same islands are from two
different sources. Long Island is an element of the soon to be
published 1984 Boston Harbor Islands State Park Master Plan, which is
an update of the 1972 Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan wherein
Deer, Nut and Moon Islands are elements.
1. Proposed Long Island Plan
Development for Long Island, as depicted in Figure 1 I , proposes
high itensity uses for the head and moderate uses for the southern
half. All of Long Island is proposed for recreation development and
use except for the Long Island Hospital compound which is assumed to
remain.
The primary access to and from the island during the summer months
would be the scheduled ferries. Internal access between the Head and
the southern portion would be shuttle van. Some controlled access
through the Squantum community for bicycles would be permitted.
30
-------
\
LONG ISLAND
(
/
L4411 ’
HEAD
? t) 4 TO
ieiu
fl b
I4 ts r ’r
kW’i1V WI ’I *
L l
LONG ISLANI
Lvg r ç
- ‘ ft IL
WWJN Low
q’) Ø , TO P L
piq
(‘i. v a1i e4)
/ /
AT w e
WEST HEAD
4 i’
.SoarC& Wa(( e. Floyd
A 5Oc.IflC.) t9 4
Boston Harbor Islands Long Island . I’3 ]
St e Park
Long Island
( 4 )
NORTH
-------
Extended season access for spring and fall could be provided by shuttle
bus from the mainland.
Major new elements to be developed on Long Island Head are to
include a pier and visitors center, a transportation exhibit in the
historic lighthouse, the major gun emplacements from Fort Strong, a
cultural museum (proposed by the City), major picnic and sitting areas,
play fields and interpretive trails with viewing nodes. Development
costs are estimated at $5.5 million for the Head.
For the southern portion of the island, the new major elements
include an environmental study complex, a swimming beach, and an
extensive system of hiking and bicycling trails with numerous
overlooks. The development generally focuses on sensitively exploiting
the natural features which include a large wet meadow, a dune
environment, a large succession meadow and a large grove of mature
pines. Should use levels indicate a need, the beach area could be
expanded and a day camp established at the former Nike site.
Development cost for the southern portion is estimated at $2.1 million.
The $7.6 million total development cost for Long Island is
scheduled to largely take place during the first three-year phase -
1985-1987 - of the twenty-year program for the Boston Harbor Islands
State Park system.
Future use is projected at 2,500 visitations per average weekend
day for the Head area and 1,500 at the southern end with most of the
latter occurring on the beach. Of the 600,000 annual visitations
projected for the Harbor Islands Parks, Long Island could accommodate
about 240,000.
2. Proposed Deer Island Plan
The second largest island in the overall harbor island system,
Deer Island as proposed in the 1972 plan assumed that relocation of the
31
-------
prison and the expansion of the treatment plant from 26 acres to up to
130 acres, including 10 acres of made land.
The level of use is generally moderate with an area of intense use
which included a major ferry landing and interpretive center as
illustrated on Figure 20 . The southern end of the island is a large
passive use informal park with open grassed areas, picnicing, viewing
areas and interpretive restoration of the World War II bunkers. An
extensive planting program would reforest the shore edge and the Signal
Hill drumlin to enhance the island as the primary entrance to Boston
Harbor from the President Roads shipping channels.
The swimming beach along the sandy east shore would utilize the
bathhouse and comfort station in the interpretive center. A three-
mile-long bike trail would follow the shore edge.
The 1,000 maximum daily visitations projected for Deer Island in
the 1972 Plan would likely increase to 1,500 or more if the plan were
subjected to a review and update comparable to the 1984 Plan. Con-
sidering that Deer Island access is not limited to seasonal ferrys but
obtainable year-round over public streets, the annual visitations could
easily exceed 100,000. The 1972 Plan noted a cost for development of
about $2 million.
3. Proposed Nut Island Plan
The 1972 Plan for Nut Island assumed that the wastewater treatment
plant would remain, and, therefore, recreational development was
limited to a public fishing pier and a slightly enlarged visitors
parking area. Unlike the Harbor Islands Parks System in general, Nut
Island was seen as a local recreational resource and was not included
in the water transportation planning. The 50 maximum daily visitations
projected in 1972 is perhaps optimistic, but with the islands year-
round access it would still be a few thousand annual visitations.
32
-------
TREE $ 54.4RLI PLAT
‘J EP’JTIRE A1EWA’ TO
rO -TONi I REE J F K PC WA E
ATP 1€i JT PLAPJ-r
a.RKI & LC7T Z 60 CAR , EACL.-1 4 ‘TCP —
MAJOR FERR’ L JC ip J 4 SMALL BOAT K
OAT5 OEEP L RA E AREA .JEAR IK
FI%Ift.J& PiER
OPEI .J &RA AREA FOR
PLA’V IELP 5 ACRES
‘TCRI PRI OI’J WALL
YOLE.JG CUiLPRE?.J
PLA v% CUt Jr EARTIJFORP A
FOR PLAY EC 7 IJIP’AEMT 4 U E
ExI TIP-J& LE.JILER 4 cRE ,
PRLIMLE.J LA FORE1. PLA JT
FOR i ’TA ’ PIc t-j C ARE.A.
t TAf’LE
k4IP.J . EAiI-I•
. cc PEC’PLE
C’ E P, bRA AREA
:.— FOR PLA ’F EL
RESTORE UP4KER
INJTERPRET VE IAEJ
ric . ic AREA O TA LE ,
-‘ lE -i F’RE IPE? Jr RaAc’ ,
DEER ISLAND A _ ?J ° MASSACHUSETTS OEPAATMENTOF IATUIAL NESOUICES
BOSTON HARBOR ISLANDS COMPREHENSIVE PlAN Nst,upsIItN Am. P1ii CINCil 20
C’ E . FA FEA R f
FLA’ ’FIELC f- 1 2
PER’F JN JEL F ” I LE
ITE FOR EMETER’
RELOCATIOY.J. iC ALRE I
io ACRE OF FILL
P E IOU ’ ,I1& K
I-,E ‘F ORRECTIOI .J
LCkL ATIOt.J FOR P .1 P
EXPAiJ ’IONJ TO iE.COP.J2ARY
TREATMEP .rT
..EEP E?,JTIRE WATER EDGE
AcCE ” tE WA.LkIP.J6 I 4OTZLE
TRAIL I 4 TREE PAM F , ’—
IP.JTERPRETFVE CEWTER, C ctrr ’OOR
CAFE. 25 TA LE5. 1Oij E 4 COP.4FORT TA T1OPJ
-------
A main emphasis of the 1972 Plan was plantings along the shore
edge, and particularly as a screen for the residential area, to “soften
the island’s man-made appearance andreduce the contrast between the
natural character of the Harbor and the important man-made facility.”
The construction cost was estimated to be about $30,000 in 1972, and
the plan is illustrated in Figure 21 .
4. Proposed Moon Island Plan
The 1972 Plan for Moon Island assumed that the City of Boston fire
fighting academy would be retained and the police pistol range was
recommended to be relocated due to its obvious conflicts with public
recreational use. The Plan, illustrated in Figure 22 , focused on the
two dominant features of Moon Island, which are the drumlin and the
four cut granite 1880’s sewage reservoir tanks.
The top of the drumlin was to be left open to allow capture of
visitors from the many viewing areas connected with walking trails and
a 25 table picnic area. Of the several alternatives for the reuse of
the sewage tanks, the plan found a fish hatchery to be the most viable
and attractive. Other facilities included a marine exhibit and an
interpretive center with parking for 20 cars and a bus stop.
It is not clear whether the 1972 construction cost of $326,800
includes modification to the reservoir for fish hatchery use.
The projected annual visitation for Moon Island was estimated to
be about 30,000 in the 1972 plan.
k MAPC, p. 114.
33
-------
k HANGMAN ISLAND
C ’, J R\’AT IOP’J
UftJC fl -JI J& flE
r gk’,’JG oR fl -JI J
PiER
66I’J PL fli J .
4 4.-4RL P . P E 1i .J .P JTL #
RACCOON ISLAND
C1 ,ER’ . . TIc’t-J —
NUT. RACCOON and I
HANGMAN ISLANDS A MASSACHuSUTS D*PART INT OF WAIURAL ISO JICI$
o 4oO’
BOSTON HARBOR ISLANDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN M. o o A u PIi .ig C cI
46 .21
NUT ISLAND
-------
£xI ’TINJG FIRE TRAIrsJJ?.4& . CAPE?\4’T
F1 4sr.,JG P7ER, CLEAP JIPJG FAcILITIE
COMFORT 5TA1ICr J 4 IEL1ER
PICNIC AREA. 15 TASLE
PARKIP.J&, 40 CARS 4 ‘L’ ’
SKL’ 4 C-LE AR FCR G.KAVE L AL K I
TRAIL , A 21TIC’r .JAL PLAr.rri
TO EJJCOL’R’AGE 1I
P .JIC ARE A. ic TA&.E f
IILLTOP .RK. GRUB 4
CLEAR 4 PLAt rr FOR
\1 T- 5 PIC?,JIC TA LE5 25
0?JE WAY VE IC ULAR PAVEP
ROAP LLX P
ER0 Ic’PJ COMTROL PL rnr..
FI ’&—i I-IATC -4ERY ALMOP-J I -’1ARi JE
Ip .JTERrRET,vE CEP -JTER
PARKIP. . 20 C R 5 4 L’ ’ ‘TCF’
MOON ISLAND
BOSTON HARBOR ISLANDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
M.trcpol itan A,.. Planning Cauncil
RESOURCES
42 ,2 .
-------
12.3.2 Visual Quality
12.3.2.1 Overview
Visual quality is defined in this SDEIS as the fitness or grade of
excellence of a view. The objective of assessing visual impact is to
develop a basis to evaluate and recommend actions to manage the
appearance of the land in order to provide compatible siting for
wastewater treatment facilities relative to their surroundings.
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a common saying. If
visual quality is purely subjective as this saying implies, then it
would not be possible to quantify or qualify visual quality impacts.
If, on the other hand, there can be agreement between people on what is
“beautiful” or attractive, then the impacts of a proposed project on
visual quality, albeit subjective, can be used with other more ob-
jectively based measures to make reasoned siting judgements.
There is a body of research, based on surveys, that has attempted
to discern the preferences of people for particular landscapes or
views. The methods used in these studies have varied: some have
involved asking for judgements on photographs and then physically
calculating, for example, the area taken up by water or forest in order
to correlate between the subjective judgment and the area; others have
asked people to compare photographs and rank them by “beauty” or
preference in order to reach a consensus of visual preferences.
These studies have shown some degree of consistency in the way
people value landscapes ranging from natural to urban areas. Based on
these findings, it can be said that many people today, particularly
those in urban settings, prefer a varied natural landscape to an
urbanized one and find a “pastoral” landscape to be most pleasant and
inviting. Varied urban settings, however, such as city skylines,
particularly when integrated with varied features such as water, are
also viewed positively.
34
-------
Visual preferences, however, change with time, setting, context,
and viewer background. It is possible, nonetheless, to apply certain
generalities about how people will react to a particular landscape or
the addition of development to a setting. A universally accepted
quantified system of detailed visual evaluations is not, however,
available and is not attempted in this analysis.
12.3.2.2 Hypotheses in Landscape Preference
Because studies have shown there to be common threads in the way
the landscape is perceived, it is possible to perform a general visual
quality assessment on the proposed sites in this project utilizing
these elements.
To this end, the following hypotheses were considered and accepted
as applicable in visual quality assessment for this project:
a. As the relative relief of a view becomes more varied, the scenic
quality of that view is perceived to increase.
Flat landscapes are judged to be monotonous and boring. It is
this perception, that makes most people judge a view to an urban
skyline or mountains as one of high scenic quality.
b. As the diversity of compatible natural or man-made land uses
increases, the visual quality of that landscape increases.
A single land use over a large uniform area is perceived to be
monotonous. This can be applied to both urban areas with tract
homes or rural areas with corn fields. Logan Airport has some of
this negative attribute.
c. As “naturalness’ t of a landscape increases, so does its scenic
quality.
35
-------
Most people in North America prefer natural, pastoral landscapes
over urbanized landscapes.
d. As views of water surfaces increase, the scenic quality increases.
People greatly admire expansive views over oceans, lakes and
ponds. There is a limit however. In the middle of an ocean, few
people would find views pleasant.
e. As the number of “edge conditions” increases, the perceived scenic
quality increases.
Views which encompass a variety of edges -- water, shore, forests,
fields, hills, and man-made features -- are perceived as most
attractive and having the greatest visual/scenic quality.
f. As the size of the view increases, the perceived scenic quality
increases.
People value wide, expansive views of the surrounding landscape.
g. As the length of view increases, the scenic quality increases.
People value views to distant horizons.
h. As the viewer’s position becomes superior to the view, the higher
the scenic quality becomes.
People enjoy views from high places, whether tops of buildings,
hills, or mountains.
Based on these hypotheses, the following generalizations can be
made with regard to the siting of wastewater treatment facilities in
Boston Harbor.
36
-------
i. On whichever island new or expanded wastewater treatment facil-
ities are sited, the visual quality of that island will be
degraded if such siting involves the removal of significant or
varied natural features or the noticeable expansion of facilities.
The greater the degree of removal of features or the expansion of
facilities, the greater the visual degradation. Mitigations such
as plantings, berins, and careful facility design to achieve more
compatible siting are possible means to reduce negative impacts.
2. Siting of prominent facilities or structures on high ground (such
as on the drumlins on Long Island) makes them more visible and
therefore accentuates their negative values relative to their
surroundings.
3. Because people enjoy the landscape when viewing it from a high
place siting a facility on top of a drumlin that is or could be
used as a vantage point, for example for park use, will degrade
the overall visual experience that island visitors can have.
4. Because a single undistinguished land use over a large area can be
monotonous, the visual quality of a large treatment plant will
likely be more negative than a smaller treatment plant. Also,
opportunities to mitigate a large-scale facility are more limited.
5. Taking away or otherwise intruding on a view over water reduces
the range of visual experiences, particularly at recreational
settings.
6. On whichever island existing wastewater facilities are reduced in
size, the visual quality will improve. The degree of improvement
is, however, broadly variable. Little improvement or enhancement
of views would be perceived if the abandoned facility area is
merely demolished, leveled and grassed. More improvement to
visual quality could occur if the area were rehabilitated with
land shaping and plantings, for example, to introduce a new
37
-------
element of diversity or to establish site compatibility with the
shoreline setting.
12.3.2.3 Impacts of Secondary Treatment Alternatives
A. Alternative 1: All Deer Island
Under this option, all secondary treatment facilities (115 acres)
would be located on Deer Island and the existing Nut Island facility
would be reduced to a two-acre headworks.
On Deer Island, the 115-acre treatment plant would occupy nearly
all the remaining land south of the existing treatment facility. It
would require levelling of the Signal Hill drumlin, the demolition of
the remains of Fort Dawes, riprapping of major portions of the
shoreline and construction of piers.
Winthrop residents and those viewing the site from the harbor
already perceive Deer Island as industrial in character as a result of
the existing 26—acre treatment plant and the 40-acre prison. Viewers
would perceive that industrial character of the site under this al-
ternative grown to a vast scale encompassing the entire island.
Overall, the existing modest diversity of onsite land uses and the
elimination of the single most positive natural feature of the island
would result in a degraded visual quality and severe adverse impact
primarily from harbor views and to a limited extent from Winthrop
viewing areas.
Signal Hill, the prominent centrally located drumlin on the island
would be leveled, eliminating the prime topographic and natural visual
feature of the island. This regrading would remove a prominent natural
feature from view by the closest residents in Point Shirley and Cottage
Hill as well as from the harbor. The construction of riprap to sta-
bilize the shoreline and construction of piers would alter the edge of
the island to a more unnatural character altering views of the shore-
line from water.
38
-------
Vegetation on Deer Island is so sparse presently that its removal
would only be a minor visual loss, with the exception of the drumlin
noted previously. The demolition of the remaining Fort Dawes struc-
tures and the removal of gun implacements would not be an adverse
impact visually, since these features are not perceived from most
viewpoints.
The expansion of the Deer Island plant will cause the greatest
adverse visual quality impact from the harbor. Currently, the Deer
Island Treatment Plant and the House of Correction are partly or
intermittently hidden from view from most of Winthrop residents and
recreational uses by intervening land uses and topographic elevations.
Views to the site over much of Boston Harbor are also limited by the
interposition of Signal Hill and other harbor islands. The leveling of
the drumlin and the subsequent expansion of the treatment facility
across the island, will change the view from the harbor to Deer Island
from one that is currently perceived as a mixture of industrial and
open space, to one that is predominantly industrial in appearance.
Also, as the island lies low to the water, including the southerly end
which would be only slightly higher, views from the water would be
readily obtainable from the smallest boats.
On Nut Island the reduction of treatment facilities from 12 acres
to a 2 acre headworks will potentially free up the remaining part of
the island for other uses, among them recreation. It must be noted
that the visual quality of the island could improve only if demolition
of the abandoned treatment plant facilities and rehabilitation of the
site were performed. The visual impact of a 2-acre headworks would
generally be slight and that size facility could be easily made
visually compatible with the site. Views from Houghs Neck across Nut
Island to the harbor are available from numerous locations. Approxi-
mately 12 to 20 homes along Quincy Great Hill would have direct views
of the treatment plant site along with larger views of the harbor.
Other locations in North Quincy and along Wollaston Beach would also
have somewhat improved views of the site within the harbor setting
under this option.
39
-------
B. Alternative 2: Split Deer Island and Nut Island
This alternative would site expanded secondary treatment facili-
ties on Deer Island (up to 115 acres) and expanded primary treatment
facilities on Nut Island (approximately 18 acres).
With this alternative, the impacts on the visual quality of Deer
Island by a large-scale facility expansion would be the same as that
discussed for Alternative 1 above. Existing open space, natural
features and mix of perceived land uses would be replaced by a single
industrial appearing land use that would be more visible and cause a
decline in the visual quality of the site.
For Quincy residents, the visual impacts of a Nut Island expansion
encompassing the entire site will be an increase to the existing
severely adverse condition. Expansion of the land area of Nut Island
by filling of the Bay (1-3 acres) and construction of a primary treat-
ment plant to approximately 18 acres will cause an additional decline
in the visual quality of that portion between shoreline Quincy Bay and
Hingham Bay. This area is readily viewed from portions of Houghs Neck,
North Quincy and Wollaston Beach. It is also viewed from the West Head
of Peddock’s Island, an important island within the Boston Harbor
Islands State Park, as well as from other parts within the southern
harbor. Adequate site compatibility utilizing visual screening or
plantings is not expected to mitigate this alternative’s adverse
quality due to the limited site size available and the major facility
expansion required.
C. Alternative 3: All Long Island
Under this alternative, all primary and secondary treatment
facilities would be sited on Long Island (96 acres) with a headworks/
pump station on Deer Island (5 acres) and a headworks (2 acres) on Nut
Island.
40
-------
This alternative would have severe adverse visual impacts on Long
Island and the proposed Boston Harbor Island State Park recreational
area from the siting of major treatment facilities there. There would
be, however, an opportunity to reduce existing facilities on and
improve the visual quality of both Deer Island and Nut Island.
On Long Island the entire central drumlin area, which is a high
point of the site, would need to be utilized for a portion of the
96-acre treatment facility. Regrading of the site would alter present
varied and rolling topography by flattening and lowering it. The
existing hospital and grounds with its campus-like visual quality would
be demolished and replaced by facilities of an industrial appearance.
The former Nike missile site would also be demolished although its
visual presence is negligable. The Civil War Cemetery historical area
would remain, but its present area would be adversely affected either
directly by treatment facility siting or roadway relocation, or in-
directly by the alteration of the visual character of this area of the
island.
Large expanses of undeveloped land would lose their existing
natural qualities. The brackish and fresh water wetlands and barrier
beach area adjacent to the proposed plant site would lose their natural
settings and relationship to the existing undeveloped southern part of
the island. The large central drumlin would be regraded flat or
possibly terraced to support the new facilities. Riprap would be
required along portions of the shoreline to stabilize presently steep
slopes. Large expanses of scrubby grasses, thickets, and groves of
mature trees would also have to be removed. These changes to the
natural topography and vegetative cover of the island would eliminate
much of that area’s natural diversity and pastoral quality which is a
positive overall visual quality. It would be replaced with major
treatment facilities and recontoured land area distinctly negative in
visual quality and not conducive to the existing compatibility between
recreational park uses and natural features.
41
-------
Due to its central location in the harbor, treatment facilities on
Long Island would be clearly in view from the nearby islands,
principally Spectacle, Thompson, Rainsford, Gallops, Georg&s,
Peddocks, and Deer. These locations figure prominently in the Boston
Harbor Island State Park plan and their visual context would become
adversely altered. Views of Long Island are also afforded from many
parts of Winthrop, Boston, Quincy and Hill. Long Island Head, which is
proposed by DEN as an intensive use recreation area able to support up
to 150,000 annual visitations, would afford clear views of the
treatment plant located just to the south.
On Deer Island, the reduction of the existing 26-acre facility to
a 5-acre headworks/pump station will be somewhat beneficial, but it
will not improve visual quality on Deer Island to a major extent. The
Deer Island headworks and pump station, though smaller in size, will
still be a significant structure comparable to the present pump
station-power building and will continue to be perceived visually along
with the 40-acre prison. Therefore, there will continue to be a
significant adverse visual factor both from land and harbor views.
On the positive side the overall visual quality of Deer Island
would be somewhat improved by the removal of such negatively perceived
elements as tanks and steelwork. The potential installation of
plantings to screen the facility and the prison would further improve
the visual quality of the site. Additionally, if the southern part of
the island could remain as open space, perhaps developed in the future
for recreation, then there would be a positive visual quality benefit
to veiwerS.
The reduction of Nut Island facilities to a 2-acre headworks would
potentially improve the visual quality of Nut Island from adjacent
Quincy Great Hill and from North Quincy areas and recreational beaches.
A full description of this benefit is found under Alternative 1.
42
-------
D. Alternative 4: Split Deer Island and Long Island
Under this alternative, secondary facilities (82 acres) would be
located on Long Island, primary facilties (52 acres) would be located
on Deer Island, with a headworks (2 acres) on Nut Island.
This alternative would improve the visual quality of Nut Island by
the reduction of facilities to a 2-acre headworks, although it would
severely impact Long Island. Deer Island impacts would be moderate.
The visual impacts on Nut Island would be largely beneficial as
described under Alternative I above.
On Deer Island, the treatment facilities would be doubled in size
to approximately 52 acres. Expansion would be located to the northeast
of Signal Hill drumlin and adjacent to the present facility and the
40-acre prison. This expansion would newly expose the treatment
facility to harbor views from the east and to somewhat increased views
from those residences along the edge of Cottage Hill which presently
view treatment facilities. However, this expansion would likely be
perceived as generally comparable with the visual quality of the
existing facilities and the prison, thereby minimizing any appreciable
perceived gain of adverse effects.
The major adverse visual quality impacts of this alternative on
Long Island would be similar to these described in Alternative 3 above.
The slightly reduced size of facilities (14 acres smaller) would not
reduce the visual impact to any appreciable extent since views would
still perceive the major alterations and recontouring of the site, and
the alterations to the site and its present setting would remain. From
Long Island Head (DEN’s proposed intensive use recreation site) and the
West Head, the treatment plant will continue to dominate views on the
island; while from the water or other nearby islands signficant visi-
bility of the treatment plant would remain.
43
-------
12.3.2.4 pacts of Primary Treatment Alternatives
A. Alternative 1: All Deer Island
The impacts of this alternative on visual quality are slightly to
moderately beneficial on Nut Island and moderately adverse on Deer
Island. Nut Island benefits, resulting from the reduction of facil-
ities to a 2-acre headworks, are similar to that described for Nut
Island under secondary treatment Alternative 1 above. On Deer Island
the expansion of treatment facilities to 62 acres results in similar
impacts as those for the 52—acre facility (as described in secondary
Alternative 4) since the slightly increased size does not appreciably
alter the drumlin or the site’s character with the prison use
remaining. The perception of this larger expanded treatment facility
would be generally comparable to the visual quality of the existing
treatment plant.
B. Alternative 2: Split Deer Island and Nut Island
This alternative continues the current situation by maintaining
primary treatment facilities on both Nut and Deer Islands, although in
each instance they will be expanded. The visual quality of both
islands and views to the sites from adjacent neighborhoods and water
areas would be an increase to the severely adverse condition at Nut
Island and the moderately adverse condition at Deer Island.
The adverse impacts on Deer Island of a 52-acre facility are
described under secondary treatment Alternative 4 above. Similarly, on
Nut Island, adverse visual impacts are described under secondary
treatment Alternative 2 above.
C. Alternative 3: Split Deer Island and Long Island
Under this alternative, visual quality would improve at Nut Island
from the reduction of treatment facilities to a headworks (2 acre), it
44
-------
would be moderately degraded on Long island, and would be moderately
degraded on Deer Island also.
For Nut Island, the impacts of a headworks are similar to other
Nut Island headworks alternatives described above (see Secondary
Alternative 1). On Deer Island, the adverse impacts of a 52-acre
treatment plant are similar to that described under secondary Alter-
native 4 above.
On Long Island, the introduction of an 18-acre treatment facility
would moderately degrade the visual quality of the island setting in
the vicinity of the plant site, negatively affecting some on-site views
in this southern portion of the island, as well as some views to the
island from the harbor. Of all the Long Island alternatives, this one
would negatively impact the visual quality of Long Island the least.
It may be, moreover, that views from the harbor could be effectively
screened except for the pier. This would leave the most significant of
these impacts to onsite views on the vicinity of the site and from the
hospital grounds.
The degree of design sensitivity applied to the facility and its
siting, including screenings and plantings, will determine the extent
and significance of adverse visual impact experienced by viewers. The
DEN plan for this southern portion of the island is highly dependent on
the visual continuity of the many natural features that the plan weaves
into a sequence of moderate intensity recreational experiences. The
treatment plant siting and operations will be disruptive to these experiences.
Siting the treatment plant on the former Nike Base and adjacent
grounds, which have low visual quality at present, would provide visual
screening of the facility from the high intensity recreational uses
proposed on Long Island Head. However, there would be a dimunition of
the quality of some of the views from the hospital and from portions of
the central roadway. Any additional visual quality effects would be
dependent on the more detailed final design studies conducted for the
project. Careful planning and site design may mitigat€ these effects
45
-------
somewhat with screening and plantings necessary to limit negative
visual quality.
46
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY! SOURCES
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Boston Harbor Islands State Park Master
Plan Update, Draft Transportation Plan , 1983.
Environmental Assessment Council, Inc. Environmental Inventory -
Boston, EIS, 1977(?).
Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on the Upgrading of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System , Vol.
I, 1978.
Kales, Emily and David. All About the Boston Harbor Islands , Herman
Publishing Co., Boston, 1976.
Mass. Department of Environmental Management. Boston Harbor Islands
State Park . Newsletter, September 1983.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities
Planning Project, Phase I, Site Options Study Volume II , 1982.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive
Plan , 1972.
Metropolitan District Commission, Recreational Facilities , July 1982.
Metropolitan District Commission, Transcript of Public Hearing, July
29, 1982.
Randall, Debra A., Archaeological Survey of the Proposed MDC Sludge
Management Plant at Deer Island, Massachusetts , 1981.
Sweetser, M.F., King’s Handbook of Boston Harbor . Moses King
Publisher, Cambridge, MA, 1882.
47
-------
Task Forces to Mayor Flynn, Boston in Transition, A Program and
Policy Analysis , Office of the Mayor, January, 1984.
Wallace, Floyd, Assoc., Inc. Boston Harbor Islands State Park - Draft
Concept Plan , 1983.
Wallace, Floyd, Assoc., Inc. Boston Harbor Islands State Park - Review
of Park Development , 1983.
Wallace, Floyd, Assoc., Inc. Boston Harbor Islands State Park —
1984 Master Plan , 1984.
48
-------
12.4 Engineering
Cost Estimates
-------
Section 12.4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO .
1.0 SUMMARY 1
1.1 Introduction i
1.2 SDEIS Alternatives Considered 1
2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ENGINEERING AND SITING ALTERNATIVES 3
2.1 Evaluation of MDC Alternatives from the Nut Island
Site Options Study (1982) 3
2.2 Alternatives Considered from Other Studies 5
2.3 New Alternatives Not Previously Studied 6
3.0 FACILITIES DESIGN CRITERIA 1
4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF INITIAL PRELIMINARY COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES 8
4.1 Capital and O&N Costs Update 8
4.2 Costs of New Alternatives fl
4.3 Assumptions Made on Engineering Cost Analysis 18
4.4 Operations and Maintenance Costs 18
5.0 REVISED COSTS FOR SCREENED ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Updated Costs from Site Options Study 2. 1
5.2 Use of EXEC/OP Computer Model for Verification 12.
5.3 Survey of Existing Facilities and Other Cost Sources 25
5.4 Revised Capital Cost Estimates
5.5 Revised 0 & M Costs 3
5.6 Costs to be Developed During Final Facility Design
-------
1.0 SUNNARY
1.1 Introduction
This report describes the basis of the preliminary cost estimates
applied in the Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) for the wastewater
treatment facility alternatives being proposed for Boston Harbor. It
identifies the method followed for initial development of facility
costs for a wide range of treatment facility options considered by the
MDC or proposed by others during the EIS process, and explains the
methods and assumptions applied to revise these initial cost estimates
once a smaller set of alternatives was reached. The impact analysis
done in the SDEIS does not encompass all costs associated with harbor
treatment facilities. For example, costs of sludge disposal are not a
part of the capital costs developed for wastewater treatment plants;
likewise, costs for associated barging of equipment, busing of con-
struction workers, unforeseen site constraints, and mitigation measures
are not part of the facility capital costs presented in this section,
nor are costs for other projects (such as CSO or I/I improvements)
included. These costs will be developed either as part of separate
facility plans or during final facility design of harbor treatment
plants.
1.2 SDEIS Alternatives Considered
The preparation of a Supplemental Draft EIS of proposed wastewater
treatment facilities in Boston Harbor began with a review of the
facility engineering requirements and the development of associated
preliminary costs for all viable treatment alternatives. The deter-
mination of which alternatives were to be considered in the SDEJS
required the review of all potential siting alternatives for Boston
Harbor wastewater treatment facilities.
12.4-1
-------
This review was based on:
• alternatives studied by the MDC and their consultants in the
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) report;
• other siting alternatives and treatment options which were
previously studied; and
new alternatives not previously considered which have been
identified as part of this SDEIS analysis.
Preliminary analysis of these siting alternatives defined such
criteria as the level of treatment, acreage required, site environment
and the neighboring conununity, and the number of sites and facilities
involved. Costs for construction and for operation, maintenance and
replacement (0, H & R) were examined initially as a means of comparing
the alternatives within either a primary level or secondary level of
treatment.
To compare the relative viability of the options at this early
stage of analysis, a general screening process was used to reduce the
iiumber of alternatives for further, more detailed study. Environmental
and conmiunity impacts were found to be of greatest concern among
options. Costs of the options were found not to be a principal deter-
ninant in the screening process. A separate report describes the
screening process and its results (see Section 12.12).
Eight alternatives were selected from the screening process.
These were then reanalyzed in greater detail to independently establish
preliminary capital costs and 0, H & R costs for both primary and
secondary options. In certain instances, revisions were made to the
preliminary costs based on the findings of this re-analysis. Table
12.4-1, which follows, sununarizes these estimated costs as they now
stand. Further final design details may further refine these costs at
that last phase of the facility design process. The set of final
12.4-2
-------
TABLE 12.
BOSTON HARBOR SDEIS: SUMMARY OF OPTIONS AND THEIR COSTS
Option No .
Nut Island
SiteB, Level of Treatment, and
(Acreage qz .d)
Deer Island
Long Island
Costs in
$Milliona 1
Capital
Present
Worth 2
OlIN ( $Millions )
SECONDARY ALTERNATIVES
1..2
lb .2*
2b • 1
2b.3
PRIMARY ALTERNATIVES
• ( 2)
• (18)
• C 2)
• ( 2)
(115)
(115)
KEY: — headworks only • primary treatment
1
D — deep ocean outfall * — MDC’s preferred options
** = This option dropped during final scre€ning.
— secondary treatment
Revised costs reflect refinements to earlier facility r ans
as discussed in section 12.4 of Volume II. These costs do
not include sludye disposal, barging, busing, or special noise
mitigation measures (see Sections 4.5 and 5.2).
2 Assumes 10% interest over 20 years.
. — __
• —
• (5) •(96)
• (52) • — (82)
595.04 43.59 1019.06
650.40 45.18 l0 93
4..2 D • ( 2) • ( 62)
4b.2 D*
Sa.2 D
Sb.2
705.98 44.63 1140.13
738.33 53.12 1255.07
•
S
S
(18)
( 2)
( 2)
• ( 52 )
• ( 52)
• ( 5)
751.99
810.22
• ( 18)
• ( 52)
21.10
22.01
23.52
21.51
816.23
871.55
957.28
1024.31
1044 .97
1080.74
Source: CE Maguire, Inc., November, 1984.
-------
capital and 0, M & R costs shown here and in Volume 1 of the SDEIS are
the basis for the cost analysis presented.
2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ENGINEERING AND SITING ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Evaluation of MDC Alternatives from the Nut Island Site Options
Study (1982 )
The MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) report was the
principal source of facility design criteria and cost data applicable
to the possible sites being considered. It presented capital and O&M
cost tables for 12 options analyzed in detail for the MDC by their
consultants, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. The SDEIS review process required
the examination of each alternative to verify the level of treatment
proposed, acreage required, site environment, including the neighboring
community, and the number and type of facilities involved. Evaluation
of facilities siting also included the determination of individual unit
processes requirements, the treatment facilities for north and south
system flows, and the overall usage and characteristics of the sites.
For example, the MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) “Option
5” provides secondary treatment. Under this option, a primary-
secondary treatment facility for the north system flows would be
located on Deer Island, a primary treatment facility for south system
flows would be located on Nut Island, and a companion secondary treat-
ment facility for south system flows would be located on Long Island.
Therefore, three distinct sites with varying levels of treatment would
be involved under this option. The use of Deer Island could impact
neighboring Port Shirley in Winthrop, the use of Nut Island could
impact neighboring lloughs Neck in Quincy, and the use of Long Island
could impact neighboring Squantum also in Quincy. Such combinations of
wastewater treatment engineering and siting considerations were
evaluated during the initial review of alternatives.
12.4-3
-------
In general, the alternatives presented in the MDC Nut Island Site
Options Study (1982) involved both primary and secondary treatment.
They involved the use of Deer and Nut Islands to varying degrees in all
cases, and the use of Long Island for three options, all of which are
secondary treatment options. The choice of alternatives studied by the
MDC and their consultants was based on the circumstances and decision
process in effect at that time. Subsequent developments, notably the
opportunity to apply to EPA for a waiver from secondary treatment,
resulted in a need to reconsider these MDC facility plan options, and
in certain instances, develop new ones as described in Section 2.3
below.
2.2 Alternatives Considered from Other Studies
Other studies conducted prior to the MDC Nut Island Site Options
Study (1982) also examined options for wastewater treatment facilities
siting in Boston Harbor. These included:
MDC, Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for Boston
Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area, EMMA Study ,
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., March, 1976.
• EPA, Draft Environinental Impact Statement on the Upgrading
of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System , Greeley and
Hansen and Environmental Assessment Council, Inc., August,
1978.
The MDC EMMA Study (1976) was the original facility plan for
siting of treatment facilities and it recommended a plan which provided
wastewater treatment at four sites. Secondary and advanced treatment
facilities would be located at Deer Island, Nut Island, the Middle
Charles River, and Upper Neponset River. The study also considered
siting along the Aberjona River. These proposed sites were then
evaluated by EPA prior to approval of federal funds.
12.4-5
-------
The EPA Draft EIS (1978) written following the MDC EMMA Study
(1976) plan, initially considered eleven sites in the vicinity of
Boston Harbor for the location of wastewater treatment facilities.
These sites were: Deer Island, Spectacle island, Long Island, Moon
Island, Squantuin, Peddocks Island, Nut Island, Broad Meadows, Kings
Cove, Lower Neck, and Broad Cove. Of these sites, only Deer Island,
Long Island, Squantum Point, Nut Island and Broad Meadows were found to
be suitable for further consideration.
As is apparent, conditions had changed sufficiently from the date
of these studies, and particularly the EPA Draft EIS (1978), to warrant
a new facility planning effort by the MDC, as evidenced by the MDC
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982), and a supplemental environmental
review by EPA in this SDEIS.
Chief among the options developed in these prior plans which were
carried in the SDEIS were the proposal from the EMMA Study to site
“satellite tt advanced treatment facilities on the Charles and Neponset
Rivers, and the recommendation from the EPA Draft EIS (1978) for
consolidated secondary treatment facilities on Deer Island.
2.3 New Alternatives Not Previously Studied
After reviewing the range of alternatives presented in the MDC
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982), the MDC EMMA Study (1976), and
the EPA Draft EIS (1978), public and agency comment was invited during
the EPA scoping period for the SDEIS. It became apparent from the
comments received that several additional options should also be
considered. Some of these options involved variations of treatment
process locations for both primary and secondary treatment. Sites
considered were primarily those at Deer, Nut, and Long Islands. These
included:
Primary treatment at Deer and Nut Island with a combined
secondary facility on Long Island,
12. 4-6
-------
• Converting Nut Island to a headworks and providing primary
treatment at Long Island,
Converting both Deer and Nut Islands to either headworks or
pumping facilities and providing either primary or secondary
treatment facilities on Long Island.
Other new alternatives considered looked at utilization of other
sites in Boston Harbor including Thompson Island, Lovell Island, or the
Brewster Islands.
Besides the presentation of new options relating to siting of
facilities, the comments received during scoping suggested optional
treatment processes as possible additional alternatives to be examined.
For example, an intermediate level of treatment greater than primary,
but less than secondary, could be achieved through chemically assisted
primary treatment (or advanced primary). Though initially considered,
these intermediate treatment levels were dropped because no proposal to
utilize such treatment had been made.
After reviewing all of the existing and new siting and treatment
alternatives, twenty-two options (including some similar options having
only slight variations in their facility layout) were analyzed for
preliminary screening. This screening reduced the number of viable
alternatives to eight. A separate report describing the screening
process and the results was distributed in June, 1984 (see Section
12.12). These eight were then reanalyzed to establish independent and
revised costs as appropriate.
3.0 FACILITIES DESIGN CRITERIA
The IIDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) presented in detail
the individual facility components required for each treatment
alternative. These components are designed to provide optimum removal
of coarse solids, suspended and floating solids, grease, and organic
matter. Other components also provide for disinfection and odor
12.4-7
-------
control. Land acquisition and other associated site development costs
were also developed in the prior study.
After reviewing established design guidelines, the generalized
design criteria presented in the MDC Nut Island Site Options Study
(1982) were found to be accurate for the treatment alternatives
presented. These design criteria applied to such treatment components
as screens, grit chambers, primary tanks, aeration tanks and equipment,
secondary tanks, sludge pumps and thickeners, and digesters.
Design criteria used to determine the individual component dimen-
sions were developed from those used in the MDC Nut Island Site
Options Study (1982) for each option presented. In order to facilitate
the comparison of the treatment alternatives in the SDEIS, the
component dimensions established for a given volume were carried over
to the new options, when applicable. Otherwise, new component
dimensions were derived based on the established design criteria and
assumptions presented in the MDC study. The dimensions of these major
treatment facility components utilized in the SDEIS are presented in
Table 12.4-2. A general comparison of treatment components is
presented in Figure 12.4-1.
4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF INITIAL PRELIMINARY COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Capital and O&M Costs Update
The MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) included a table of
capital costs for each option. The cost table presented detailed costs
for each option component, as well as other construction-related costs
such as removal of unsuitable materials and land acquisition. Since
this study was completed in June 1982, the costs presented in that
report were based on an Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost
Index of 3600, reflecting then current prices.
12.4-8
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAI LADLE
DIGITALLY
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT COMPONENTS BY TREATMENT LEVEL
COMPONENT FLOWS
NORTH SOUTH COMBINED
SYSTEM SYSTEM
Aerated
>
.
0
a
—,
C l)
>
E
z
Primary
Sedimentation 20(2) 12 28(2)
Tanks
Gravity
Sludge 2 10 c3)
Thickeners
‘
Anaerobic 4(4)
r Digestors
Aeration 16 6 22
Tanks
Secondary
Sedimentation 38 12 50
Tanks
(1) 2 of these are existing at Deer Island
(2) 8 of these are existing at Deer Island
(3) 4 of these are existing at Deer Island (4) 4 of these are existing
at Nut Island
(5) 4 of these are existing at Deer Island and 4 at Nut Island
Source: Based on MDC, Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) Volume 1,
Table 5-5.
Figure 12..4-1
-------
In order to facilitate the presentation of relative costs for all
of the options under consideration in the SDEIS, the MDC Nut Island
Site Options Study (1982) cost table was first updated to an ENR
Construction Cost Index of 4200, reflecting 1984 prices. Table 12.4-3
presents these costs for all options considered. The project costs
presented in the SDEIS reflect current 1984 dollars and will change
accordingly to reflect future inflation beyond 1984 at the time when
project construction begins.
Operation and maintenance (O&H) cost tables were similarly pre-
sented in the MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) to reflect
prices then in effect. Therefore, these costs were also updated to
1984 prices.
4.2 Costs of New Alternatives
In developing costs for new options, individual component charac
teristics for each option were compared with those presented in the MDC
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982). When an identical process
capacity was involved, the cost from the MDC study (updated) was
carried over and assigned to that component for the new option. For
cases where identical process capacities did not exist, costs were
developed utilizing the MDC study data applied as a ratio of volume to
Costs. In such cases, the resultant figures were examined to assure
consistency. It was determined that for this stage of preliminary
conceptual design and associated cost analysis such an approach was
reasonable.
For example, under SDEIS Option 2b.1 at Long Island, the influent
pump station would be identical to that required for “Option 11” of the
MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982). Therefore, the costs were
assumed to be the same. However, under Option 2b.1 at Long Island, 30
primary tanks would be required. The greatest number of tanks to be
constructed at any location for any MDC study alternative was twenty;
therefore, the estimated preliminary cost for primary tanks at Long
Island was calculated based on a proportionate cost.
12.4-11
-------
Table 12.4—3
UPDATED SITE OPTIONS STUDY COSTS C ENR 4200 )
Option la.2 Option lb.2 Option Ic Option 2a.1*
Deer Nut Deer Nut Deer Nut Deer Nut Long
- 29,677 2,993 16,881 2,993 16,881 2,993 10,432
9,129 315 9,129 315 9,129 315 9,129 —
-
2,921
1,169
2,337
1,169
2,337
—
1,169
—
12,920
-
12,920
—
12,920
-
12,920
-
3,150
—
3,150
-
3,150
—
3,150
—
21,307
—
—
80,317
44,743
-
-
59,012
31,319
21,307
13,422
31,319
-
13,422
183,974
-
64,639
-
248,614
-
183,974
64,639
1,540
-
-
2,066
-
-
-
1,216
1,540
4,864
-
1,216
4,864
1,216
-
4,864
5,355
6,615
—
6,615
-
-
4,442
3,885
6,615
3,623
3,885
3,623
-
3,623
741
17,814
—
17,814
—
741
17,073
1,402
1,402
2,835
1,591
2,835
1,402
2,066
-
-
10,409
3,469
10,409
-
3,469
Chambers
315
6,615
Screens & Grit
Primary Sedimentation
30,051
Tanks
3,506
Gravity Thickeners
22,059
Anaerobic Digesters
3,105
Gas Storage
Secondary
80,317
Tanks
44,763
Blower Building
Secondary
248,614
Tanks
Electrical
Building
6,080
Engine Generators
Administration
7,560
Maintenance Building
7,245
3,623
- -
Scum Incinerator
17,073
—
Odor Control Facilities
3,443
3,443
Chlorination Equipment
Tanks
13,857
13,857
Chlorine Contact
Utility Company
— 1,772
to Site
11,528 —
11,528
Pier Facilities
Interi sland Wastewater
- 82,819
- 82,819
Tunnel
29,413 —
29,413
22,411 8,710
Effluent Pump Station
47,723 -
47,723 -
41,265 49,397
Oulfalls
756 —
709 -
599 552
Miscellaneous Civil
275
3,141 6,297
3,141 15,666
Channels and Dikes
3,141
Removal
-
26,514 —
20,731
Materials
— —
- 2,442
- 13,262
Earth Fill
- -
- 15,730
- 49,167
Foundation Preparation
-
2 835
i 75
Subtotal by Site
-
639,670 98,973
738,643
588,470 184,880
773,350
452,312 318,364
770,676
C ipi1al Cost
2,077
2,077
1,820
Land Acquisition
lU 4________
lll,924
Sludge Processing
Total Cost
Il 92 4
852,644
887,351
884,420
1,969 - 2,048 — 1,772 -
8,892 11,528 8,892 11,528 - 8,234
46,459
275
65,606
783,081
22,411
41,265
599
3,141
20,731
452,312
1,820
111 924
8,710
53,019
552
1,245
973
2,008
5,689
265,163
1,050
897,875
-------
Table 12.4—8 cont.
2,993
9,129
17,918
I , 169
16,881
315
18,031
2,337
12,920
3,150
59,012
31,319
183,974
— - — 45,077
810 - - 4,675
— - - 33,089
- - - 3,150
- 80,317
- 44,743
- 248,614
18,031
2,337
12,920
3,150
Deer
Option 2a.2*
Nut Long
Option
Deer
2b.1*
Nut
Long
Deer
Option
Nut
2b.2*
Long
Influent Pump Station
Screens & Grit Chambers
Primary Sedimentation
10,432
16,881
315
-
9,129
10,432
—
16,881
315
2,993
9,129
37,589
—
Tanks
17,918
—
Gravity Thickeners
1,169
2,429
Anaerobic Digeaters
-
Gas Storage
Secondary Aeration
lanka
Blower Building
Secondary Sedimental ion
-
-
21,307
13,423
-
-
-
80,317
44,743
Tanks
-
64,639
-
248,614
Electrical Generator
Building
Engine Generators
-
1,216
1,540
4,864
-
-
2,066
6,080
-
1,216
1,540
4,864
Administration &
Maintenance Building
6,615
4,442
4,725
-
-
8,978
Scum incinerator
3,623
3,885
—
-
Odor Control Facilities
-
17,814
—
223
741
-
Chlorination Equipment
2,835
1,402
2,066
189
1,402
3,443
Chlorine Contact Tanks
10,409
—
3,469
—
—
13,857
Utility Company Power
to Site
—
1,969
1,712
—
—
1,969
—
l’i’r FaiIities
lI, 28
8,892
-
-
8,234
11,528
8,892
8,234
Interisland Wastewater
l’unnel
-
45,892
-
44,990
—
Effluent Pump Station
22,41!
—
8,710
—
29,413
Outfalls
41,265
—
53,019
—
91,855
Miscellaneous Civil
599
158
394
158
630
Channels and Dikes
3,141
6,297
687
6,297
11,118
l emoval Unsuitable
Materials
20,731
—
973
—
Earth Fill
-
2,442
2,008
2,442
Foundation Preparation
-
15,730
5,689
15,730
11,359
—
Demolition
-
75
-
1,575
Subtotal by Site
452,312
148,111
200,585
147,210
592,579
Capital Cost
801,008
886,937
Laud Acquisition
1,820
735
Sludge Processing
Iota! Capital Cost
915,487
7,245
17,073
3,443
5,670
3,623
189
4,442
3,886
17,814
1,402
68,156
642
46,459
275
29,413
91,855
630
11, 118
68,156
410
1,260
-
93,012
62,613
844,022
2,270
4,679
11,359
688,397
1,462
147,148
2,450
111,924
607
111,924
958,396
1,001,848
-------
Table 12.4—3 cont.
Influent Pump Station
Screens & Gtit Chambers
Primary Sedimentation
Tanks
Gravity Thickeners
Anaerobic Digesters
Gas Storage
Secondary Aeration
Tanks
Blower Building
Secondary Sedimentation
‘tanks
Electri cal Generator
Building
Engine Generators
Administration &
Maintenance Building
Scum Incinerator
Odor Control Facilities
Chlorination Equipment
Chlorine Contact Tanks
Utility Company Power
to Site
Pier Facilities
I nteri s laud Wastewater
Tunite I
Effluent Pump Station
Outf ails
Miscellaneous Civil
Channels and Dikes
Removal Unsuitable
Materials
Earth Fill
Foundation Preparation
Demolition
Subtotal by Site
Capital Cost
Land Acquisition
Sludge Processing
Total Capital Cost
223 741
189 1,402
8,978
7,245
17,073
3,443
13,857
102,554
1,922,670
- 2,066
- 6,080
6,615
7,245
17,073
3,443
6,940
41,252
411,847
457
1,517
2,190
- —
609,314 98,913
708,347
840
50,388
759,575
Option 3a*
- Nut -
16,881
315
Option 3b*
Deer Nut Brewsters Deer
Option 4a.1 Option 4a.2
Nut Deer
Nut
- 2,066 2,066
- 6,080 6,080
9,129
-
315
9,129
—
315
9,129
315
9,129
—
-
-
—
45,077
4,675
33,089
3,150
-
-
-
-
45,011
4,675
33,089
3,150
30,051
3,506
22,059
3,150
—
—
-
—
30,051
3,506
22,059
3,150
—
-
80,317
44,743
-
-
80,317
44,743
-
248,614
-
248,614
-
-
2,066
6,080
741
1,402
1,772 2,363
— 11,528
741
1,402
1,772
—
82,8 19
223
189
741
1,402
— 1,772 *
— - 11,528
8,978
7,245
17,073
3,443
13,857
6,615
7,245
17,073
3,443
13,857
— 1,772 * 2,363
- - 11,528 11,528
45,375
642
70,231
86,400
275
67,200
275
83,354
1,400,995
102,850
642
606
127,706
29,413
91,855
11,118
547 ,500
*
1,247,410
*
111 92 l
29,413
47,723
457
1,517
2,190
240,328
29,413
91,855
*
11,118
*
992,500
*
1,692,410
*
111,924
82,819
215
98,973
1,512,919
2,034,594
339,301
840
50,388
390,529
-------
Table 12.4—3 cont.
Option 4b.1 Option 4b.2 Option Sa.l*
Deer Nut Deer Nut Deer Nut
Option 5a.2*
Long Deer Nut Long
18,031
2,337
12,920
3,150
17,918
1,169
18,031
2,337
12,920
3,150
— 17,918
- 1,169
- 12,920
- 3,150
10,432
5,670
3,623
2,835
10,409
4,442
3,886
17,814
1,591
3,469
— 17,918
— 1,169
— 12,920
— 3,150
- 2,066
— 4,864
5,670
3,623
2,835
6,940
4,442
3,886
17,814
1,591
Influent. Pump Station
16,881
2,993
16,881
2,993
29,677
10,432
29,677
Screens B Grit Chambers
315
9,129
315
9,129
315
9,129
—
315
9,129
Primary Sedimentation
‘ranks
18,031
17,918
18,031
Gravity Thickeners
2,337
1,169
2,337
Anaerobic Digesters
12,920
—
12,920
Gas Storage
3,150
-
3,150
Secondary Aeration
Tanks
-
Blower Building
Secondary Sedimentation
Tanks
Electrical Generator
Building
-
1,540
-
1,540
-
-
2,066
—
Engine Generators
1,216
4,864
1,216
4,864
1,216
-
4,864
1,216
Administration &
Maintenance Building
5,670
-
6,615
5,670
-
Scum incinerator
3,623
-
3,623
3,623
-
Odor Control Facilities
-
741
17,073
—
741
Chlorination Equipment
2,835
1,402
2,066
2,835
1,402
Chlorine Contact Tanks
10,409
-
3,469
6,940
-
Utility Company Power
to Site
2,363
2,204
2,363
1,772
2,363
1,172
—
2,363
1,772
Pier Facilities
11,528
8,892
11,528
8,892
11,528
-
8,234
11,528
—
Interisland Wastewater
Tunnel
-
46,459
46,459
Effluent Pump Station
22,411
-
—
Outfalls
41,265
—
—
Miscellaneous Civil
410
-
-
Channels and Dikes
1,260
275
275
Removal Unsuitable
Materials
1,359
-
—
Earth Fill
-
Foundation Preparation
-
-
Demolition
-
2,835
Subtotal by Site
157,983
62,613
62,613
Capital Cost
323,017
723,776
294,463
750,798
Land Acquisition
607
607
Sludge Processing
Total Capital Cost
O ,388
:174,012
9 388
•
802,318
774,771
445,983
8,710
49,397
158
6,297
41,462
611,847
394
1,260
77,433
158
6,297
3,256
15,730
LL I
165,034
1,359
544,131
22,411
41,265
410
1,260
1,359
170,779
607
50.388
2,442
15,730
1,575
179,645
6,615
3,623
17,073
1,402
8,234
36,049
158
1,245
487
1,004
2,849
131,258
525
8,710
53,019
158
1,245
487
1,004
2,849
161 ,071
525
50,388
61,462
411,847
394
1,260
1,359
556,927
607
-------
Table 12.4—3 cont.
Influent Pump Station
Screens & Grit Chambers
Primary Sedimentation
Tanks
Gravity Thickeners
Anaerobic Digesters
Gas Storage
Secondary Aeration
Tanks
Blower Building
Secondary Sedimentation
Tanks
Electrical Generator
Building
Engine Generators
Administration &
Maintenance Building
Scum Incinerator
Odor Control Facilities
Chlorination Equipment
Chlorine Contact Tanks
Utility Company Power
to Site
Pier Facilities
Interisland Wastewater
Tunnel
Effluent Pump Station
Outfalls
Miscellaneous Civil
Channels and Dikes
Removal Unsuitable
Materia is
Earth Fill
Foundation Preparation
Demolition
Subtotal by Site
Capital Cost
Land Acquisition
Sludge Processing
Total Capital Cost
- 10,432 16,881
9,129 — 315
— 45,077
- 4,675
— 33,089
- 3,150
- 2,066
- 4,864
223 741
189 1,402
— 1,772 —
- 8,234
29,413
91 ,85S
368
11,118
1 , 135
2,339
6,638
299,064
1,225
50,388
- 10,432 16,881
9,129 — 313
223 741
189 1,402
- 2,066 -
- 4,864 1,216
1,135
2,339
6,638
623,988
1,225 1,820
50}38_
- 37,589
9,129 -
— 80,317
- 44,743
- 248,614
- 2,066
- 4,864
8,978
3,623
17,073
3,443
13,857
29,413
91,855
630
11 ,118
973
2,008
11,359
655,914
2,180
Sb. 1*
__p _ - -
16,881
315
5b.2*
Lo g _ Deer Nut
Option 2b.3*
Long Deer Nut Long
-
4,675
2,337
—
1,169
-
33,089
12,031
-
12,920
-
3,150
3,150
—
3,150
6,615
3,623
17,073
3,443
13,8S7
6,615
3,623
17,073
3,443
6,940
5,670
3,623
189
741
1,402
— 1,772 — — 1,772 —
- - 8,234 11,528 - 8,234
68,156
642
93,012
46,459
275
62,613
454,689
41,252
411,857
368
11,118
68,156
642
93,012
46,459
275
62,613
779,613
68,156
410
1,260
1,462
147,148
46,459
215
62,613
865,675
506,302 831,226
981,799
-------
* Footnotes to Table 12.4—3 : See Attachment 1 at end of
this section.
-------
Some cost items from the NDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982)
did not have associated sizes or quantities specified, such as removal
of unsuitables. Therefore, the cost for removal of unsuitables and
other similar site requirements was estimated based on comparative
facility sizing and/or land area. In all cases, at this stage of the
analysis, no unique site problems which affect estimation of prelimi-
nary construction costs were established for any of the new alterna-
tives developed (with the exception of the man-made island option which
was dropped from further consideration due to higher costs and con-
struction problems).
It was recognized, further, that certain cost items established
could be more dependent on site-specific conditions. For example,
removal of the drumlin at Deer Island would increase the cost of site
preparation in relation to the resultant acreage. At Nut Island,
construction on piles would increase the cost of foundation preparation
there. Therefore, cost comparisons for individual components were made
with those for the same site whenever possible to reflect such known
conditions or circumstances. Where base costs were utilized to estab-
lish costs at other sites, adjustment was made to provide consistent
estimating or reflect known variations in sites. Again, such adjust-
ment was made within the broad limits of accuracy for preliminary costs
developed in the MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982).
In the case of Long Island, some uncertainty exists with regard to
site subsurface conditions and construction/foundation requirements.
Because approval of access to the site was delayed it has not been
possible to investigate these conditions fully in order to verify their
existence. Since the MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) located
secondary treatment facilities on Long Island in the same general
location as the options now being considered, it is assumed that such
facilities are, in general, feasible at this site with no special
problems that could significantly affect site costs. Detailed
conditions at Long Island, during final design, will be verified should
that site be selected.
12.4-17
-------
4.3 Assumptions Made on Engineering Cost Analysis
Reflecting the preliminary nature of the cost estimates being
made, as noted above, many basic assumptions were made in order to
estimate the costs of these alternatives. The foremost assumption is
that costs for new options can be reasonably developed, at this stage
of the analysis, based on a comparative ratio of design criteria
involving flow, acreage, or quantity (of tanks) to a given cost as
developed in the prior MDC study. Other assumptions which were made,
involving elements of site or operations, are described in Attachment I
to this report.
4.4 Operations and Maintenance Costs
Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the new options were
developed similarly to the capital costs. That is, each cost item
under a new or different option was compared to those for the MDC Nut
Island Site Options Study (1982) alternatives, and costs were developed
based on applicable ratios. Revised operation and maintenance costs
are presented in Table 12.4-4. The following description highlights
the key elements of O&M costs.
4.4.1 Chlorine
Costs established in the Site Options Study (1982) for chlorine
were found to be inconsistent with the description of the chlorine
volume estimates at the given price per ton. These were therefore
adjusted to reflect the corrected and updated estimates. Preliminary
O&M costs were established based on the further assumption that post-
chlorination will take place 6 months per year for deep ocean outfalls.
12.4-18
-------
Annual Operation & Maintenance Coats 1 Tabis
(thousands of dollars per year)
——
Option
Itea /Site
Ia.
Deer
Nut
lb.
Deer Nut
Deer
2b.1
Nut
Long
Deer
Deer
2b.3
Nut
Long
Power
24,700
279
24,382 363
650
279
24,050
9,371
- 9,377
279
17,229
Cb1orine 2
2,454
480
2,454 480
1,120
480
1,334
1,120
1,120
480
982
Labor 3
6,977
607
6,522 2,518
208
607
5,772
3,579
607
6,067
Materials and
Supplies
1,353
212
1,320 512
319
212
1,035
807
807
212
1,145
Subtotal by
Site
35,484
1,578
34,678 3,873
2,297
1,578
32,191
14,833
14,883
1,578
25,423
Subtotal by
Option
37
,062
38,551
36,066
41,884
•
Solids
Handling
6
,633
6,633
6,633
6,633
TOTAL
43
,695
45,184
42,699
48,517
(1) Based on Site Options Study, Table 1-13; Updated to ENR 4200.
(2) Based on a unit Cost of chlorine at $350/ton.
(3) Based on Sate 0p jons_St 4y , Table 1-13 and Table 7-IS, revised to reflect updated facility components.
(4) Does not include the anticipated additional cost ot transporting workers.
(5) These chlorine costs reflect seasonal post-chlorination for deep ocean options.
-------
Annual Operation & $aintec*ance Costs Tabli 12_b’1-4
(thoussads of dollars per year)
Option
Item/Site
4.2
Deer Nut
4b.2
— Deer Nut
5a.2
Deer Nut Long
5b2
Deer Nut Long
Power
9,423 279
— 8,633 363
8,633 279 84
650 279 8,750
Chlorine(2 S)
2,717 480
2,237 959
2,237 480 480
1,120 480 1,598
Labor 3
4,125 607
3,579 2,518
3,579 607 1,638
208 607 3,328
Uaterials and
Supplies
995 203
933 512
933 212 300
319 212 677
Subtotal by
Site
17,260 1,569
15,382 4,352
15,382 1,578 2,502
2,297 1,578 14,353
Subtotal by
Option
18,829
19,134
19,462
18,228
So) ids
Handling
2,275
2,275
2,275
2,275
TOTAL
21,104
22,009
21,737
20,503
(1) Based on Site Options Study , Table 7-13; Updated to ENR 4200.
(2) Based on a unit cost of chlorine at $350/ton.
(3) Based on Site Options Study , Table 7-13 and Table 7-15, revised to reflect updated facility components.
(4) Does not include the anticipated additional cost of, transporting workers.
(5) These chlorine costs reflect seasonal post-chlorination for deep ocean options.
-------
4.4.2 Staffing
Operation costs for each option are directly related to the number
of personnel required, which in turn is dependent upon the size of the
facility and number of locations involved. Staffing requirements were
estimated for the new alternatives based on the staffing requirements
and costs presented Table 7-15 of NBC Nut Island Site Options Study
(1982).
4.4.3 Power
Costs presented for power are based on those presented in the MDC
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) updated to ENR 4200. Power costs
for new options were calculated by proportioning flows for similar
facilities.
4.4.4 Materials and Supplies
Cost estimates for this item were also based on those presented in
the MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) updated to ENR 4200.
Estimates for new options were calculated by proportioning flows for
similar facilities.
5.0 REVISED COSTS FOR SCREENED ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Updated Costs from Nut Island Site Options Study (1982 )
In reviewing the preliminary component list and associated cost
estimates (as shown in Table 12.4-3) for the various options being con-
sidered in the SDEIS, it was not feasible to study each of the more
than twenty alternatives ii detail. Therefore, as described in
previous sections of this ieport, initial review focused only on
updating of these costs from the previous MDC study or developing
comparable facility costs where necessary with minimal recosting of
components. The costs developed in the MDC Nut Island Site Options
Study (1982) were, therefore, accepted as reasonable at this stage of
12. 4-21
-------
preliminary analysis. These were found, moreover, to be comparable
within treatment levels and thus not a major screening criteria.
5.2 Use of EXEC/OP Computer Model for Verification
Once the alternatives were screened down to eight options--four
primary and four secondary- -more detailed analysis and verification of
the cost estimates could proceed. One method of cost verification used
was a computer model entitled “EXEC/OP”. This model was applied to
develop independent, hypothetical construction costs for the key unit
processes involved in both primary and secondary treatment facilities.
The model was developed by the EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory in Cincinnati and utilized as its basis the experience of
more than sixty separate treatment facilities across the country (see
Bibliography). EXEC/OP was used to compare such treatment component
costs as settling tanks, dIgesters, thickeners, and screening/degrit-
ting facilities. It was also considered for site—specific issues like
foundation work, excavation, and energy costs. Odor control, sludge
disposal, and land acquisition was not an output of the model.
The first step in using EXEC/OP is the preparation of a multi-
option flow diagram of the system being analyzed. Such a typical
multi—option flow diagram is shown in Figure 12.4-2.
From this, the EXEC/OP model then develops costs based on data
from selected recently built treatment plants in the U.S. Costs are
developed using input such as current construction cost index (ENR 4200
used), wholesale price index, interest rate (a rate of 8-1/8% was
used), and cost escalator for engineering and contingencies (a rate of
35% was used). Other input parameters include flow quantity plus
wast.ewater quality indicators such as ROD 5 , suspended solids, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and alkalinity. While these latter inputs can vary, the
parameters applied were not expected to significantly affect the basic
focus of comparing such hypothetical costs with the estimates made in
the MDC study.
12.4-22
-------
EXEC/OP can be utilized in two ways. When the specific unit pro-
cesses at a location are known, the model can supply a detailed per-
formance report of the facility in terms of facility output in volume
or costs or energy produced. If, however, it is questionable as to the
benefits of utilizing a particular unit process, or if two processes
are to be compared, EXEC/OP will select the combination of unit pro-
cesses that best meets a stipulated set of prioritized criteria of
cost, energy, land utilization, a subjective index of system desir-
ability, and/or effluent quality. Sample outputs of both of these
situations are shown in Attachments 2 and 3. These are provided as
examples of the model’s output only. Not every value derived from
EXEC/OP is applicable to the costing process.
Because the basis of the EXEC/OP model was treatment facilities
between 1 and 100 MGD of flow and since not all components identified
by the MDC study are covered by EXEC/OP, it was decided to apply the
model solely as a method of initial cost comparison with the MDC
facility costs. None of the other performance parameters of EXEC/OP
were considered, although, as the examples of the model’s output show,
these are readily produced and provide useful indications of a fa-
cility’ s performance.
While some bias in results may be introduced from the case studies
used in the model due to their smaller size (composed to the MDC
system), the application of a cost comparison based on unit processes
should, it was felt, still provide reasonably comparable costs for the
process components being compared. It should be pointed out, moreover,
that cost graphs developed for the wastewater treatment facilities
which were the basis of the model, showed that facility process costs
become linear for plants over 20 MGD. Therefore, the assumption of the
model’s applicability to larger facilities was considered valid.
12. 4-23
-------
TYPICAL MULTI-OPTION FLOW DIAGRAM
T SCREENING & PRIMARY SECONDARY
PUMPING CHLORINATION
DEGRITTING TREATMENT TREATMENT
FLOTATION [ ANAEROBIC
THICKENING I 1__DIGESTION
CONDITIONING &
- i INCINERATION
___________ I DEWATERING
GRAVITY L_J NULL
THICKENING I PROCESS
Figure 1 1 .4 -2 .
-------
Utilizing the model, Cost comparisons were generated for the
facility process components as noted above. In most cases, the costs
provided from EXEC/OP were within a reasonable range (about 25%) of the
original cost estimates from the MDC study. Where the updated MDC
costs were within this range, the figures derived from the MDC
Nut Island Site Options Stu y (1982) were utilized. In a few cases,
however, the variation between the two cost sources was greater than
this limit indicating the need for additional review and clarification
from the MDC and their consultants, as well as further verification of
costs from other sources.
5.3 Survey of Existing Facilities and Other Sources
As a follow-up to the EXEC/OP model, several telephone surveys
were made of other secondary and primary facilities to establish their
actual construction costs for the most significant discrepancies found
to exist. One item that was signalled by the comparison with EXEC/OP
to be a significant discrepancy involved the costs of secondary sedi-
mentation tanks. The information compiled from the survey of treatment
plants (most of which varied in size, yet were smaller than the pro-
posed 500 MGD plant of the MDC) indicated a range of consistent and
comparable costs well below the initial MDC estimates. A summary of
these costs are as follows:
Secondary
Primary(P)or Settling Tank
Facility Secondary(s) Unit Cost
Location Flow in MGD 1984
Providence, R.I. 210P, 77 S $ 40/Sq. Ft.
Meriden, Conn. 10 S $ 51/Sq. Ft.
Philadelphia, Pa. 210 5 $ 89/Sq. Ft.
1978 EPA DEIS
(Greeley & Hansen) 500 5 $112/Sq. Ft.
1982 MDC Site Options
Study (Metcalf & Eddy) 500 S $230/Sq. Ft.
Recognizing the variability of these facilities, their charac-
teristics, and their construction costs, it is possible, nonetheless,
to consider the range of costs shown above versus the significantly
12.4-25
-------
higher magnitude of costs represented by the costs estimated for the
MDC. The range of costs for other plants did include projects with
unique construction and siting problems which resulted in higher costs
than usual at the cited facilities. A higher cost approaching the cost
developed in MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) may, in fact, be
generated when such factors as barging, construction schedule delays,
other special contingencies, or mitigation measures are applied to the
costS of the project overall. However, it was deemed not appropriate
to include such outside costs in the preliminary estimate of costs for
sedimentation tanks. Any such additional cost factors should be
factored in separately to show their specific influence on costs at all
levels of treatment.
Based on a review of the information available, it was estimated
that a total cost of $241.5 million for secondary treatment be used.
This estimated total cost is derived from the data developed in the
1978 EPA Draft EIS based on secondary sedimentation tanks valued at
$116.5 million (updated costs equal to $112/sq. ft.) and aeration tanks
and blower building valued at $125 million. The costs utilized for
settling tanks are derived from an established method of engineering
estimating which independently sizes the tanks, their volume of con-
crete and steel, and cost per cubic yard. The costs for aeration tanks
and blower building remain consistent with the estimates from the MDC
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982).
In addition to this source, other component costs considered to be
a significant variation were reexamined. Such costs were revised
utilizing similar engineering approaches as noted above for the sedi-
mentation tanks as well as established cost tables (see Bibliography).
The specific components thus revised are discussed in the following
section.
5.4 Revised Cost Estimates
Based on the reanalysis and revision of costs conducted at this
time for the remaining eight options, as described above, a set of
12. 4-26
-------
“revised” preliminary costs was developed. Table 12.4-5 presents these
costs consolidated for all sources utilized. Attachment 1 at the end
of this section lists the assumptions used in developing these revised
cost estimates. Table 12.4-1 (noted previously) uses these revised
construction costs, adds annual O&M costs, and calculates present worth
for these eight options. As apparent from a comparison of the
initially updated MDC costs and the revised costs, MDC derived costs
were used for the most part in the SDEIS with only a few instances of
revised costs developed from other sources.
Upon comparison of EXEC/OP cost estimates with those updated from
the MDC Nut Island Site Qptions Study (1982), several component
categories were found to vary. Chief among these were the following:
prechiorination, screening and degritting, influent pumping, secondary
sedimentation tanks, digestion, flotation thickening, and effluent
pumping. Upon consideration of the reasons for these variations, it
was determined that the EXEC/OP figure or some other available cost
basis (see Bibliography) was a more reasonable estimate. For example,
the following factors influenced the revision of costs in some of the
more significant component categories:
Influent and Effluent Pumping, Prechlorination - The costs
from the MDC study included “credit” for reuse of existing
treatment facilities. In order to maintain consistency among
siting options at the initial stages of analysis, such
site-specific influences (as well as others) were not in-
cluded as part of the option capital costs. It was assumed
for comparative purposes that all sites would be evaluated on
an equalized facility cost basis.
Upon further revision to the remaining options, this assump-
tion was dropped in order to reflect the actual site condi-
tions existing at each location so that the assessment of
impacts by option could be made, for this smallet set of
12. 4-27
-------
TABLE 12.4-5
Revised Capital Costs (Mill $)1
Option la2 Option lb.2
Deer Nut Deer Nut
Prechlorination* 1 .47
Screen & Degrit* 9.94
Influent Pumping 2.99
Primary Settling 2 17.92
Gravity Thickeners 2 1.17
Anaerobic D gesters - -
Gas Storage
Secondary Settling* - _
Aeration --
Blower Building
Chlorination - -
Piers* 12.49
Tunnels 82.82
Outfalls --
Channels & Dikes 6.30
Power to Site 1.97
Demolition - - 1.58
Remove Unsuitables 26.51 --
Generators & Bldg. 1.22 6.40
Admin. Bldg. 6.62 4.44
Effluent Puniping* 10.00 - -
Misc. Civil .71 -—
Earth Fill 2.44
Foundations -— 15.73
Land 2.08 --
Odor Control 17.07 17.81
Scum Incinerator 3.62 3.89
Subtotal by Site 495.18 99.86 461.04 189.36
Option Total 595.04 650.40
1.47 3.43
9.94 1.86
-- 29.68
-- 18.03
-- 2.92
-- 12.92
-- 3.15
-- 116.38
-- 80.32
-- 44.74
— — 17.11
—— 11.81
82.82 --
-— 47.72
.28 3.14
1.77 -—
2.84
3.43
1.86
29.68
30.05
3.51
22.06
3.15
116.38
80.32
44.74
17.11
11.81
47.72
3.14
27.35
8.15
7.56
10.00
.76
2.08
17.07
7.25
.74
-------
Table 12.4-5 (cont.)
Option 2b.1 Option 2b.3
Deer Nut Long Deer Nut Long
Prechlorination* 3.43 1.47 -- 3.43 1.47 --
Screen & Degrit* 1.86 9.94 -- 1.86 9.94 --
Influent Pumping 16.88 -- 10.43 16.88 -- 37.59
Primary Settling 2 -- -- 45.08 18.03 -- 17.92
Gravity Thickeners 2 -- -- 4.68 2.34 -- 1.17
Anaerobic D gesters -- -- 33.09 12.92 -- 12.92
Gas Storage -- -- 3.15 3.15 -- 3.15
Secondary Settling -- -- 116.38 -- -- 116.38
Aeration -- -- 80.32 -- -- 80.32
Blower Building -- -- 44.74 -- -- 44.74
Chlorination -- -- 17.11 -- —- 17.11
Piers* -- - — 13.93 11.81 — - 13.93
Tunnels 68.16 46.46 -- 68.16 46.46 --
Outfalls -- -- 91.86 - — -- 91.86
Channels & Dikes .64 .28 11.12 1.26 .28 11.12
Power to Site -- 1.77 -- -- 1.77 --
Demolition 6.61 2.84 -- -- 2.84 --
Remove Unsuitables - - -- 2.23 1.46 -- .97
Generators & Bldg. -- -- 8.15 -- -- 6.93
Admin. Bldg. - - -- 8.98 - - -- 8.98
Effluent Pumping* -- - - 10.00 -- -- 10.00
Nisc. Civil —- -- .63 .41 -- .63
Earth Fill -- -- 4.68 -- --- 2.01
Foundations -- -- 11.36 -- -- 11.36
Land -- -- 2.45 - - -- 2.38
Odor Control .22 .74 17.07 17.07 .74 17.07
Scum Incinerator -- -- 7.25 3.62 - - 3.89
Subtotal by Site 97.8 63.50 544.68 162.40 63.50 512.43
Option Total
705.98
738.33
-------
Table 12.4—5 (cont.)
Option 4a.2 Option 4b .2
Deer Nut Deer Nut
Prechlorination* 343 1.47 3.43 1.47
Screen & Degrit* 1.86 9.94 1.86 9.94
Influent Pumping 29.68 -- 29.68 2.99
Primary Settling 2 30.05 -- 18.03 17.92
Gravity Thickeners 2 3.51 -- 2.34 1.17
Anaerobic D gesters 22.06 - - 12.92 --
Gas Storage 3.15 3.15
Secondary Settling*
Aeration --
Blower Building -- — -
Chlorination 10.19 9.59 --
Piers* 11.81 -- 11.81 12.49
Tunnels -- 82.82 -- 77.43
Outfalls 479.50 -— 479.50 --
Channels & Dikes 1.52 .28 1.26 6.30
Power to Site 2.36 1.77 2.36 1.77
Demolition -- 2.84 -- 1.58
Remove Unsuitables 2.19 -- 1.36 --
Generators & Bldg. 815 -- 1.22 6.40
Admin. Bldg. 6.62 -- 5.67 4.44
Effluent Pumping* 10.50 -- 10.50 --
Ilisc. Civil -- .39 .16 --
Earth Fill -- -- 2.44
Foundations -- - — -- 15.73
Land .84 -- .61 --
Odor Control 17.07 .74 17.07 17.81
Scum Incinerator 7.25 -- 3.62 3.89
Subtotal by Site 651.74 100.25 626.45 183.77
Option Total 751.99 810.22
-------
Table 12.4-5 (cant.)
Option 5a.2 Option 5b.2
Deer Nut Long Deer Nut Long
Prech lorination* 3.43 1.47 -- 3.43 1.47 - -
Screen & Degrit* 1.86 9.94 - - 1.86 9.94 --
Influent Pumping 29.68 -- 10.43 16.88 -- 10.43
Primary Settling 2 18.03 -- 17.92 -- - 45.08
Gravity Thickeners 2 2.34 -- 1.17 —- -- 4.68
Anaerobic D gesters 12.92 -- 12.92 - 33.09
Gas Storage 3.15 -- 3.15 -- -- 3.15
Secondary Settling* -- -- -- -- -- --
Aeration -- --
Blower Building -- -- -- -- --
Chlorination 9.59 -- -- -- - - 10.19
Piers* 11.81 -- 13.93 -- - - 13.93
Tunnels -- 46.46 36.05 68.16 46.46 --
Outfalls 479.50 -- -- -- -- 518.50*
Channels & Dikes 1.26 .28 1.25 .64 .28 11.12
Power to Site 2.36 1.77 - - -- 1.77 --
Demolition -- 2.84 - 6.61 2.84 --
Remove Unsuitables 1.36 -- .49 -- -- 1.14
Generators & Bldg. 1.22 -- 6.93 -- - - 6.93
Adniin. Bldg. 5.67 -- 6.62 -- -- 6.62
Effluent Pumping* 10.50 -- -- -- -- 10.50
Nisc. Civil .39 -— .16 -- -- .37
Earth Fill -- -- 1.00 -- -- 2.34
Foundations - - -- 2.85 -- -- 6.64
Land .61 -- .53 - - -- 1.23
Odor Control 17.07 .74 17.07 .22 .74 17.07
Scum Incinerator 3.62 - - 3.89 -- -- 7.25
Subtotal by Site 616.37 63.50 136.36 97.8 63.50 710.25
Option Total 816.23 871.55
*Based on longer distance from LI site.
-------
Notes
*These costs were revised based on initial review of EXEC/OP estimates
followed by verification or substitution using other sources including
recent construction costs. (see Bibliography). In most cases, revisions
to costs applied consistently across all options within a treatment level
so that no significant alterations to the siting criteria resul’ted.
Costs originally estimated in the lDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) for sludge
disposal facilities (and shwon in Table 12.4-3) are no l,onger being carried due to the
lack of a sludge management decision at this time. SitIdge planning is ongoing.
of sludge options being conducted by the Commonwealt These costs will be
estimated separately under a sludge management facility plan and environmental impact
assessment.
2 Digestion equipment and associated components may not be required under
a composting method of sludge disposal, but may be used in other
sludge disposal methods being considered by the State. Costing of digestion
and related other components in this analysis is based on the conclusions in 1DC Site
Options Study (1982).
Source: CE MAGUIRE, INC. (October 12, 1984).
-------
possible alternatives, including all reasonable character-
istics and conditions that would apply to a siting location.
Secondary Settling - A major difference in the estimate of
the cost of secondary settling tanks is a result of differing
cost factors as described in the previous section. As a
result of further analysis, a revised cost was arrived at.
Piers--These costs were increased at Nut Island to reflect
the view that added dredging would be needed due to the
shallower depths encountered there.
Screening and Degritting--The original estimates were found
to be somewhat lower than other sources indicated were
appropriate. This difference was relatively small overall;
however, to maintain consistency, the costs were adjusted.
Odor Control--The MDC Site Options Study (1982) did not
include odor control equipment at either Deer Island or Long
Island treatment facilities. Such available design measures
as covered headworks and enclosed digester operations with
ventilation blowers to capture escaping gases were not
uniformaly applied at all sites. It was concluded, for
purposes of the SDEIS analysis, that odor control must be a
feature of all options at every location, and these costs
were factored into the estimates.
In addition, several component categories costed originally in the
MDC Site OptIons Study (1982 ) and carried in the initial SDEIS cost
update (Table 12.4-3), were found to be inconsistent because they no
longer would be required under some of the sludge disposal choices
based on the Commonwealth’s newly proposed sludge disposal plan. This
resulted in further interim revisions to costs from the preliminary
SDEIS figures initially developed.
12. 4-33
-------
For example, if composting were selected as the method of sludge
disposal, sludge thickening, digestion, and gas storage facilities may
not be required (although it may occur if proven to be cost effective).
While if incineration were used digestion would only occur under
primary treatment options. Therefore, final cost estimates for the
options including sludge handling and disposal will vary according to
the sludge disposal method to be selected. At this stage for the SDEIS
analysis, preliminary costs for each of the wastewater treatment
alternatives does not include sludge handling and disposal methods.
Costs for sludge processing and disposal will be developed separately
by the MDC in upcoming facility planning.
At this stage of the analysis, as the figures (in current dollars)
sununarized in Table 12.4-1 show, the primary treatment options are
estimated to cost between $752 million and $872 million; the secondary
treatment options are estimated to cost between $595 million and $738
million. Present worth values, combining annual 0, N & R costs with
the amortized construction debt payback are estimated to be between
$1,019 million and $1,255 million for secondary options, and between
$957 million and $1,081 million for primary options.
This range of costs should not be compared between treatment
levels since, as has been stated from the outset of this project, the
decision on whether secondary or primary treatment would be required
rests solely with the review by EPA of the MDC’s 301(h) waiver ap-
plication. However, some clarification of these estimated costs is
needed.
The significant reduction in secondary treatment costs for all
options from those shown in Table 12.4-3 was a result primarily of:
reduction of estimated costs for secondary sedimentation tanks as noted
in the previous section. By comparison, primary treatment costs were
not reduced since the question of sedimentation tank costs did not
affect the primary options. Additionally, the costs of a long
outfall--estimated to be $480 million -- which affected only the
12.4-34
-------
primary options was further increased late in the SDEIS analysis as a
result of the MDC extending the outfall location from 7 to 9 miles.
It must be remembered that the capital costs for any of the
options will increase from those presented in Table 12.4-5 by the added
costs of sludge disposal facilities involving either composting, incin-
eration, ocean disposal, landfilling, or some combination of these.
Likewise, there will be added contingency costs, in some cases
amounting to significant amounts, from the need to barge equipment and
materials, provide shuttle bus service for workers, provide noise
mitigation measures, or otherwise mitigate potential adverse impacts
during facility construction and operations.
For the purposes of the SDEIS analysis, the costs presented in
Table 12.4-5 are intended to reflect updated and revised facility
capital costs developed consistently across all sites and consistent
with the assumptions noted in Attachment 1. Such a baseline analysis
was a necessary preparation for the SDEIS in order to verify the costs
presented in MDC Site Options Study (1982), establish a consistent and
reasonable cost basis for all options being studied in detail, and
provide a framework for the impact assessment.
5.5 Revised 0 & N Costs
The operations and maintenance costs shown in Table 12.4-6,
following, reflect a combination of factors. Costs shown for the seven
options selected following the screening process are final estimates
based on further analysis made of the operational conditions under each
remaining alternative. In particular, staffing levels and power costs
were refined to reflect more accurately the likely conditions at each
site under each of the alternatives. The costs shown for the last
primary option (5b.2) which is not under active consideration at this
time are those developed as part of the initial screening review.
12.4-35
-------
Dollars)
2b. 1
Nut Long Deer
la.2
TAbLt 1 .4O
O,M&R COSTS (Thousands of
lb.2
20
$607
1,370
2b. 3
Nut
Long
215
$6,522
7,010
$2,454
23,620
$24,382
$1 ,320
83
$2,518
1 ,370
$480
170
$363
$512
34
$1,031
3,196
$1 ,120
5,450
$5,664
$319
90
$279
$212
20
$607
1,370
$480
90
$279
$212
219
$6,629
3,811
$1,334
18,560
$19,288
$1 ,035
Option
LABOR
#Staff
$1000/yr.
Deer Nut
Deer Nut
Deer
$1,578 $29,927
227
$6,872
CHLORINE
Tons/yr.
$1000/yr.
7,010
$2,454
POWER
1000 Kw. Hr/Mo
$1000/yr
23,760
$24,700
MAT’LS & SUPP.
$1000/yr
$1,353
Subtotal
by Site
$1000/yr.
$35,379 $1,578
$34,678 $3,873
$8,134
$1,578 $28,286
Opt ion
Sub-Total
Solids Handling
$36,957
6,633
$38,551
6,633
$37,998
6,633
$46,489
6,633
Total
$43,590
$45,184
$44,631
$53,122
118
$3,579
3,196
$1,120
9,120
$9,478
$807
20
$607
1,370
$480
90
$279
$212
209
$6,340
2,806
$982
20,650
$21,460
$1 , 145
-------
O,N&R COSTS (Continued)
Option 4a.2 4b.2 5a.2 5b.2
Deer Nut Deer Nut Deer Nut Lo Deer Nut J g
LABOR
# Staff 136 20 118 83 118 20 63 34 20 102
$1000/yr $4,125 $607 $3,579 $2,518 $3,579 $607 $1,911 $1,031 $607 $3,093
CHLORINE
Tons/yr 7,762 1,370 6,392 2,740 6,392 1,370 1,370 3,196 1,370 4,566
$1000/64 $2,717 $480 $2,237 $959 $2,237 $480 $480 $1,120 $480 $1,598
POWER
1000 Kw-hr/mo 9,380 90 8,480 170 8,480 90 740 5,450 90 4,180
$1000/yr $9,423 $279 $8,633 $363 $8,633 $279 $1,598 $5,559 $279 $4,264
MAT’LS & SUPP.
$1000/yr $995 $203 $933 $512 $933 $203 $300 $319 $203 $677
Subtotal
by Site ________________ ________________
$1000/yr $17,260 $1,569 $15,382 $4352 $15,382 $1,569 $4,289 $8,029 $1,569 $9,632
Option
Sub-Total $18,829 $19,734 $21,240 $19,230
Solids Handling 2,275 2,275 2,275 2,275
Total $21,104 $22,009 $23,515 $21,505
Source: CE Maguire, Inc. (Revised October 12, 1984)
-------
5.6 Costs to be Developed During Final Facility Design
The types of capital and O,M&R costs involving wastewater
treatment facilities siting to be developed further involve several key
parameters. Foremost among these is the estimate of costs for the
sludge management and disposal options being considered by the
Commonwealth. Final costs of sludge disposal will be made as part of
an upcoming NBC facility plan and EPA supplemental environmental
review. The SDEIS has considered the effects of each sludge option
as it may influence siting of treatment plants and has found sludge
siting issues not to be a determinant in siting of treatment plants.
Other costs have been considered, but are not incorporated to the
capital costs of alternatives in the SDEIS. These include such things
as barging operations to reduce the need for trucking through local
comniuxiities and busing of construction workers to minimize auto
traffic. Possible mitigation measures may include roadway repaving or
new traffic signals, added roadway safety measures, possible financial
compensation for direct impacts to local communities, improvements to
land areas around the treatment plants afforded by buffer areas and
screening, possible varied construction schedules and added noise
mitigation, or other special measures which may also be applied to the
project and would add to the overall costs.
Another unresolved issue that will be studied as part of the
facility final design and may alter cost estimates is the method of
disinfection applied to wastevater. Current practice of the MDC
involves the addition of chlorine to wastewater both prior to treat-
ment, to control odors, and following treatment, to further disinfect
prior to discharge. This current practice requires the regular
delivery by truck of chlorine gas to both existing treatment plants.
Concerns about potential safety problems during truck delivery through
local neighborhoods and onsite storage of chlorine gas have been raised
by local residents, and have led to consideration of other possible
alternative methods for disinfection.
12.4-38
-------
One such method examined is the onsite production of sodium
hypochiorite. Using preliminary information developed by the MDC’s
facility planners (Havens & Emerson, Draft Deer Island Facility Plan,
1984) it was found that this alternative offended several advantages
over chlorine gas, notably in terms of elimination of the trucking and
storage safety issues. Such a system would essentially be an onsite
generation process to manufacture sodium hypochiorite (NaOC1) at the
site of treatment facilities. In the case of consolidated treatment
facilities, this system would be located at one location; however, it
would be developed for split systems. The chief comparative differ-
ences of this process are its potentially higher capital costs
(depending upon the specific process components and number of facili-
ties), and its associated greater O&I1 costs (particularly for power),
compared to chlorine use. However, the magnitude of difference must be
more carefully analyzed for the particular process components, dosage
requirements, and operational elements under each alternative method.
These details will be examined during the final design stage of
treatment facility design and will alter the final facility costs
(capital and O,M&R) for the project.
12.4-39
-------
Attachment 1
ASSUMPTIONS MAJ)E IN COSTING THE ALTERNATIVES
1. MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) prepared by Metcalf &
Eddy, Inc., hereafter referred to as the Site Options Study , is
the basis for the preliminary engineering and cost analysis
carried out by CE Maguire, Inc. in the initial review of available
information leading to the first-tier screening of alternatives.
All inherent assumptions and engineering factors used in the tIDC’s
facility planning for the Sites considered by their consultants
are maintained in the assessment of new sites and/or facilities
with the exceptions noted below.
2. Capital costs developed by the NBC ’s facility planner, as pre-
sented in Section 7 of the Site Options Study (and appearing in
Table 7-12) which utilized an ENIR of 3600, have been updated to an
EN R of 4200.
3. For alternatives being considered which were also considered
previously (by MDC or EPA), the approach used was to review the
basic engineering and cost parameters presented in order to verify
available criteria and assumptions utilized previously. Once
accepted, these factors were updated as necessary and then util-
ized to develop the list of both previous and new alternatives.
4. Construction costs utilized are based on wastewater flow volumes
and capacities developed for the MDC in the Site Options Study ;
any changes to the assumptions on volumes and capacities for
treatment facilities will affect those costs accordingly either up
or down.
5. Costing of facilities associated with new options assumes that
construction of similar treatment facilities at different loca-
tions will be of a comparable nature; no abnormal variations in
surface/subsoil/geologic conditions or other factors are factored
in unless these are stated in the Site Options Study or became
12.4-40
-------
known in the impact analysis for the SDEIS. Any such variations,
if identified, are factored into the cost analysis.
6. Costs for power to the site of treatment facilities is developed
based on the criteria used in the Site Options Study .
7. Costs utilized for channels, and dikes in all alternatives where
applicable are based on conservative costs developed and presented
in the Site Options Study for these construction elements.
8. Inter-island tunnel costs for transport of effluent were developed
from Site Options Study based on a unit cost of appproximately
$3,200/ft for 10-foot diameter and $6,050/ft for 16-foot diameter
tunnels. These costs will be updated in the SDEIS cost analysis.
9. Construction costs of new facilities on Long Island assume no
additional costs for foundation preparation beyond those utilized
in Site Options Study .
10. Costs do not reflect any additional land acquisition costs, should
these prove necessary, beyond those assumed the Deer Island and
Long Island in the Site Options Study .
11. Costs do not include major movement of materials by barge (based
on assumptions in Site Options Study ) as now is being required;
they also do not include movement of personnel by shuttle bus.
12. Assumptions on manpower and staffing contained in the Site
Options Study have been maintained in the update of alternatives;
staffing levels for headworks/pump station at Deer Island were
further revised to reflect current IIDC staffing levels.
13. Assumptions in the Site Options Study regarding staff vehicle
trips and construction worker vehicle trips are maintained in the
analysis carried out for the screening. Similarly, construction
truck trips per day are carried forward based on the presentations
12. 4-41
-------
in the MDC study, and are the basis for developing a barge al-
ternative which now eliminates most of the prior trucking
assumptions.
14. Costs for chlorine contact tanks are carried forward from the
Site Options Study based on the apparent facility criteria
utilized.
15. Costs for chlorine (annual) are likewise carried forward based on
the assumptions presented in the MDC study; however, there is an
apparent inconsistency in the unit cost factor used by the fa-
cility planner which has been adjusted to be consistent with the
volumes presented.
16. Digestion costs were accepted as reasonable for purposes of this
analysis, however, these would not be expected to result under a
composting sludge disposal method, or for processing of secondary
sludge -
17. Revised costs shown for process components (denoted by a * in the
table) refect a variety of outside sources including equipment
manufacturers, existing facility costs, and modelling analysis as
noted in the body of this report. For the most part, costs
developed for the MDC by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. were found to be
reasonable and based on sound engineering judgement.
12.4-42
-------
* *
ATI’AOINENT 2 * EXEC/OP *
* S
* VERSION 1.2 *
* *
EXECUTIVE PROGRAM
(OPTIMIZATION VERSION)
FOR
PRELIMINARY SYNTHESIS OF WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCN LASORATORY
SYSTEMS AND ECONOMIC AM*YSIS SECTION
CINCINNATI , OHIO 452GS
sss*ss*s*sss**sssss*s***sss******.s*sn**s
S
*.*.**s****************************** SSS
S
* OPTION IS & 40.2 - NUT ISLAND PRIMARY
S
S
SSSS*SSSSS*S*S*SS*S*S**S*S*SSS*****S*S*SS*
-------
PROCESS LTERI4 TIVE 3
CiPTION PROCESS STAGE SIDESTREAM
NO. HO. HO OESTIH TION REM PKS
1 12 I 5 PRECHLORItI TIOU
2 1 2 5 PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
3 15 3 5 RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
4 2 4 PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
S 5 4 GRAVITY THIC EHI 4G
6 6 6 4 DIGESTION OF PRIMARY
-------
EFFLUENT DISCHARGE STAt4D 0S
200.00
200.00
10000. 00
10000.00
10000.00
WEIGHT LIMIT
1. INITIAL COHSTR. COST, MS
2. ANNUAL 0 & M COST, 5/MG
3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST, S/MG
4, ENERGY CONSUMED, KUH.’MG
5. ENERGY PRODUCED, KWH/MG
6. NET ENERGY CONSUMED, KWH,’MG
7, LAND REQUIRED, ACRES
8. UNDESIREABILITY INDEX
CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX 2. 1770
WHOLESALE PRICE INDEX 3.0630
DIRECT HOURLY WAGE.. $.‘HR 45,0000
FRACTION CHARGED TO INDIRECT WAGES .6667
COST ESCALATOR FOR MISC. FEES 1.3500
COST OF ELE :TRICITY, S/KWH , 0720
BTU TO KWH CONVERSION EFF. .0900
DISCOUNT RATE .0812
CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR .1028
5—DAY BO O, MC/L
SUSPENDED SOLIDS, MG/L
AMMONIA — 14, MG/L
NITRATE — N.. MG/L
PHOSPHORUS. MG/L
SELECTION CRITERIA
CRITERION
.00
00
I . 00
00
00
00
.00
00
11)000. 00
I 00000.00
100000.00
10000.00
.00
1 0000. 00
10000.00
10000.00
ECONOMIC DATA
1.4599
3 .27.34
23.7575
7.8493
6822
11.9435
38.26
37.38
12.14
21 .10
84
29.87
41 , 02
43. 52
56. 75
35, 83
3.12
52. 29
3TAGE PROCESS
SLIJOCE
COHSTR
ANN
O&M
TOTAL
ANN
EI4ER USE
ENER PROD
NET EI4ER
LAND
REOD
UNCESIRE—
140. OPTION
TONS/DAY
COST MS
COST
5/MG
COST
S/PIG
KWH/MG
KWH/PIG
KWH /PIG
ACRES
AGILITY
I e1((L f 1
.00
34,7 3
.oc
34.71
.11:1
.00
25c.- D - 2
3 3
4 4
5 ( . .j 5
.00
.00
91.12
91.12
1,74
42.85
7.64
.26
.00
c i: ’
.00
.00
1.74
42.85
7.64
.26
.0 i)
.O’3
.00
U n
.110
.0(1
.00
. 1 10
6 6
88.38
111.71
459.01
—347.30
ti ll
0’)
.:;YSTE PI VALUES
91.12
48.98
340.58
232.54
398.91
459.01
—260.09
(ill
ni )
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SLIJDGES MIXED AT STAGE 15
-------
PROCESS PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
CONSULT PROGRAM REFERENCE
VOLUME FLOW, MCD
CONCENTRATION, MG/L
MANL AL FOR MEANING OP PROCESS It4P1 T AND OUTPUT OESI t4 DATA,
STAGE I PROCESS OPTION
3
320.000
it
.000
4
. 000
14
.000
INPUT
DESIGN
DATA:
4
5
6
.000
.000
000
12
13
14
.000
.000
.000
OUTPUT
DESIGN
5
.000
IS
.000
DATA:
6
.000
16
.000
7
.000
17
.000
2
.500
In
.000
3
.000
13
.000
SOC
lOS. 000
105.000
.000
DNBC
11,000
11. 000
.000
.‘ SIDESTREAM CHARACTER1STICs
II1FLLIENT / EFFLUENT
SHBC
30.000
30.000
.000
D I I
25.000
25.000
.000
SON
15.000
15,000
.000
DP
5.000
5.000
.000
12.000
S
.000
2
2736.405
12
.000
0
.! 50 . 000
150,000
.000
DOC
43. 000
43.000
.000
I . 000
9
.000
2
.000
12
• 000
0
150.000
150.000
000
DO C:
43. 000
43.000
.000
SOP
3.000
3. 00o
.000
DFM
300.000
300. 000
.000
6963. 013
ii
.000
I UF LUEN T:
EFFLUENT:
SIDESTRM:
I NFLUEI4T
EFFLUENT:
SIDES T P11:
01)0
Ii
000
I NFLUENT
EFFLUENT:
S IDESTPM:
INFLUENT:
EFFLUENT:
SIDESTRI l:
STAGE 2 PROCESS OPTION 2
2
.000
tO
.000
:3
• 000
13
• 0(10
SF 11
55.000
55.000
.000
AL l(
100.000
100.000
.000
I c
• 000
14
• 000
000
• i: 0 0
.000
15
2.070
S
000
IS
.000
SBOD
ISO. 000
150.000
.000
D BO D
55.000
55.000
01)0
0O
Is
• 000
8
• 01)1)
18
• If 0
38 (ID
I 50 . 00 c
I 50 . 00 ii
• 1)01)
( ‘ 50 [ ‘
55 . 00”
55, (100
• 00 0
3
.000
11
.000
4
000
14
0(1 0
8
000
16
.000
9
000
19
.000
VS S
205. 000
205.000
000
NH 3
25.000
25.000
.000
8
000
16
2. O?0
000
I 9
o’) 0
5 C,
205.00’)
205 , (‘00
000
1 1H3
000
25. 00,1
o ( I I:
to
.000
20
(‘0’)
T S S
220.000
220.000
000
NO 3
000
000
1)0 1)
‘I’ ll’
(i (, ,1
I 2
‘ IJ IJ U I)
2 li I i 1 .1
I I
(I i:
1) ii U
0 0
I I4FLUENT / EFFLUENT
INPUT DESIGN DATA:
4 5
.000 .000
12 13
.1)00 .000
OUTPUT DESIGN DATA:
5 6
.0(10 .000
iS 16
.000 .000
/ S t(’ESTREAM
:301 1 SOP
15.1)00 3.000
15.000 3.000
.000 .000
(‘F’ (‘FM
5.000 300.000
SOd’) 300,000
•OOd i .000
SOC
105.000
lOS, 000
.000
( “ SC
II,000
Ii 000
.00(1
S NBC
30.000
30.000
000
( ‘N
25.000
25.000
000
CHARACTERISTIC’;
S F N
55.00’)
• fliT , I)
fu l l
A LI
I ii (I i i hi,
I ‘ il • ‘: ii o
C, I)
-------
STAGE 3 PROCESS OPTION 3
STAGE 4 PROCESS OPTION 4
645 876
Ii
000
IlIFLUENT
EF F LII E NT:
S IDES T RN
INFLUE I4T
EFFLUENT:
S ID £ SIR N
2.000
10
.000
3
I 823. 036
13
000
I HF LU EN T
SOC
106.512
37.551
9545,455
ON 8 c:
11.000
11 .000
11 . 000
OUTPUT DESIGN DATA:
4 5
.000 .000
14 15
.000 .000
/ EFFLUENT / SIDESTREAM
SHBC SON
30.432 15.216
10,729 5.365
2727.273 1363.63?
D I I OP
25.000 5.000
25.000 5.000
25.000 5.000
6
000
14
.000
6 7
.000 .coo
16 I ?
000 . 00’)
CHARACTERISTICS
SOP SF11
3.043 55.792
1.073 19.670
272.727 5000. 001
DFI’I lLK
300.000 r:,o. oc’o
300.000 100.000
30Ci.0 00 100.11 (1,)
8
000
16
I .000
T 5
223.16:3
76.679
2 ci o oo. ci ‘: ‘
141
0 i: o
o o i:
U Ii U
INPUT DESIGN DATA:
6
7
8
I
2
3 4 5
.000
.000
.000
10.200
.000
.000 . oo o .000
14
15
16
9
10
I I 12 13
.000
.000
2.600
.000
.000
.000 .000 .000
OUTPUT DESIGN DATA:
7
8
9
10
I
2
3
4 5 6
.oi:’o
.000
.00:
.0:0
178,823
.000
.000
.000 .000 .000
17
19
19
20
II
12
13
14 15 16
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000 .000 .000
INFLUENT:
Q
150.000
INFLIIENT
SOC
105.000
/ EFFLUENT SIDESTREAM CHARACTERISTICS:
SHBC SON SOP SFN
30,000 15 .000 3.000 55,0(10
3800
150.000
152.160
YSS
205 .000
207.952
TSS
2.20.000
223.168
EFFLUENT:
150.811
106.512
30.432 15.216 3.043
.000
.000
.000
.00’)
SIDESIRN :
INFLUENT:
.000
DOC
43.000
.000
DNBC
11.000
.000 .000 .000
ON DP OFII ALK
25.000 5.000 300.000 100,000
100.000
0800
55.000
55.000
NH3
25.000
25.000
N 03
,rj oO
.000
EFFLUENT:
43.000
11.000
25.000 5,000 300.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
SIDESTR II :
.000
.000
.000 .000 .000
NOTE: INFLUENT (EFFLUENT
FROM PREVIOUS STAGE) INCLUDES RETURN
INPUT DESIGN DATA:
3 4 5
168.000 .000 .000
I I 12 13
.000 .000 .000
SIDESTREAMS FROM SLUDGE TREATMENT
.650
9
.000
2
233.498
12
000
Q
150.811
149.717
1 . 094
DO C
4.3.000
43.000
43. 000
.000
15
2.400
8
000
18
.000
3800
152.160
53.645
13636 . 367
tiGOD
55.000
55.000
55.000
i i:
0(1)
‘ IJ
ij i: ’ ( U
q
.000
19
00’)
207.952
73.315
16636367
N H 3
25. (‘00
25.000
25.000
-------
STAGE 5 PROCESS OPTION S
INPUT DESIGN DATA:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 7Q 800.000 7.500 .000 .000 25.000 .000 .000
to I I 12 t3 ¶4 15 ¶6
7.500 25.000 000 .000 .000 .000 .000 t ,9 00
OUTPUT DESIGN DATA:
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to
1:3849.529 .000 7.500 25.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
ii ¶2 ¶3 14 ¶5 16 ¶7 18 19 20
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
INFLUENT / EFFLUENT / SIDESTREAPI CHARACTERISTICS:
SOC SNBC SON SOP 8PM 3900 VSS 19$
II4FLUENTI 1,094 9545.4” 2727.273 1363,637 272.727 5000.001 13636.367 18636.36? 20000.004
EFFLUENT .283 10227273 5113.637 ¶022.727 18750.000 lI36.36? 69886.359 75fJ00,000
SIDESTRN: .811 386.282 110.366 55.183 11.037 202.338 551.832 754.170 809.353
DOC DNBC ON OP DFM ALK • (‘GOD HH 1403
INFLUENT: 43.000 11.000 25.000 5.000 300,000 100.000 55,000 25.000 .000
EFFLUENT: 43.000 11.000 25.000 5 .000 300.000 100.000 55.000 25.000 .000
cIDESTRM: 43.000 11.000 25.000 5.000 300.000 ¶00.000 55.000 25.000 .000
STAGE 6 PROCESS OPTION 6
INPUT DESIGN DATA:
1 2 3 4 6 7 8
15.000 32.000 1,000 .000 1.000 .300 .500 7.500
9 10 I I ¶2 3 14 15 16
.500 15.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.500
OUTPUT DESIGN DATA:
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ic
.500 ¶5.000 851.075 809964.250 425373.250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .0(10
11 12 13 14 ¶5 ¶6 ¶7 IS ¶9 20
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
IHFLUENT/ EFFLUENT ,‘ SIDESTREAM CHARACTERISTICS:
0 SOC SNBC SON SOP SEN SBOD ‘/95 TSS
I P4FLUENT : .283 35795.445 ¶0227.273 5113.63? 1022.727 ¶8750.000 51136.367 69886.359 75000.000
EFFLUENT: .283 17897.723 ¶0227.273 3451.705 511.364 18750.000 t5340.904 34943.180 53693.100
SIDESIRN: .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 000
DOC DHBC ON OP DE ll ALV 0800 HH3 1407
INFLUENT: 43.000 11.000 25.000 5.000 300.000 ¶00,000 55.000 25.000 .000
EFFLUENT: 2567,816 11.000 1686.932 516.364 300.000 6033.097 4394.527 1686.932 .000
SIDESTRM: .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .0(10 .000 .00 .000
-------
ATTACHMENT 3 EXEC/OP *
* VERSION 1.2 *
* *
EXECUTIVE PROGRAM
(OPTIMIZATION VERSION)
FOR
PRELIMINARY SYNTHESIS OF WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
U .S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LASORATORY
SYSTEMS AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SECTION
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
* *
* OPflOI{.1A._ DEER ISLAND 5EG ONDARY WITH DIGESTION OPTION W/ECF
*
-------
PROCESS ALTERNATIVES
OPTION PROCESS STAGE SIDESTREAN
HO. NO. NO. DESTINATION REMARKS
2 1 — 5 PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
2 3 2 4 ACTIVATED SLUDGE - FINAL SETTLING
3 12 3 0 CHLORINATION
4 13 4 2 FLOTATION THICKENING
5 8 5 2 GRAVITY THICKENING
6 6 6 2 DIGESTION OF PRIIIARY AND SECONDARY SLUDGES
9 0 6 2 NULL. PROCESS
7 7 7 2 CONDITIONING AND DEVATERING
$ 14 0 2 INCINERATION
-------
EFFLUENT DISCHARGE STANDARDS
5-DAY BOD, MG/L 30.00
SUSPENDED SOLIDS, MG/I. 30.00
AMMONIA — N. PIG/L 10000.00
NITRATE — N, MC/L 10000.00
PHOSPHORUS, tIC/ I . 10000.00
SELECTION CRITERIA
CRITERION WEIGHT LIMIT
1. INITIAL COHSTR. COST, MS .00 10000.00
2. ANNUAL 0 S Pt COST, S/MG .00 100000.00
3. TOTAL ANNUAL COST, S/PIG 1.00 100000.00
4. ENERGY CONSUMED., KWH/MG .00 10000.00
5. ENERGY PRODUCED.. KIJH.’NG 00 .00
6. NET ENERGY CONSUMED, KWH/MG .00 10000.00
7. LAND REQUIRED, ACRES .00 10000.00
8. UNDESIREA8ILITY INDEX .00 10000.00
ECONOMIC DATA
CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX 2,1770
WHOLESALE PRICE INDEX 3.0630
DIRECT HOURLYWAGE.. S.’HR 45.0000
FRACTIOH CHARGED TO INDIRECT WAGES .6667
COST. ESCALATOR FOR MISC. FEES 1.3500
COST OF ELECTRICITY, S/KWH .0720
BTU TO KWH CONVERSION EFF. • 0900
DISCOUNT RATE .0812
CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR .1028
-------
2 BEST DESIGNS
DESIGN
EXACT SYSTEM VALUE
314.297
Us ‘ i€S C
PRIMARY. AND.. SECONDARY SLUDGES MIXED AT. STAGE 6
DESIGN 2
EXACT SYSTEM VALUE
387.110
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SLUDGES MIXED AT STAGE 6
BEST DESIGN IS NUMBER
I
STAGE PROCESS
NO. OPTION
SLUDGE
TONS/DAY
CONSTA
COST MS
ANN OIfl
COST 8/MG
TOTAL ANN
COST S/MG
ENER USE
KWH/MG
ENER PROD
KWH/MG
NET ENER
KW H/NC
LAND REOD
ACRES
UNDESIRE-
ABILITY
t t’ . -, ... —
2 2
3
4 ct. 4
5 (-.,i 5
6 ‘ ,g 6
7 7
‘ .i’ B
297.80
164.95
.00
164.95
297.80
440,62
2B3 4O
339.09
22.5799
69.569?
17.3294
19 ,1220
2,0189
51.9390
10.0349
18.8882
11.14
26.62
15.62
34.28
1.16
31.49
96 36
38.51
23.86
65.81
25,38
45.05
2.30
60.74
102.01
4 , )5
8.8?
135.89
14,81
62.38
.20
163,93
24.25
88.1?
— .00
.00
.00
.00
.00
607.04
.00
184.7)
8.8?
138.89
14.01
62.30
.20
—443.9)
24.25
-126.54
0o
.00
.00
.00
.00
00
.00
.00
.ó o
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
SYSTEM VALUES
482.75
211.48
255.1?
374.30
468.50
792.55
-324.O5
- ,O
.oo
STAGE PROCESS
SLUDGE
CONSTR
ANN DIM
TOTAL ANN
SlIER USE
EHER PROD
NET ENER
LAND REOD
UNDESIRE-
140. OPTION
TONS/DAY
COST NI
COST I/PIG
COST s/PIG
KWH/NC
KWH/PIG
KWH/MG
ACRES
ABILITY
I Pr. . n I
297.80
22,5798
— 11.14
23.86
0.8?
.00
8.8?
.00
.00
2 c 2
154.53
68.036?
26.06
64.39
130.15
.00
130.15
.00
.00
3 CU..- 3
.00
17.3259
15,62
25.38
14.90
.00
14,80
.00
.00
L - 4
154,53
17.970 )
31.76
41.89
59.16
.00
59.16
.00
.00
S .-‘ 5
297,80
2.0)89
1.16
2.30
.20
.00
.20
.00
.00
7 t .. 7
431.03
6.573?
119.63
123.33
15,47
.00
15.4?
.00
.00
8 8
478.72
23,2223
92.89
105.98
46.40
397,99
—351.59
.00
.00
SYSTEM VALUES
452.32
157.73
290.26
387.))
275.05
397.99
—$22.94
.00
SEARCH EFFORT WAS 369 ,?369X OF TOTAL ENUMERATION
-------
12.5 Financial Impacts
by Alternative
-------
12.5 FINANCIAL INPACTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
12.5.1 Introduction
12.5.2 Treatment Facility Costs
12.5.3 Overview of the Regulatory Framework
-------
12.5 FINANCIAL IMPACTS
12.5.1 Introduction
This section analyzes in two parts the costs of the eight waste-
water treatment options remaining after initial screening and an
analysis of the financial impacts on the users of sewer service who
would pay the costs of new harbor wastewater treatment facilities. The
first part summarizes the approach followed in updating and revising
preliminary facility cost estimates for each of the options considered
(as detailed in Section 12.4), plus the regulatory and administrative
context of treatment facility construction and operations. The second
part estimates the annual costs to users of new treatment facilities
and the financial impacts on households in the MSD. This analysis is
based upon assumptions made for the SDEIS regarding the funding levels
and capital borrowing for such a project over the next several years
which were applied to be consistent with other studies by the
Commonwealth of wastewater treatment facility siting as one part of a
larger State capital budget program as described later in this section.
12.5.2 Treatment Facility Costs
This section highlights the method followed in developing prelim-
inary cost estimates of the eight wastewater treatment facility options
studied in detail following initial screening of the twenty-two
alternatives considered in the SDEIS. Each of the four primary and
four secondary treatment options was analyzed to determine whether the
design basis developed originally and cost factors applied were
reasonable under present circumstances. Updating of costs was done
based on an ENR Construction Cost Index of 4200. This measure is
commonly used to provide a consistent cost index for projects of this
type taking into account inflation and is comparable to a constant 1984
dol a aluation. Revisions to prior cost estimates were also made
ref eç ing changes in the assumptions regarding sludge disposal, cost
of secondary treatment components, or other associated engineering
12.5-1
-------
issues. A detailed discussion of the method followed and analysis of
facility costs developed is presented in Section 12.4 of this volume.
12.5.2.1 Updated Facility Costs
In reviewing the preliminary costs for the numerous options being
initially considered in the SDEIS, it was not feasible to study each of
the more than twenty alternatives in detail. Therefore, to provide a
cost basis for the screening process (see Chapter 4.0), initial fi-
nancial review focused primarily on updating of the costs devioped in
the MDC facility plan entitled, Nut Island Site Options Study (1982).
The facility design criteria and preliminary costs developed in the
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) were accepted as reasonable at the
preliminary stage of analysis. Where comparable facility costs for new
alternatives not examined by the MDC were necessary, these were de-
veloped based on consistent engineering design criteria, but with
minimal redesign of facility components. The costs derived from the
this MDC facility plan are detailed in tables found Section 12.4.
12.5.2.2 Revised Cost Estimates
Based on further detailed analysis of the eight options remaining
after screening, revised alternative costs in current dollars, as shown
in Table 12.5-1, were developed for each option. This table shows that
secondary treatment options are estimated to cost between $595 million
and $738 million, and primary treatment options are estimated to cost
between $752 million and $872 million. Operation, Maintenance and
Replacement (OM&R) costs are projected to be between $44 and $53
million for secondary treatment options, and between $21 million and
$24 million for primary treatment options. The Present Worth calcul-
ations of options, which combine O,M&R costs with the option capital
costs (including costs of borrowing) over the twenty-year operational
period of the proposed facility, are estimated to be between $1,019
million and $1,255 million for all secondary options, and between $957
million and $1,081 million for primary options. The borrowing interest
and period rate used to derive these figures are 10% over 20 years.
12.5-2
-------
TP.BLE 12.5—1
BOSTON HARBOR SDEIS: SUMMARY OF OPTIONS AND THEIR COSTS
Option No .
Nut Island
Sites, Level of Treatment, and
( Acreage Required)
Deer Island L n g Ieland
Costs in
$Mi llions 1
CaDital O&M
Present
Worth 2
( $Mill tons )
SECONDARY ALTERNATIVES
la . 2
lb .2*
2b. 1
2b.3
PRIMARY ALTERNATIVES
KEY: — headworks only primary treatment
1
D • deep ocean outfall * — MDC’g preferred options
= This option dropped during final screening.
— secondary treatment
Revised costs reflect refinements to earlier facility p’ans
as discussed in section 12.4 of Volume II. These costs do
not include slud c disposal, barqing,busjng, or special noise
mitigation measures (see Sections 4.5 and 5.2).
2 Assumes 10% interest over 20 years.
• ( 2) • — (115)
• 18 • — (115)
1(2) U (5) •(96)
I ( 2) f _±_52) •_ —_(82)
595.04
43.59
1019.06
1089.93
650.40
45.18
4.2 D • ( 2) • ( 62)
4b.2 D*
5.2 D
5b.2 D**
705.98
44.63
1140.13
738.33
53.12
1255.07
O (18)
1(2 )
12
• ( 52)
• ( 52)
• ( 5)
• ( 18)
• ( 52)
751.99
810.22
816.23
871.55
21.10
22.01
23. 52
21.51
957.28
1024.31
1044.97
1080.74
Source: CE Maguire, Inc., November, 1984.
-------
Costs for alternatives should not be compared between primary and
secondary treatment levels since, as has been stated from the outset of
this SDEIS, these treatment process differences are not being compared
in the decision on whether secondary or primary treatment would be
required. This decision will be based solely on the independent
scientific water quality review of the MDC’s 301(h) secondary waiver
application being conducted by EPA.
The chief factor which influenced revised estimates of facility
costs was the receipt of updated information involving treatment
components, including prechiorination, secondary sedimentation tanks,
digestion, and effluent pumping. For example, the Costs from the MDC
facility plan were revised to reflect updated costs of secondary
sedimentation tanks based on final costs at other treatment plants. It
was also assumed initially, for comparative purposes and to maintain
consistency among siting options, that all sites be evaluated
regardless of the potential cost advantage of existing facilities’
expansion. Upon further analysis and refinement of the remaining eight
alternatives, based on the actual site conditions and facility charac-
teristics including so called fast-track improvements now underway at
both Deer Island and Nut Island facilities, these costs were reduced to
reflect lower pump station costs that would in fact be required at
those sites. (See Section 12.4).
In addition, costs originally developed in the Nut Island Site
Options Study (1982) for sludge disposal by incineration were sub-
sequently eliminated from this analyis because they no longer reflect
the State’s proposed priorities for sludge disposal alternatives now
being analyzed. The state is now considering sludge management
alternatives among composting, landfilling, and ocean disposal in
addition to incineration options.
For example, if either ocean dumping or landfilling were selected
as the method of sludge disposal, sludge thickening, digestion, and gas
storage facilities may not be required. The other sludge disposal
methods considered, composting or incineration, would similarly require
12.5-4
-------
alternate facility components having variable costs. Therefore, final
cost estimates for sludge disposal options will vary according to the
disposal method and facility site selected. These issues are described
in Section 5.2 of Volume 1. The costs of sludge disposal facilities
and associated components will be developed in the upcoming ?IDC
facility plarming and EPA environmental review process.
Final costs for all options, including sludge, will necessarily
increase from those presented in this section by the addition of costs
for a selected sludge disposal alternative involving either composting,
incineration, ocean disposal, landfilling, or some combination of
these. Likewise, there will be added capital costs to those presented
here from the requirement to barge equipment and materials, and bus
workers to the sites both of which actions are being required by EPA
and the Commonwealth to the maximum extent feasible. It may also be
necessary to provide mitigation measures beyond these actions to
minimize adverse effects of the project. These may include such things
as staggering the construction work force, repairing roadways and
improving traffic controls, requiring special noise mitigations, or
otherwise mitigating potential adverse impacts on nearby residences and
the community during facility construction and operations. Added costs
for such measures would apply in a similar fashion to all the siting
options being considered, and would not alter the impact analyses
conclusions on siting being made.
12.5.3 Overview of the Regulatory Framework
The costs presented in this section have been developed based upon
two underlying requirements which must be met in order to be eligible
for EPA construction grant funds. The first is that a potential
grantee must demonstrate that it has the financial and management
capability to manage, operate and maintain the treatment works. The
second is that all facility operation, maintenance and replacement
costs (O,M&R) must be paid for by the users of the treatment facilities
based upon their proportionate use. Such funding methods as statewide
or, local taxes (unless an ad valorem user charge system has been
12.5—S
-------
approved) or other subsidies may not be applied to pay for the O,I1&R
portion of facility costs.
While these are prerequisites to receiving EPA funding, they also
are essential aspects of the utility management concept of which EPA is
a strong advocate. This concept implies that the treatment facilities
are self-sustaining with all costs, including debt retirement costs
remaining after Federal and State grants, paid for by those receiving
the utility’s services. Therefore, costs presented reflect this
concept, as well as the EPA funding requirement. Thus, all project
costs (after grants) have been assumed to be paid only by the system
users.
The existing MDC management structure has been independently
reviewed in a State-funded analysis prepared by the Bank of Boston.
One conclusion of this review was that the MDC does not currently meet
EPA’s financial capability requirements. In addition, current
compliance of the MDC with EPA ‘s user charge regulations is
questionable.
Recently proposed and passed legislation to establish an inde-
pendent authority would remedy these deficiencies by implementing the
utility management concept through a water and sewer authority. EPA
would require a new sewer authority to fully comply with the user
charge regulations and demonstrate adequate financial capability as a
prerequisite to any grant applications for the proposed treatment
facilities. The O,M&R costs of such new facilities would still be
required to be paid for solely by the users of the system. This will
require a change from the present State financing method. Section
12.5.3.4 describes the management structure and administration of the
previous MDC system with a brief highlight of the recently passed
legislation for a new independent sewer authority. The details of this
new legislation will be provided, as necessary, in the final EIS.
12.5-6
-------
12.5.3.1 Financial Impacts on Users
The financial costs to users of building major sewage treatment
facilities in Boston Harbor are presented here in terms of the
estimated annual dollar charges to an average household within the tISD
service area. These costs represent the local share of capital
expenditures and borrowing needed to finance the construction of
treatment facilities, and the operation, maintenance, and replacement
(0, H, & R) costs necessary to run these facilities once they are built
for their 20-year design life.
The estimate of annual household user costs (in 1984 dollars) for
the project (assuming application of a middle range of 50 percent local
cost share, as noted below) would increase between $91 and $111 for
secondary treatment facilities, and between $74 and $82 for primary
treatment facilities (see Table 12.5-2 following). Project user
charges would become applicable over several years time so that the
projected increases to users would be gradual. The first year of full
plant operations, in 1995 assuming a 1988 start and seven year con-
struction period, would be the first year when the full costs for these
facilities (capital debt service plus 0,M&R) would be applied.
In addition to the capital costs of treatment facilities, there
will be additional costs to users for associated sludge disposal
facilities and construction or operations requirements such as barging,
busing, and possible mitigation measures (as noted in Section 4.3). As
noted previously, these costs are not incorporated at this time.
Sludge management capital costs will be added to treatment plant
capital costs when a sludge disposal method is determined. Project
barging and busing costs and applicable mitigations are estimated to
represent between five and ten percent of total project capital costs
depending upon the extent and final costs of such measures. These
combined additional costs are estimated at $45 million on average.
Added costs of treatment facilities from actions being applied to
minimize the harmful effects of the project, such as barging during
12.5-7
-------
TABLE 12.5-2
ESTIMATED ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD USER CHARGES (1984 $) BY OPTIONS 1
SECONDARY OPTIONS PRIMARY OPTIONS
Assumed Level of Secondary Treatment Facilities Primary Treatment Facilities
MDC Share of Costs la.2 lb.2 2b.1 2b.3 4a.2 4b.2 5a.2 5b.2
10% 60.27 62.90 62.95 73.61 35.12 36.96 38.86 37.15
50% 90.76 96.22 99.12 111.45 73.66 78.48 80.69 81.811
70% 106.00 112.88 117.21 130.36 92.92 99.24 101.61 104.14
1 Costs beginning in first-year of plant operations (assumed to be 1995) based on 30-year borrowing period at 10%
annual interest rate; estimates shown are for additional costs to household users of new wastewater treatment
facilities only, not including current MDC and local sewer charges, proposed sludge disposal facilities, or
construction requirements such as barging, busing, noise mitigation or other mitigation measures.
2 The 50% local share values were assumed for purposes of impact analysis.
Source: CE Naguire, Inc., (October 12, 1984).
-------
construction, while significant, would not have a major affect on the
annual household estimates presented here.
Major capital expenditures separate from the harbor wastewater
treatment plants being analyzed in the SDEIS are also being planned by
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and by local MSD member communities
to clean up Boston Harbor. These projects, include the collection and
treatment of combined sewer overflows (CSO), repairs to sewers to
reduce infiltration and inflow (I/I), and other collector system
rehabilitation. This will also add to the overall costs of coordinated
federal, state and local efforts to improve water quality in Boston
Harbor. Moreover, such costs will be borne in large part by the users
of the system. Preliminary estimates of the costs of total harbor
cleanup projects are approximately $1.7 billion (including the costs of
the wastewater treatment facilities examined in the SDEIS report).
This financial impact analysis, therefore, includes only the costs
of the wastewater treatment facilities being planned by the MDC.
Implementation of these facilities are a major step in the cleanup of
Boston Harbor, recognizing, however, that they represent only a portion
of the total costs necessary to improve water quality in Boston Harbor.
Based on the comprehensive nature of the total harbor cleanup program,
this SDEIS financial impact analysis provides estimates of annual
household sewer charges which will be lower than the charges which
will, ultimately, result from a total harbor cleanup program which may
be implemented over a period of many years. At a minimum, new
treatment facilities, for either upgraded primary or expanded secondary
treatment, are required by law. The expenditures of capital funds and
collection of increased user charges to construct, operate, and
maintain new treatment facilities will be necessary regardless of
whether or not the MDC or a new independent sewer authority is
empowered to manage these facilities.
12.5-9
-------
12.5.3.2 Estimate of Household Sewer Service Charges
As described in Section 12.5.3.4 (below), existing sewer service
charges are comprised of the MDC charges to the forty-three member
communities of the Metropolitan Sewerage District (NSD) plus the local
charges by municipalities to individual residential, commercial and
industrial users of the system. Since there is no uniformity in how
these separate community charges are derived in each of the forty-three
municipalities, the Boston Water and Sewer Commission (BWSC) charges
for the City of Boston are presented here as representative of current
average household sewer service costs throughout the MSD.
Boston is the largest user in the MSD contributing about 40
percent of the system’s flow. According to the 1984 Bank of Boston
Study, Protecting Water Resources: A Financial Analysis , a Boston
average household of four paid a total annual bill of $80.00 (1983
average). Of this total, $46.00 was for the local city share of sewer
service costs, while $34.00 was the share of MDC charges for sewer
service passed on by Boston to the homeowner. Of this $34.00, a
portion is attributable to the existing treatment plants, while the
rest covers other MDC operations costs.
These user cost estimates must be further qualified due to their
exclusion of the industrial user share of service costs. These were
not factored into the analysis due to the unavailability of data.
Boston currently is on a flat rate basis for sewer charges so that all
users pay the same rate, with charges varying only according to their
volume of flow. It is expected that the BWSC will be implementing an
added “sewer strength” cost factor to account for industrial flows.
Therefore, these estimates of residential user costs would be reduced
by the significant contributions to flows being made by industrial
users.
The financial impact of constructing new wastewater treatment
facilities was analyzed using three separate funding assumptions. All
three assumptions reflect varying financial grant levels applied to
12.5-10
-------
project capital costs. The first assumes that the level of federal and
state aid will stand at 55% and 35%, respectively, of the total cost of
construction. The associated MDC share of capital costs would be 10%.
The second assumption still reflects a federal funding eligibility of
55%, however, because of the amount of these Federal grant funds
available each year to Massachusetts the entire project could not be
funded at the 55% level if the projected five to eight year construc-
tion schedule is adhered to. Therefore, this assumption reflects a 50%
MDC share of total project capital costs with the remainder being
funded by Federal and State grants. The third assumption considers the
effects on local users of a 70% MDC share. This limited grant level
would result from future reductions or elimination of federal aid with
some State aid still provided.
While it is impossible to predict which of these (or other)
assumptions will apply at the time of the project’s implementation, the
range of funding levels presented here is considered to be a reasonable
representation of possible user costs under various funding conditions.
These asumptions are, moreover, consistent with the user cost projec-
tions made for the State by the Bank of Boston in their overall
assessment of the future MDC capital program.
Table 12.5-3 shows the amount of each year’s amortization costs
for a hypothetical $800 million project. The cumulative annual cost of
borrowing (or debt service) is shown for installments of $200 million
each, beginning in 1988 when construction is assumed to start. The MDC
share of the annual debt service cost in shown under the three separate
funding level assumptions, increasing cumulatively until the full
borrowing level is reached. This calculation method was used to
estimate user charges beginning in 1995 for each of the eight option’s
costs. The actual project costs of each alternative (from Table
12.5-1) were applied to the calculations with the addition of the
household share of 0,M&R costs to derive the values shown in Table
12.5—2.
12.5—11
-------
TABLE 12.5-3
CALCULATION METHOD FOR DERIVING
PROJECTED AVERAGE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD SEWER COSTS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
(ASSUMES A HYPOTHETICAL $800 MILLION FACILITY) 1
MDC Share of
Capital and Debt Service Costs
(in Constant $)
Cumulative Average Average Average
Amortization Household Household Household
Capitali ation Total Charges Charges Charges
Year ( By Year) 70% Share , or 50% Share , or 10% Share
1988 $21,200,000 $17.92 $12.80 $ 2.56
1990 42,400,000 35.84 25.60 5.12
1992 63,600,000 53.77 38.40 7.69
1994 84,800,000 71.69 51.20 10.25
Source: CE Naguire, Inc. (8/1/84)
1 This table illustrates the calculation method employed to derive
annual household user costs for each of eight options; it does so using
a hypothetical $800 million facility capital cost (1984 $). In
actuality, the individual project capital costs for each alternative
(from Table 12.5-1) were used to derive the projected household user
costs which appear in Table 12.5-2.
2 This schedule assumes a 1988 start of construction with borrowing to
start in the same year and continue in four equal installments. The
actual borrowing schedule of the project will, in all likelihood, vary
according to the specific project requirements at the time.
3 The total capital budget shown in this table is $800 million divided
into four installments of $200 million each. The amortization period
is 30 years at a 10% annual interest rate. Debt service costs are
shown cumulative with preceding years held constant. The actual
capital costs for each option (from Table 12.5-1) are used in cal-
culating the household user charges shown in Table 12.5-2.
4 An estimated 828,000 households/users in the MSD metropolitan area are
the basis for these costs; no industrial user charges are reflected in
these figures. Household user charges shown include annual 0,N&R costs
for each facility (divided by the total number of households in the
MSD) which were added to the amortization share of costs.
-------
To develop an estimate of the total projected household sewer
service charge, the existing MDC and local O,M&R user charges must also
be considered. As noted above, these costs were estimated at $80
currently (1983) for an average family of four in Boston. However, for
purposes of this analysis, these costs are not factored into the
calculations appearing in Table 12.5-2, since no accurate measure of
such costs in the future and across each of the 43 member communities
is available. Moreover, future O,M&R charges would be calculated based
on the replacement of existing treatment plants with new treatment
plants. Therefore, the estimated total household charges attributable
to the project (as defined above) is based in this analysis solely on
the capital debt service and O,M&R costs of new wastewater treatment
facilities.
Again, it should be remembered that these estimated costs do not
reflect the costs of associated sludge disposal facilities or of
associated construction requirements, such as barging, busing, or noise
mitigation.
12.5.3.3 Conclusions Regarding Financial Impact on Households
The preceding tables show that the total estimated average annual
household sewer service charge will increase from an estimated average
$80 currently (1983), to an additional amount (in 1984 dollars) between
$90 and $111 for secondary treatment, or between $74 and $82 for
primary treatment facilities, in 1995 (50% local share assumed). This
is the year in which it. is assumed the full annual payment, of both
debt service and 0,M&R, is reached for this project.
User sewer charges will steadily increase beginning at the start
of construction (1988 assumed) reflecting the anticipated phased
borrowing of construction funds. Aunual household user charges for
this project will peak in the year when new MDC wastewater treatment
facilities become operational (1995 assumed) reflecting the addition of
project O,}1&R costs to the established schedule of debt service costs.
Additionally, capital spending for sludge disposal, CSO abatement, I/I
12.5-13
-------
removal, or related sewage system improvements that are being
considered separately, as part of an overall harbor cleanup program,
would further increase the sewer service charges to users during this
period beyond the cost estimates shown here.
For the majority of households within the MSD, reported by the
Census (11980) to have annual incomes above $15,000 (median), a gradual
increase in sewer charges ranging between approximately $74 to $111
annually (using a 50% local share assumption for either primary or
secondary treatment alternatives) does not appear to be a difficult
financial cost for most households to absorb. It represents less than
one percent of the MSD median household income. Additionally, for
homeowners, this added cost could be spread over two or more install-
ment payments annually depending upon the billing cycle of individual
municipal sewer departments. For those who rent, if increased sewer
charges are passed on by landlords, these costs could be budgeted over
twelve payments in the monthly rent.
If the MDC funding share were to be 50%, as assumed, household
user charges for this project would gradually add approximately $100
(average) for secondary facilities, or $80 (average) for primary
facilities to homeowners’ annual bills by 1995. Even a greater (70%)
local share of costs would not greatly increase project user costs in
real dollar terms, while lower user charges from a smaller (10%) local
share would pose little difficulties of payment to users. Projected
increases in sewer user charges would still be relatively low when
considered over the course of the next several years and given the
relatively low costs charged in the past.
Past charges for sewer service in the MSD have been far below
those in other areas where such charges more closely reflect actual
system costs. For example, comparing the estimated $80 annual average
household rate, Boston sewer charges ranked 29th out of 35 major U.S.
cities surveyed by the Bank of Boston. Current sewer rates in other
cities include: Philadelphia — $136, Buffalo - $140, Baltimore - $148,
Washington, D.C. - $158, and Cincinnati - $100. The projected
12.5-14
-------
increases in user charges from the project will bring NSD charges to
levels comparable with many other cities. Compared to other utility
costs such as electricity and gas, estimated to be about $600 and
$1,000 annually per household, respectively, increased sewer user
charges of the project are considered to be affordable.
As noted previously, it is important to remember that these
capital costs being considered in the SDEIS represent only a portion of
a larger capital program planned for Boston Harbor and the MDC system
which will require additional local financing. The addition of the
remaining designated projects of the Commonwealth, plus other projects
of the individual cities and towns in the NSD, are expected to increase
user charges beyond the estimates presented here.
Financial impacts on households under a total Harbor clean-up
program beyond this project alone would depend on the timing of addi-
tional projects, their 0&H costs, and the availability of other off-
setting funds at either the federal or state levels.
Financial impacts must additionally be considered relative to fi-
nancially sensitive populations within the MSD service area. Those
with fixed incomes, such as many elderly residents and families with
low income, share a sensitivity and financial limits to increases in
their living costs. The expected gradual increases in sewer service
charges for this project alone, over a period of several years, will
help to lessen any financial burden on citizens whose ability to pay is
limited. There may still be cases, however, of financial burden
resulting from this project’s implementation.
12.5.3.4 MDC Management Structure and Administration
1. Introduction
This Section begins with a description of the management and
administrative structure of the current Sewerage Division of the
Metropolitan District Commission (MDC). It is included here to show
12.5-15
-------
how the MDC has operated to provide sewer service to the 43 cities and
towns within the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). This section goes
on to briefly identify the new sewer authority legislation recently
passed as a replacement to the MDC Sewerage and Water Divisions. This
description is based on a preliminary review of the legislation, and
may not reflect subsequent amendments or modifications to be made prior
to full implementation in the coming months. The legislation creates
an independent sewer authority to serve as a new state entity with the
power to sell bonds and collect revenues to construct, operate and
maintain the proposed (and existing) wastewater treatment facilities of
the MDC.
2. Existing MDC Structure
The Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) provides sewer service
to 43 cities and towns which make up the Metropolitan Sewerage District
(MSD). The MSD is divided into a northern and southern service area
corresponding to the existing network of local and interceptor sewers.
Northern and southern system sewers convey raw sewage to the Deer
Island and Nut Island treatment plants, respectively. Individual
municipal assessments for MDC sewer services are based on assessment
ratios established for each member community to cover the costs of
operation and maintenance of treatment facilities plus debt service.
Actual billing of the municipalities and collection of their payments
is handled by the State Treasurer.
As presently constituted, the MDC Sewerage Division maintains and
operates two treatment plants, ten pumping stations, four pre-treatment
headworks, three detention and chlorination stations for combined
stormwater and sewage overflows, and 226 square miles of trunk sewers.
More than 5,300 miles of local sewers, owned and operated by the
individual municipalities, connect to the MSD trunk lines at 1,805
connections. Average daily sewage load throughout the system is
approximately 380 million gallons.
12.5-16
-------
Like all agencies of the Commonwealth, the MDC receives annual
appropriations from the Legislature to fund operations, and must
receive State authorization for all capital outlays as well. Unlike
most other State agencies, however, the MDC reimburses the State for
maintenance and operating expenses and debt service through an as-
sessment process set by statute (N.G.L. Chapter 814, Acts of 1975).
Each year the various divisions within the MDC prepare budget
requests following general guidelines established by the Executive
Offices for Administration and Finance (A & F) and the Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) under which MDC is administered. Oper-
ation and Maintenance (0 & H) and capital outlay budgets are prepared
separately. The former is generally based on historical costs adjusted
by inflation factors determined by A & F. It may also include requests
for new expenditures deemed necessary by the Agency to maintain appro-
priate levels of service. Capital outlay budgets are required for the
acquisition, construction, reconstruction or repair of land or facili-
ties if their costs will exceed $10,000.
Both the 0 & N and capital outlay budgets are reviewed and ap-
proved by the Commission and then submitted to EOEA. Following
informal consultations between the MDC, EOEA and A & F, adjustments are
made to reflect both EOEA and the Governor’s budget priorities. The
entire EOEA budget is then submitted to the A & F Bureau of the Budget
for final review and adjustment. It is subsequently incorporated into
the total budget for the executive, legislative and judicial branches
of government presented by the Governor to the Legislature each
January.
The Legislature considers 0 & H and capital outlay budgets in-
dependently. Hearings are held on each by the Senate and House of
Representatives. After passage by both Houses, the budgets are sub-
mitted to the Governor. Once signed, they become the basic fiscal
management tool for each executive office and operating agency. Figure
12.5-1 graphically illustrates the budgeting and funding process of the
Sewtrage Division. Political factors come into play at each stage of
12.5-17
-------
Figure 12.5-1
Sewerage Division
Budgeting/Funding
f INTERNAL/ANTICIPATORY
L PLANNING
___USEWERAGE DIVIS(ON DIRECTOR
I i DIRECTOR OF
[ PROJECT PLANNING
MDC COMMISSiONER
AND
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
I SECRETARY
EOEA
_______ BUDGET BUREAU
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
OF ADMiNISTRATION
AND FINANCE
4 ’
[ ENACTED BUDGET J
REPAYMENT
TO
COMMONWEALTH
I
FUNDS TO
SEWERAGE
— DIViSION -
SEWERAGE
DIVISION
DIRECTION FOR
MEMBER
COMMUNITY
BILLING
LEGISLATIVE I
MODIFICATION I —
[ AND APPROVAL I
} ,j INTERIM
_____ FINANCING
THROUGH
COMMONWEALTH
MEMBER
COMMUNITIES
TREASURER
BILLS
43 MEMBER
COMMUNITIES
I
Source: Havens & Emerson, Deer Island Facilities Plan, Vol.1 (Sept., 1983)
-------
the legislative and executive process. These affect the level of
budget requested, sometimes significantly reducing funding levels.
Inadequate funding has been identified as a primary cause of the recent
maintenance and operation problems experienced by the MDC.
a. Assessments
Annual State appropriations for 0 & M expenses and debt service
for the MDC are reimbursed through the assessment process. This
process varies by division. Included in the assessments levied by each
division are their proportionate share of costs for both EOEA and the
administrative and staff units within the MDC. The basis for alloca-
tion is set by State law.
Chapter 92 of the General Laws, as amended by Chapter 814, Acts of
1975, requires that each of the 43 cities and towns in the MSD pay
annually to meet total costs of operation and maintenance plus debt
service for the MDC Sewerage District. The total amount assessed is,
however, subject to the limitations of the recently enacted state and
local tax limits of “Proposition 2 ” (t1.G.L. Chapter 580, Acts of 1980
as amended by Chapter 782, Act of 1981).
Allocation of 0 & H expenses is based on contributing residential
population and derived population equivalents of industrial users.
(The law defines industrial wastes as those user wastes discharged Into
the system which would be subject to cost-recovery provisions of
federal law with respect to any federal grant that might be made for
construction of works that treat such wastes. While the cost-recovery
provisions have been abolished, the definition still stands.) Costs
for debt service are assessed based on the latest State census.
Population equivalents are used for industrial wastes. Table 12.5-4
presents the 1984 population and population equivalent totals for the
43 MSD members.
While this system was designed to be user-based, with each cus
tomer paying according to the amount of sewage contributed, it may not,
12.5-19
-------
Table 12. 5 -J 4
THE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
C &rrint NOC ssnsient I.ti :1Qcy — 1983 0 cu .nts t )
Industrial
Sasntary Tatal
Assiqn.c San itary
1984 MDC aanai 3as.d Uaca hug.
Total 1980 Sewer Charges Coa triautinq Sasutary tit,r Va luu
Cu nzty Population (Actual $) Seisqi Valuau Responsibility
eq eq sq
3r li nqt o . 48,219 571,496 47,438 1,473.42 16.40 1,439.82
Aü laad 9,165 72,229 2,932 91. 10 34.44 127.76
Bedford 13,067 167,971 ,3U 213.88 343.53 537.41
hIsont 26,100 313,961 25, i 186.34 48.57 834.91
Boston 562,994 8,707,237 540,1fl 17,399.12 6,011.14 23,410.26
3raz trte 36,337 440,281 23,410 1,106.04 115.80 1,221.34
Brookline 55,062 656,285 54,737 1,701.61 45.22 1,764.90
Bw li ngt an 23,486 271,479 19,376 601.82 217.34 819.14
CanOridq. 95,322 1,404,590 94,815 2,445.88 1,756.22 4,702.10
Canto. 18,182 196,123 u,a?1 349.22 134.03 145.34
s1ua 25,431 316,481 25,304 135.94 80.49 844.43
D.d u 25,298 273,204 21,225 439.25 34.49 695.74
Enrstt 37,195 501,725 37,009 1,149.30 390.42 1,529.92
Frwnqftu 65,113 734,221 52,307 1,640.13 272.25 1,912.43
Nthqt iu 20,339 68,676 3,261 163.42 0.00 143.42
i L ruck 11,140 50,996 33.73 0.00 30.78
Laxinqta 29,479 343,042 25,332 717.43 147.42 934.85
Ralden 53,386 652,435 53,U9 1,649.37 44.64 1,714.51
Nidford 58,076 704,796 57,786 1,194.83 95.34 1,890.47
t1r u 30,055 361,272 29,905 923.35 48.30 471.15
Riltos 25,860 300,422 4.127 149.2 47.29 796.67
*stick 29,461 309,299 21,507 668.01 114.14 782.17
leidhu 27,901 319,070 25.883 741.80 98.60 340.40
83,622 1,029,442 81,531 2,332.33 300.83 2,333.18
Ikn.oo d 29,711 393,339 29,342 918.19 323.46 1,246.63
84,743 1,043,343 84,319 2,618.94 141.53 2,780.47
RIRd Ol P 28,218 276,555 20,822 146.22 15.90 642.72
Rudia; 22,678 233,230 18,210 143.60 0.00 543.60
42,423 4 ,955 40,514 1,238.36 0.00 1,259.34
77,372 954,399 14,935 2,391.15 242.17 2,634.72
St one u 21,424 255,844 21,124 434.11 17.26 473.37
Staiaqlt o . 26,710 199,115 12,044 374.15 9.03 383.18
lakths ld 24,895 297,351 24,571 763.17 21.42 790.59
la lpale 18,859 198,144 5,495 176.89 396.23 573.12
W a lthan 58,200 883,177 37,909 1,793.65 1,035.97 2,354.42
lat.rtoi. 34,384 421,042 34,212 1,062.42 85.90 1,148.12
le1lnL 27,209 294,750 23,427 727.64 11.21
Iest acd 13,212 97,351 5,747 173.30 so.oo :08.50
55,601 528,800 38,309 1,139.37 39.28 1,229.15
li1sonqt n 17,471 118,559 210 6.52 312.26 319.38
lZnc lIeIt.r 20,701 231,129 18,507 374.33 30.33 605.34
l nthr o 19,294 232,615 19,193 194.29 31.37 627.66
36,626 505,510 27,379 354.40 298.18 1,714.79
Total 1,878,023 13,331.2 14,174.34 72,505.46
2,070,021 17,712,704
(a) Voluses sflo a o not inc1u e any infiltration, iiiflce, or stors ater quantities.
Source: Black & Veatch,”Report on Annual Cost Assessment Methodology...
(June, 1981).
-------
in the opinion of tie EPA, meet the federal guidelines governing the
collection of operational, maintenance and replacement (0, N & N) costs
through a user charge, which must be determined based on both contri-
buted sewage flow and, in the case of non-residential users, the
concentration of contaminants discharged (“strength”).
User charge guidelines, rules and regulations promulgated in
accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500, as
amended by Public Law 95-217 and Public Law 97-117) require that user
charge systems be developed to recover operation and maintenance costs
(including costs for replacement of necessary equipment) from the users
of the sewerage system in proportion to contributed sewage flow and
strength. The present user charge system of the MDC was implemented in
Fiscal Year 1982. However, it has not yet been approved by State and
federal authorities, nor has the application of sewer strength sur—
charges been fully implemented. For example, the City of Boston which
makes up about 40 percent of the MDC flow, has not yet implemented
sewer strength costing. All users in the City are charged only on the
basis of flow.
Specific details on the MDC’s assessment methods and management
structure are contained in the reports listed below. These studies
have been prepared by consultants to the State during the course of
work on the SDEIS and are incorporated in this DEIS by reference.
1) Black & Veatch, “Report on Annual Cost Assessment Methodology
to NSD Member Coimnunities Including User Charge Systems,”
June, 1981.
2) ibid, (1984).
3) Bank of Boston, Protecting Water Resources: A Financial
Analysis , February 8, 1984.
12.5—21
-------
4) Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff, MDC, Deer Island
Facilities Plan, Volume I, Fast-Track Improvements,
Appendix B: Administration and Management , January, 1984.
b. Funding of MDC Sewerage Assessments at the Community Level ,
MDC assessments are levied annually on member communities via the
“Cherry Sheet,” which provides each community a summary of local aid
coming from the Commonwealth as well as payment due for a variety of
services provided, including sewerage. The Cherry Sheet is used by
city and town officials in planning local revenue requirements and
setting local tax rates.
Each of the 43 municipalities that make up the Metropolitan
Sewerage District uses its own system for billing individual sewer
users. Some charge for both the costs of local sewerage service and
the community’s share of the MDC annual costs. Some municipalities do
not bill for sewer service at all, preferring instead to cover these
costs through local property taxes. Others bill based on water con-
sumption. No metering of sewage flows is done in the MSD, therefore,
it is unknown if billing coincides with actual costs of services. This
variation in assessments is a factor in the current deliberations on
funding for the new sewer authority.
According to a survey conducted by the Bank of Boston (1984),
thirteen communities still finance both local costs as well as the MDC
assessment through general property taxes. The remaining thirty MSD
members have some type of user charge, i.e., individual bills are sent
to all customers, both residential and non-residential, who use the
local sewer system. Bills are usually based on water consumed, and
rates vary widely by community, ranging from 30c per 100 cubic feet to
75 per 100 cubic feet. In addition, some communities simply charge a
flat rate. There is also considerable variation in these changes. The
lowest annual charge is $8.00 per connection; the highest, $50.00.
12.5-22
-------
In some cases, sewer user charges cover both local costs and the
MDC assessment. In other cases, only local costs are covered, and the
MDC assessment is paid out of property tax receipts. In still others,
fees support operating expenses and the MDC assessment, but debt
service comes out of general revenues. In most communities, however,
revenues received from sewerage user charges do not fully finance all
the costs, both direct and indirect, associated with the provision of
sewerage services. These must be covered, therefore, from other local
revenues. It is this variability which may not conform to existing
Federal guidelines for grant eligibility. Table 12.5-5 presents the
sewer rates for each of the MSD co, munities.
3. Legislation Establishing an Independent Sewer (and Water)
Authority
Legislation has recently been passed by the Massachusetts
Legislature and signed by the Governor to establish a new, independent
sewer and water authority to replace the existing MDC Water and
Sewerage Divisions. This legislation is, in part, a response to the
past problems encountered by the MDC in the provision of sewer services
to its member communities (as discussed elsewhere in the SDEIS). The
legislation is one approach to more effective delivery of sewer service
to the member communities of the MSD. As such, it is an important
element of the overall Boston Harbor cleanup program. It is antici-
pated that this legislation will provide the reforms and management
reorganization necessary to meet Federal guidelines for financial and
administrative management of a sewer authority.
In 1984, the Bank of Boston prepared a study entitled Protecting
Water Resources: A Financial Analysis for the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs, as noted previously. The study
examined the financial implications of creation of an independent new
state authority combining the former MDC Sewerage and Water Divisions.
The advantage of such an independent authority would be that it could
be given power to sell revenue bonds to finance capital projects, and
power to collect revenues directly from the user communities to cover
12.5-23
-------
Table 12.5-5
5 1 1 100kV UI ME. SEVLRAUI SVSIEN NkI LUIUIIMIIIIS
LOUt CUSI ICCOWAE IWOR$* 1ION
SEWAGE SVSILN$
EPA U. .t
Chug.
Spst.. Aewap Isles
a
I
I
L
I
I
a
U
a
touoadp
Ir lieglo.
1.11 s .d
ledlord
I i ls oi l
losto.
kaistrea
BroMliui
luritiglas
Ce.lridg.
taulo.
Chelsea
Everett
ii iarqhes
*Iagh .
Hull, s o S
a
I
a
I
I
I
Nolbad Wed V. I .c .r. , $.wa1. $ .t,i C i i i , tu ,Lo ..r kiag . Illilag lalwselh.
Vised Nosed Near Chug.
Cvauo.u •iHi.g £asprel.rn.d EPA
Local U SC L. l USC Nutted Cljues In sency NoIltig k iM .
IOU Ies,Cou, lad Vu Vu Approved $0.40 per Cci
t OO Na Vu No No I d 101 ci - $15.00 ilaieus
lvi i 1600 ci - $0.15 per Cci
It,. N. S.aAoarntal Via Appilid Si*aIlI.d lit 2 ,50 ci - ILUOS per ci
Over 2,500 ci - *0.0 125 p.r ci
Service chug. - 1 .00 per hilliug p.r*od
100 M i Suvt.rlp Vu Yes Approved $035 per Cci
100 h o Ovulurly Yes Vu $ppr.v.d $5.46 p .r 1000 ci
100 Vu karlurly V ii Vu Approved $0.55 per Cc i
10 ( 1 Vi i Noart.rlp Yes N. *ppr .v.d $0.40 per Cci
lUl Iu ,(ou,I .d Ieo:Se.i-bo.sl V.. Vu No 10 1 .1 waler bill
ltNor:Qauter lp
10$ he ki-Anavally Yes No No $0.12 per Cci
Vu Subaitted Ad Valerie
Vu SMutted Ad Valor..
* No Subaillid Ad Valor..
U. Ni AdValari.
100 No lri-Aii uaIly No No Approved 5I ii waler bill
V 1 I O U Autos., lad kuuaIly is. No No $50.00 per dwelling wail
150.00 per single ia .il 1
1100.00 per Iwo lulip
$ 15t.0O per l w .. isilip
Ind,SchooI I Coat - $5.00 per 1,000 ii
$50.00 ainscue
* Pail liv. A,s, .os..ln1 Uuorls ,lr Yes No *ppru ed leo: sLOt’ per quarter
$11 led & (ou Cu. S lid: N I
Source: Black & Veatch,(Junè, 1981).
-------
111 1 100$ * * it $Ab1 $VSVII *I C$SUI Ilit1
I M (O Il IICM$l I OPMlIl11
1(1001 119 160$
1.t1.d Nud Vs Iscsvw kw11 kite ssIs (usissir $.Isa . $illIs lalorsaliss
l;Id ..
( i it.uv 91111.9 (sipistortild (P0
(.ssattp sc s i 1 K Lsca t 1K kInd Cississ h.qra.c lilliss kaMs Ip i l is Oit,s
I I V ii Is MIami.
I I lO S I . k.l-ks.aI Vu Vii tipprivid $0.40 por (ci
$10.00 sIMs..
l.diord I I Is Is OdI um.
Ililsus las - $10.50 lee (iaMbi
I I Is Meitlid Mlahwes
Mills. I I ISO Iii I lid kit basal Vii Is lpprsv.d lit 1(00 ci - $ 1? 50 aisle..
-Ovsr (II ci - $5.10 p.r (ci
I I ISO Is Iseetirly V ii V u Is $0.39 p , C c l
$0.35 aletsue p., soul
lied las I Applied U. Ad Valves
hub. I I I I $0 Is kas-Anesusal Vii Is Ss*.lt1,d 151 al sat., bill plus. bases
I I Vu Is U Valve. (will pal UC Is
illict I. 19141
I I I I It O Ia v,laa Ii., Ma V .; Oppesnid hajer I Vu 1*. - $1.4, pn Cci
I all silK Ill 0th, - Ad Valves
hndolp l I 99 Vii k.i-*n.val Ii Apprsv.d $30 p .r 11.9 11 fishy
$60 p .r 2 laslI
$90 por 3 fishy
Co.. I aloe. 3 filly - (0.0015 per ci
I I I 99.9 Vi i Suartirip Vii Vii Sssbsslt,d $0.10 per C c l sIlls 101 $u gust
if paid p 1 111. 30 day; - $ 1.5 1 si.s.us
1.61 is, vice It Os basis
host s I I Is U Valor..
S u s.tvs lls I I I Lt*0 Sp. Isicl arq. luarbirly V ii Ii ; Appes vd $0.Ms p.r Ccl
Iksailusred tuitasiri
-------
SUIUIAkI 01 NO t SLUCIAGE SVSUN 11 1( 1 tININUNIIICS
10CM COSI AICIMMI INIOAIIAIION
510061 SYSICIS
kihod kid I . hover ku . e Syil.. (sits tusloser S.wa e llll*i liil.rsatlin
laud laud kit thai . CPA User
(v ito . . , lilli. teapulitlaud Lh arqe
(ouuMl y I . t . t Ut I.c .I Ut Attired (lusts lte uincy lilIie Sy s lss 5eus e kilts
I
I I 1 00 Vu ksi-*imeal Yes Yes Apprsvid $0.1 , per Cci
S louØtos I I I SO Vii S,s:k.*u.ual Vi i Applied Approved $0.90 pet Cci
CoeIlnd:Suarlirlp $25.00 si M m. p., 5 .o.ths
I I Is No AdValw.s
Nilpol. I I U NA Ni Ni U
N ilihas I I ft in I lid Ourterly Vu Ni Approved $0.55 per Cc l
La , ENont hly
too V.. Sem-Mevil Vu Approved $0.42 per (ci applied 4.
$5 1 ol vat., eater r.adta
IeIIuley I I lo s yes Ii-Nouithly Vu Vu Approved 531 ii valet bill
$1.19 sisisus p.r 2 sonIbs
Neitwood I I Vu Approved Ad Viler,. lIt approved i ii
lamiry I ,
Ne eo i ith I *00 Vu Arnuully Vu V ’s Approved Anauial $ Nesidontual Other
$30.00 I Ia.uly First *1,999 tI
$55.00 2 iasuly Up to 21,999 ci
$15.00 3 ismlp Up to 29,991 ci
$90.50 4 lusty Up Ii 34,999 ci
$15.00 each add. seit (very add. 5,000 ci
N sIi ui to i I ISO Vu karterly Yes Yes Approved $0.15 per (ci
$9.00 c liii ..
Vu No Ad V ii i ..
Winche it er I I
Nunthrop I I
N. Ad Valerie IUC to hi adopted
by old-lIlt)
Auburn I I *00 Yes Annually Yes Ye ’ Suteutled Ioiesltc:lsl 10,000 ci - $0.3(i per *000 ci
Over 40,000 ci - $u.20 •i , *000 ci
$0.00 ainisue p.r year
Induslrsal:li t 500,000 ci - $0.60 per *000 ci
lvii 500,000 ci - $u.4U per l( ’OO ci
- i. Over *,OO,t’UO ci - $0.1’. per *000 ci
125.110 cliii ice per year
-------
its costs. Additionally, the new authority would establish consistency
among members in the collection of user charges and conformance with
applicable federal guidelines. The most significant changes arising
from a new sewer authority are that:
1. Metropolitan sewer operations would be financed totally
through user charges that are uniform; and,
2. Capital funding for the sewer system would be raised from
sale of revenue bonds.
It should be noted that the current legislation signed by the
Governor may be amended over the course of implementing the new
authority. Any pertinent changes and effects on the project of a new
sewer and water authority will be examined in the final EIS.
12.5—27
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
Current DC Assessment Nethodclocy — 1983 Assessoents (a)
Industrial
Sanitary Total
Assigned Sewage Sanitary
1984 MDC Nonin ustriaj Based tJ on Sewage
Total 1980 Sewer Charges C tributinq Sanitary later Volume
Community Population (Actual $) Population Sewage Volumes Responsibility
‘9 sq eq
Arlington 48,219 571,496 47,438 1,473.42 16.40 1,489.82
Ashland 9,165 72,229 2,933 91.10 36.66 127.76
Bedford 13,067 167,971 b,886 213.88 343.53 557.41
Belmont 26,100 313,961 25,317 786.34 48.57 834.91
Boston 562,994 8,707,237 560,179 17,399.12 6,011.14 23,410.26
Braintree 36,337 440,281 ,&10 1,106.04 115.80 1,221.84
Brookline 55,062 656,285 54,787 1,701.68 65.22 1,766.90
Burlington 23,486 271,479 19,3Th 601.82 217.34 819.16
Cambridge 95.,322 1,404,590 94,845 2,945.88 1,756.22 4,702.10
Canton 18,182 196,123 11,891 369.33 176.03 545.36
Chelsea 25,431 316,481 25,304 785.94 80.49 866.43
Dedha. 25,298 273,204 21,225 659.25 36.49 695.74
Everett 37,195 501,725 37,009 1,149.50 390.42 1,539.92
Fra.inghaa 65,113 734,221 52,807 1,640.18 272.25 1,912.43
l4ingham 20,339 68,676 5,268 163.62 0.00 163.62
i4othroc 11,140 50,996 991 0.78 0.00 30.78
Lexington 29,479 343,042 25,332 787.43 147.42 934.85
halden 53,386 652,435 53,119 1,o49.37 66.64 1,716.51
Nedford 58,076 704,796 57,786 1,794.83 95.84 1,890.67
ielrose 30,055 361,272 29,905 928.85 4?.30 971.15
i1ton 25,860 300,422 24.127 749.38 47.29 796.67
Wat ck 29,461 309,299 21,507 668.01 114.16 782.17
Meedhas 27,901 319,070 23.893 741.90 98.60 840.40
Newton 83,622 1,029,442 81,531 300.83 2,833.19
Mcrwood 29,711 393,339 29,562 918.19 328.46 1,246.65
Quincy 84,743 1,043,343 84,319 2,618.94 161.53 2,780.47
Randolph 28,218 276,555 20,825 o46.82 15.90 662.72
Reading 22,678 233,230 18,210 565.60 0.00 565.60
Revere 42,423 488,955 40,514 1,258.36 0.00 1,259.36
Somerville 77,372 954,399 76,985 2,391.15 243.57 2,634.72
Stoneham 21,424 255,844 21,124 656.11 17.26 673.37
Stoughton 26,710 199,115 12,046 374.15 9.03 323.18
Wakefield 24,895 297,351 24,571 763.17 27.42 790.59
Walpale 18,859 198,144 5,695 176.89 396.23 573.12
Waltham 58,200 883,177 1,798.65 1,055.97 2,354.62
•atertown 34,384 421,042 34,212 1,062.62 85.90 1,148.52
Wellesley 27,209 294,750 23,427 727.64 11.21 738.8
hestwocd 13,212 97,351 5,747 178.50 30.00 208.50
Weymouth 55,601 528,800 33,309 1,129.87 39.28 1,229.15
Wilmington 17,471 118,559 210 6.52 312.86 319.38
Winchester 20,701 231,129 18,507 574.33 30.53 605.36
Winthrop 19,294 232,615 19,198 596.29 31.37 627.66
Woburn 36,626 505,510 - 27,579 856.60 898.19 1,754:78
Total 1,878,025 53,331.32 14,174.34 72,505.66
2,070,021 17,712,704
(a> Volumes shown do not include any in#ilttatiai%, inflow, or storewater quantities.
-------
TASU 11
SL aARY OF NOC lIER SYSTEM IEMBER COMMUNITIES
LCC . IILLING It(O 11CN A D RATES
MATER SYSTEMS
Castoser Mater lilting Inforestion
Custoser Billing Co.puterized
Cososnity IWtered Mestared Classes Fr, s,ncy Ruling Water Rates
2
1isqta 100 I Res,Co, lad Sssi— inu1 Yts $0.90 per Cci
100 0 ND Yes let 1600 ci $15.00 einieei
Over 1600 ci - $0.65 per Cci
100 0 Sesi —Annul Yes let 2000 ci — 10.005 per ci
Over 2000 ci — 10.01 per ci
Servic, charge — $5.00 per billing periad
k lsost 100 0 Ovarterly Vie let 800 Cf - $6.50 per quarter m ueua
ver 8 00cf-$0. 65perCc4
0.1 Yes & arter1y Yes $7.48 par 1009 ci
kaintree 100 0 Yes iartsr1y Yes 41.00 per Cci
kosElise 100 0 Yes Osarterly Yes $0.95 per Cci
kr lingta 100 0 Res,Ca,Iad Res:Sesi—Asnual Yes Ru: 1st 20,000 gal - $12.00 sinie s/a
Other: iarterly Nest 15,000 gal - $0.70 per 1000 gal
Nest 165,000 gal — $0.80 pr 1000 gal
Over 200,000 gal - $0.90 per 1000 gal
Coos lad: let 10,000 gal — $6.25 linisu. qtr
Nest 7,500 gal — $0.70 per 1000 gal
Nest 82,500 gal — $0.80 per 1000 gal
Over 100,000 gal — $0.90 per 1000 gal
Ca ridqe 100 0 Yes Tri-Anasally Yes $0.66 per Cci
Cantos 100 0 Res 6 led Res:Seii— mua1 Yes $0.85 per Cci
1ed: thty
100 0 Ne karterty ND lit 1000 ci - $8.50 .ini ia
Over 1000 ci - $0.85 per Cci
Served by ledha. biter Co. Ru: vtw1y lit 4,500 ci per qtt - 11.848 per Cci
Dtbv: itb1y Nest 13,500 ci per qtr - 40.845 per Cci
Over 18,000 ci per qtr — 40.483 per Cci
5/8’ males. — 124.42 per qtr; allonance — 900 ci per qtr
3/4’ sinless — $41.13 pr qtr; allounce — 1500 c per
Etc. i cr other aster sizes u to 6 inch - $802.56 er Ott
Everett 100 0 Ne arter1y Yes $0.40 cer Cci
Sass lnd:Nontoly neiess sLOP per year for 2,000 ci
100 0 No Tri-Anneally No $0.40 per Cci
$iagha. 100 0 Res,Co.,lnd Ourterly Yes 5/8 stniaus — $ 15.31;allonancs — 7 Cci
Hinqbas Mater Co. 1st 5 Cci - 11.750 per Cci
Nest 10 Cci - 41.577 per Cci
Nest 20 Cci - 11.437 per Ccf
Nest 50 Cci - 41.126 per Cci
Nest 50 Ccf - $0.8 per Cci
Over 135 Cci - 10.555 per Cci
Mininee,alloisiiice,and blocks vary by ester size up to
r einzes — $731.62;allauenc, — 1146 Cci
All uuoe — 40.555 per Cci
-------
TAIL! 11 (continued)
90l ARY OF 1K SENERA SYSTEN REIBER CO1 UN1TIES
LOCAL BILLINR 1l DRNAT1ON AND RATES
lATER SYSTEMS
Cantoser Water Billing Inforostion
Custour Billing Coiputerized
Cossunity Istred Unsetured Cinons Frequency Billing later Rates
2 2
Nolbrook Ret: T3 Rn: 7 Res,Co.s,lnd iarterly Yes Rn: $22.00 per quarter
lad L Co.: 100 lad Co..: $1.00 per Cci
Leaiaqto a 100 0 Yes SeE—Annual Its lit 2,000 cf — $11.00 munsu.
Over 2,000 cf — $0.55 per Cd
100 0 No Sni—Annual Yes $0.60 per Cci
$15.00 .in sua
lediord tOO 0 Yet Sisi—Annual No $8.00 per 1000 ci
$22.00 amine
Metros. 100 0 Yes SeE—Annual Yes itt 5,000 ci — $0.65 per Ccf
Neat 5,000 ci — $0.75 par Cci
Neat 5,000 ci - $0.95 per Cci
Over 15,000 ci - $0.90 per Cci
$16.25 •iniau. per 6 .ontht
Bawo on annual usage/billed ;e.i—innual
Milton 100 0 Ret I lad Sesi—Annual Yet itt 1600 ci - $13.50 emnisue
Over 1600 ci — $0.75 per Cci
Natick 99 1 uart er1y Yet $0.70 er Cci
$1.75 amnisu. pr .cnth
Needhas tOO 0 Yet Sen—Annual Yes itt 2,000 ci - $14.50 smnisu.
Over 2000 ci - $0.72 per Cci
listen 100 0 No Seem—Anneal Yes (it 4,000 ci - $0.55 per Cci
Neat 4,000 ci - $0.65 per Cci
Over 8,000 ci - $0.75 per Cci
5/8’—314’ $9.00 smni.ue
1’ - $13.50 unites
Etc. thru 8 eaters - $99.00
Naruood 100 0 Yes Ouarter ly Yes Puarterly: $7.50 sinm.ue per quarter
Large: Monthly let 6,000 ci $0.64 per Cci
Neat 240,000 ci - $0.55 per Cci
Over 24.6,000 ci — $0.44 per Cci
Large cuttosers $7.50 •tni.u. per month
lit 2,000 ci — $0.64 per Cci
Neat 90,000 ci $0.55 per Cc l
Over 92,000 ci - $0.44 per Cci
99.6 0.4 Mo Site—Annual No $0.90 per Cci
Over 7 ’—monthly $18.00 •mnieua
Raaid olpI, 1 Yet Se.i-# smua l Mo $0.42 per Cci
$20.00. per year smni.ue
Reading 99.9 Yes Quarterly Yes $1.50 per Cci with lOT discount
if paid within 30 days
$7.50 emnieu.
100 0 Rt; 1 lad Res:Sesi—anaual Yet 10.65 per Cci
lnd s untI ily $21.00 per 6 months smnisu.
Soserville 3,000 I c Yes $0.88 per Cci
Un.etered
Stoneha. 100 0 Yet Seem—Annual Yet let 2,100 Cf - $15.00 Siflhlul
Over 2100 ci - $0.85 per Cci
-------
TAILE 11 IcontiRuid)
SUMMY OF II8C SE RAGE SYSTEI PIE)$BER CUMUlI! IES
LX BILUNG IWORMTIOI All) RATES
lATER STSTE )6
Custosir Water Billing Inforuation
Customer Billing Computerized
Coeuwnty Attired Mastered Classes Fre iency Billing later Rates
2 2
StouØtos 100 0 Rn,Caes,lod Res:Se.i—rnul Yes lit 1,000 ci — $20.00 sinisus
C es/l sd— Ouarter l y lust 1,000 ci — $0.80 per Cci
kit 3,200 ci - $0.90 per Cci
kit 6,600 ci — 11.00 per Cci
lest 6,600 ci — 11.10 per Cci
Next 6,600 ci — 11.20 per Cci
Nest 25,000 ci — $1.30 par Cci
Next 50,000 ci - $1.40 per Cci
Over 100,000 ci - $1.65 par Cci
lakeiteld 100 0 Yes S.m—tsna a l tel lit 1,500 ci - $25.00 sinisus
Over 0,500 ci - $1.25 per Cc l
le.lpole NI NI NI
la ltbia 1 Its I hid Bierterly Yes lit 100,000 ci — $0.80 per Cci
Lige: PMiithly Nest 1,900,000 ci - $0.72 per Cci
Over 2,000,000 ci - 10.70 per Cci
Oil’ — $8.00 per ott sin 4 512.00 per year rental
3/4’ — $15.00 per 4tr sIn • 118.00 pet’ year rental
Etc. for other ester sizel up to 10 - $1500 + $900
latertose 100 0 Yes S.si-*v isel Yes $0.64 per Cci
$16.00 sim
100 0 Yes Bi— )Iorth ly Yes $3.00 customer char;e
11.10 per Cci
Susser sontas:
lit 2500 ci — $1.10 per Cci
Over 2,500 ci — $1.60 per Cci
Served by Oedb iaa later Co. Res: l )varte r ly lit 4,500 ci per ptr - 11.848 per Cci
Oth e r:It$ ly list 13,500 ci per ott’ - 10.845 per Cci
Over 18.000 ci per tr - 10.483 per Cci
5/8 ’ •inaaus — 124.42 per ott; 4louancp — 900 ci per itt
314’ sinisue — $41.13 per qtr; allouance — ISOC ci per ocr
Etc. for other sitar sizes up to a inch — 1802.56 per ott
100 0 Yes T ri- s i i aIly Yes lit 150,000 ci — $1.15 per Cci
La-9e: lirthly hit 350,000 ci - $1.05 per Cci
Next 1,000,000 ci — $0.95 per Cci
Over 1,500,000 ci - $0.85 per Cci
518’ — $3.00 per erith siniesa iarludes 200 ci
314’ - $4.50 per erith sinless includes 200 ci
Etc. for other ester sizes up to 10 inch — 1240
100 0 Yes arterly Yes 1st 9,000 ci — $1.04 per Cci
Next 81,000 Cf — $0.70 per Cci
Over 90,000 ci - $0.64 per Cci
Oil’ — $12.48 sinimia includes 1,200 ci
I. - $37.44 conies. includes 3100 ci
Etc. far other ester sizes up to 0 inch — $597.60
IlOchister 100 0 Yes Seen -aenual Yes $0.65 per Cci
Lirqe:krter ly $3.00 enniesa per mparter
$4.00 unties seen—annually
100 0 lo vtrIy As lit $667 ci pm’ yr - $60.00 ainiuus
Over 6667 ci - 10.90 per Cci
80 20 Yes Sasi—seniual Yes Ass: $13.00 ilat rite
Other: $0.50 per Cci
NI o
, -I
-------
TABLE Ill
SUMMARY OF MDC SEWERAGE SYSTEM MEMBER COMMUNITIES
LOCAL COST RECOVERY INFORMATION
SEWAGE SYSTEMS
Method Used to Recever Sewage Syste. Costs Custo.er Sewage Billing lnfor.ation
laud Based User Charge EPA User
Customer Billing Coeputerized EPA Charge
Coeeuntty - Local NBC Local MDC Metered Classes Frequency Billing Grants - System Sewage Rates
1
Arlington I I 100 Res,Coea,lnd Semi-Annual Yes Yes Approved $0.40 per Cci
Ashland I I O U No Sect-Annual Yes No No 1st 1600 ci — $15.00 einteue
Over 1600 ci - $0.65 per Ccl
Bedford I I 100 Mo Sect-Annual Yes Applied Submitted 1st 2,500 ci — 10.005 per cf
Over 2,500 cf - 10.0125 per ci
Service charge - $5.00 per billing period
Belnnt 1 1 100 No Quarterly Yes Yes Approved $0.30 per Cci
Boston 1 I 100 Yes Quarterly Yes yes Approved $5.46 per 1000 ci
Bra intree 1 I 100 Yes Quarterly Yes Yes Approved $0.05 per Cci
Brookline 1 I It o Yes Quarterly Yes No Approved 10.40 per Cci
Burlington I I IO U Res,Coee,Ind Res:Seet-Annual Yes yes No 601 of water hill
OtherQuarterly
Caitridge I I 100 Yes Tn-Annually Yes No No $0.62 per Cci
Canton I I Yes Snheitted Ad Valoree
Chelsea I I Yes Suheitted Ad Valoree
Dedkae I I No Suheitted Ad Valnree
Everett I I Mo No Ad Valoree
Fraetnghae I I 100 Mo Tn-Annually No No Approved 751 of eater hill
Hinghae 1 1 100 Res,Coee,Ind Annually Yes No No $50.00 per dwelling unit
$50.00 per single family
$100.00 per leo Iaeily
$150.00 per three family
IndSi hnols & Come - $5.00 per 1,000 ci
150.00 eieieae
Holbrook I I Part Rev, les,,omw, lvi Uuartsrly Yes No Approved Rev: $9.00 per quarter
All md I Come Cue Ird: NO
-------
TAkE ifs (continued)
StMItAkv OF MDC SEMTRAOE SYSTEM MEMBER COIINWIITIES
LOCAL COST RECOVERY INfORMAl ((R I
SE WARE SYSIENS
Method Used to Recover Siwege Systn Costs Custoser Sewage Billing Information
laud Based User thai;. EPA User
- Customer Billing Cesputerued (PA Charge
lilt L ocal MDC Metered Classes Frequency Billing Srani Syst.. S.i g. Rates
I
Lulngtci i I Yes No Ad Valor,.
Ilalden K (00 No S , .j-AnnujI Yen Yes Approved $0.40 per Ccl
$50.00 .ini.ua
Nediord I I No No M i Valor,s
lltnieui tax - $ 16.50 for 6 .onttis
Metros, No Subsitted Ad Valorn
I 100 Moo I liii Self-Annual Yes No Approved lot 1600 ci - $12.50 •inisus
Over 1600 ci - $0.90 per Cci
Watick 1 100 No Buarterly Yes Yes No $0.30 per Ccl
10.25 ainiaue per aonth
Needha . No Ad Valores
W wto n 1 I 1 1 100 No Scm-Annual Yes No Subsitted 151 of eater bill plus taxes
x * No Ad Yalores Swill put UC in
effect in 19041
* z 99.6 Major,Ta,x Eu., No Ye Approved MajOr Tax Lx. - 11.49 per Ccl
I all other All Other — Ad Vaiori.
Randolph I I 99 lee Scm-Annual No Yes. Approved $30 per single Sicily
460 per 2 lauily
$90 per 3 facily
Coma I above 3 fisily - 40.0015 per ci
Reading I I 1 99.9 Yes Duarterly Yes Yes Sub.itted $0.80 per Cci with 101 discount
if paid within 30 days - $1.50 sinimum
Debt service iros taxes
Revere I No No Ad Valores
Scuervilt. I 3,000 Sp. Oisctiarqe Quarterly Yes yes Approved 10.60 per Ccl
Unsetcied lustosers
-------
TAPLE Ill )conlinued)
SUMMARY OF MDC SEWERASE SYSTEM MEMBER COMMIJNITIES
LOCAL COST RECOVERY INIORMATIOW
SEWASE SYSTEMS
Method lied to Recover Sewage System Costs Customer Sewage Billing Intonation
laud Based liner Charge EPA liner
Customer Billing Computerized EPA Charge
Cosmunity Local M D C local M DC Metered Classes Frequency BilIuiq Srants System Sewage Rates
Stoneha m l 00 Y s Scsi-Annual yes Yes Approved 10.18 per Ccl
Stoughton 0 100 Yes Rss:Semi-annual Yes Applied Approved $0.80 per Cci
Co./lr id:guarterty $25.00 minimu, per 6 months
Wakefield No Ad Vatore.
Walpole MR N I MR MR MR MR
99 len I Ind Quarterly Yes No Approved 10.55 per Ccl
Larqe:Monthly
Watertc i 100 y Scsi-Annual Yp Approved $0.4? per C ci applied to
851 of water meter reading
We I lsiley I I 100 Yes Ri-Monthly Yen Yes Approved 631 of water bill
$1.99 minimum per 2 months
Nentwood I I
Approvtd Ad Valorns (liE approved for
January I, 1985)
Weysouth I 1 tOO Yes Annually Yes Y s Apprav d Annual A Residential OIlier
130.00 (family First 13,999 cf
155.00 2 family Up tn 21,999 ci
115.00 3 family Up to 28.999 ci
19u.00 family Up tu 34,999 ci
IlS.tIO each add, unit Every add. 5,000 ci
Wilmington I I 100 Yes Quarterly Yes Yes Approved $0.15 per Cci
19.00 mInimum
Winchester
Yes No Ad Valore.
Winthrop
Yes No Ad Valore. (liE to be adopted
by mid-1984)
Woburn I 1(10 Yes Annually Yes Yes Submitted Oosectic:lst 1(1,000 ci — $0.30 per 1000 ci
Over 10,000 ci - 10.20 per 1000 ci
$8.00 minimum per year
lndustr,al:lst 500.000 ci - 10. per 1000 cf
levi 500,(v00 ci - $ .40 per 1000 cf
MR - no response liver t,(’(O,YuU ci - 10.t5 per 1000 cf
mini sv .e per rear
-------
12.6 Noise Analysis
-------
12.6 NOISE ANALYSIS
12.6.1 Ambient Noise Levels
Three sources of information have been used to characterize existing
levels of noise on-site and in the neighborhood of each proposed site for
wastewater treatment facilities. For the Deer Island site and nearby
Winthrop community, field monitoring of noise levels was done recently by
Havens & Emerson for the MDC (memorandum dated June 14, 1984, addressed
to the Deer Island Citizens Advisory Committee). Results are shown in
Table 12.6-1 and in Figure 12.6-1, reproduced from the memo.
Additional data for Deer Island and vicinity, as well as Long
Island, were reported in the MDC, Site Options Study (1982) by Metcalf
and Eddy, Inc. For the sites at Long Island and Nut Island, field
measurements were taken by CE Maguire, Inc. in Squantum, Houghs Neck, and
Adams Shore in Quincy. These tests were taken on 7/12/84 using a Genrad
model 1551-C sound level meter calibrated before and after testing with a
Genrad model 1567 sound level calibrator. Tests were made on the A
weighted spectrum. Field sheets and computation sheets are shown in
Attachment I. Testing locations are shown in Figures 12.6-2a and 2b and
results are summarized in Table 12.6-2.
At each testing site in the Naguire analysis, 50 to 100 samples were
taken, one every 10 seconds. After 50 samples, a test at the 95th
percentile was undertaken to determine if the sample set was statistic-
ally valid. If not, 50 more samples were taken and the set was tested
again. Statistically valid sets were obtained at all sites within 100
samples. From these sets, L 10 , L 50 L 90 and Leq sound energy levels were
calculated.
L 10 corresponds to the sound energy level exceeded 10 percent of the
time, L 50 to the level exceeded 50 percent of the time, L 90 to the level
exceeded 90 percent of the time and Leq is the equalized or “average”
overall sound energy level.
12.6-1
-------
TABLE 12.6-1
NOISE LEVELS IN THE VICINITY OF DEER ISLAND, 19841
LOCATION EARLY AM HID AM Leg 2
Revere Beach Rotary 48 58
Sawmill @ Floyd 48 50
Sagamore 36 57
Cora St. 34 50
Main @ Banks 38 65 65-70
Court 36 41
Bellevue 36 58 65-80
Park 36 52
Winthrop Shore Drive 52 82
Orlando Ave. 34 50
Orlando @ Shore 38 50
Washington @ Bates 36 55
River @ Washington 39 61
Tewksbury St. 38 54
Cottage Ave. 39 55 65-75
Macy Ave. 40 52
Brewster Ave. 42 53
Causeway to Deer Isl. 43 48
Deer Island - — -— 65-70
**Construction equipment at this location
1 Reported by MDC, June 14, 1984. Locations are reported in order by
distance from Deer Island, farthest to closest. Statistical sampling
techniques were not used in this MDC study. Levels reported are from
instantaneous field readings.
2 From MDC, Site Options Study , Vol. II (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., pg. 2-48,
1982). These selective readings are based on computer modelling results.
12.6-2
-------
TOWN of WINTHROP
MA S SAC K USE T T S
LEGEND
O — Muff .r NoIs.ComPISIflt
NEWSPAPER SURVEY (July 1983)
— Frsqu.flt Nols. Complsêflts
— Occastonsi Nolsi Complaints
— Rars Nolsi Complaints
ft ci ;:
k I
i 000 1
S’ 1 frj \
___ ___ In the
i / / _: (: ,/44 ApvU I 1554
/////
c
\\\ \\ .11 4 -Vh Ij 4
8 05701sJ HARBOR 444
SOUND PRESSURE SURVEY
* : construction iqulpmsnt
sour fri C. H iv rie,
3tuie l4 I1ø+.
LOCA1iOl4S O WiNThROP F tOI
rA -I
-------
TABLE 12.6-2
AIIBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN TIlE VICINITY OF
LONG ISLAND MID NUT ISLAND, 19841
SITE L1O L50 L90 Leg 2
1. Long Island -- 65-70
2. Squantum-Dorchester/Shoreham Sts 64 56 49 59 <65
3. Squantwn-Jordan Access Rd. 67 58 50 61
4. Houghs Neck - Nut Island Gate 56 55 54 55
5. Houghs Neck - Sea St. 59 54 52 56
6. Adams Shore, Quincy - Sea St. 68 64 58 65
1 A-weighted sound pressure levels, recorded by CE Maguire, Inc. during
mid-morning and afternoon of 7/12/84 (see Attachment I field sheets).
2 From MDC, Site Options Study , Vol. II (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., pg. 2-92,
1982). These selective readings are based on computer modelling results.
12.6-4
-------
—k - j - -
-- _fl. - 1 I BAY
7/ Pumping FLat
4p H 1i /:
- - /
- - - Co /
re ,Ya - Thimble
lsIand
C.- - -
- r Haiftide Rock
Com e at Nar
Corner T F L at
Tenean
fl . I \\ \‘ 7
Maçk* — -
--
es • \
- - — ummoc lc -a
Ga — ) i . - ’\ ,
ay ound\ / / Mud
• 1/ / ç iiJ QUINCY
I / B A Y
St ecd 4 i” jjrivli,, ‘ -
17 The ter \k1 — - t da tf
.. - ‘ - -= >
CedaCoe
te 7 8 / tt .:::; h Jr *
8 LINT CHA E -\Fi - fl , ::- --
/ / ‘21 -
/ -. Radio Towers Radio Towe s - N
— - - - — _ M - •
LPO FT f I -
/. I RESERVATIo \ :
7 uç > CemI
ut h son - - -, -
• M Iton - - \ - - ‘ ‘ - - -
- - :
- - / Crane p r
6 H h 1 / \\ t 8M 23 ArniOjv
/ \ rook Jr
- - - - —- ‘- — -- ae a y5 - k- on
c e maOuire Inc. /Q4 ; 7• I .
-------
Se age
Moon
Is’and
/
Head
Sculpin
Ledge
;s Pt
Rainsfor
Is4and ___ - ______
a
• NOISE MbI ITORING//
LOCATIOIS
SUFFOL1( --
Light
* I
r , n,,
-,
£ )c 4 . 3
7- :iC
— 19 Stat:
Sunken
Ledge i -
;Hangrnan z
Island C.
4 -
West -4
Light
/
‘ Pig /
;
I I
s-•. E,c:I ccoor i
Island
£.
T, j ‘ —4’ c.: Island 4/
tl( CO__ .—
s !!9- -ç o
1
Q UINC Y
BAY
5;
C
• •c c•i t
Veazie Rocks
Seal Rock
I .e
W -
-
-
*
I — •
ce
/;I.?C. /984
/
/
12. 8 6—.Zb
-------
Noise levels measured in both these separate studies are generally
comparable to the ranges reported by Netcaif & Eddy in the MDC Site
Options Study (1982). Statistical comparison among results is not
possible due to inconsistency of sampling locations times of tests and
lack of statistical validity in the various noise measurements done for
the MDC.
These sources of noise information for the three sites under
consideration indicate that ambient noise levels in Quincy were generally
at the upper ranges of daytime standards for community noise (see
following section). Levels in Winthrop (remembering the limitations of
these data) are also at the upper ranges of community noise. These noise
measurements reflect the urbanized nature of the communities surrounding
the proposed treatment plant sites.
In addition to these measured readings, noise monitoring was
conducted by Massport as part of their ongoing noise measurement and
abatement program. Figure 12.6-3 shows the location of Massport
microphones used to measure noise energy levels of aircraft operations.
Figure 12.6-4 shows noise contours taken from Massport’s Generic
Environmental Impact Report on operation of Logan Airport published in
October, 1984. Noise generated by airport operations is a significant
part of the background noise in Winthrop, and also contributes to noise
in Quincy, though to a lesser degree, based on the flight paths followed.
While none of the proposed alternatives will result in any alteration of
airport noise, airport noise levels are included here to indicate
existing noise impacts on the local adjoining communities, and to place
the proposed t eatment plant siting actions in the Harbor setting.
12.6.3 Relevant Standards and Criteria
The applicable noise control standards which would govern the
proposed treatment plant sites and their surroundings are the City of
Boston Noise Control Regulations, EPA recommended noise exposure limits,
and Massachusetts statewide noise regulations. Tables 12.6-3 and 12.6-4
show maximum allowable noise levels under the first two standards.
12.6—7
-------
14—Crescent Street
#3—Central/Shawmut Streets
#7—Morton/Russell Streets
J6—Bayswater Street
#13—Court Road
#5—on Airport
#8—Harbor View Avenue
#12—Marginal Street
#9— Elliot/Otis Streets
I ç .,2.6-3
MASSPORT MICROPHONE LOCATIONS
#11—Bass Point Road
16-East Dedh Stieet
5—3igelow Stree
.#2—Conley Terminal
SQWH BOStON
P StAUED Si
Source: Massport, Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Oct. 1984)
-------
90
,ov
19
_ ls .•
N A H ANT”
ATON LOGAN AIRPORT
2 DAY-NIGHT CONTOUR9
LDN 68.70,’75,8O
‘. 5 . -. 4
• I
.\
‘ I OOk
-
V I JV •: ‘ •.. .,.. ‘
54 . • - ‘ ‘ -, F -. -.7 - . . ‘ ,.—- . —I •— . - -
4 - S... • 5. ..-. -.. ..
p. • • .‘ / 44k ‘ ‘ - . 4.. ( . . ,-. —. -
4, —. ’ ’ ,. ‘ -‘- . 5 t. .---, ..s’:
‘ ,ç -! . .-. 55 54. fJ3 Q q.; •,: . -
4• .• ‘ ‘.a;’ ’
— . 5 - -I. 4 1
•:/.: ‘ i: ’. .- ‘:.:. ; !4 4 - ?
L i i • ,_• 45 •___V.u ’ ,. 7 P q
ii “, • t
/ ..
.,
\ /
4.
•&SSiC ’uSt?” •ar
,. ‘ ...
!B.!LL .— 1i
— - .
S
(Oct. 1984)
I.
S.
i .-..
./
44040
Source: Massport, Generic Environmental Impact Statement,
i:L6 -4
-------
Noise requirements established by the Massachusetts DEQE under
Regu lation 10 of their Air Pollution Regulations provide that approval
for installation or modification of a noise source will be granted if it
does not:
1. Increase the broadband noise level in excess of 10 dB(A) above
ambient (corresponding to L 90 ); or,
2. Produce a puretone condition, where a puretone is any given
octave band center frequency that exceeds the two adjacent
center frequencies by three (3) or more decibels.
These standards apply primarily to operations noise. For con-
struction generated noise, there are no specific standards that apply at
the state level; however, the State would require application of all
reasonable noise mitigation measures (as noted in Section 12.6.5 below).
Most pertinent of these controls is the Boston Noise Control
Regulation. This applies to Deer Island and Long Island. Under the
Boston noise limits, maximum noise levels would apply during construction
and operations. These standards do not, however, apply on Nut Island or
in Quincy. They also do not apply in Winthrop, although their appli-
cation on Deer Island would serve to protect that site’s neighbors.
State regulations apply at all locations. Both Quincy and Winthrop would
be covered by noise regulations of the Commonwealth. The guidelines set
by the City of Boston noise regulation and by the State’s regulations
were used as the basis for assessing potential noise impacts at all
sites.
12.6-10
-------
TABLE 12.6-3
BOSTON NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS
Maximum Allowable
Noise Levels
Residential
7:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.* 60 dBA
All other times 50 dBA
Residential/Institutional
7:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M. 65 dBA
All other times 55 dBA
Business
Any time 65 dBA
Industrial
Any time 70 dBA
*Except Sundays and holidays when special permit to operate is needed.
Construction Noise Regulations*
Maximum Noise
Level at Affected
Lot Use of Affected Property L 10 Level Property Line
Residential or Institutional 75 dBA 86 dBA
Business or Recreational 80 dBA
Industrial 85 dBA
Note : L 10 defines the noise level that is exceeded 10 percent of the
time.
*Construction noise standards apply to the 7 AM. to 6 P.M. period; work
during other times and on Sundays requires a permit.
SOURCE : Regulations for the Control of Noise, City of Boston,
Boston Department of the Environment, (Jeff Boehm 725-4416), personal
communication 11/5/84.
12.6-11
-------
Table il.6—1
YEARLY AVERAGE* EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVELS IDENTIFIED AS
REQUISITE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE WITH
AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY
Measure
Indoor
To Protect
Activity Hearing Loss Against
Inter- Considera-
Both Ef-
ference tion
fects(b)
Outdoor
To Protect
Activity Hearing Loss
Inter- Considera- Against
Both El-
ference tion
fects(b )
Residential with Out-
side Space and Farm
Residences
Ldn
Leq(24)
5
70
45
55
70
55
Residential with No
Outside Space
Ldn
‘ -eq(24)
45
70
45
Commercial
Leq(24)
(a)
70
70(c)
(a)
70
7 0(c)
Inside Transportation
Leq(’4 )
(al
70
(a)
Industrial
Leq(24}(d)
(a)
70
7 0(c)
(a)
70
70 (c)
Hospitals
Ld 0
Leq( 4 )
70
70
Educational
Leq(24 1
Leq(24)(d )
45
70
5
55
70
55
Recreational Areas
Leq(24)
(a)
70
70(c)
(a)
70
70(c)
Farm Land and
General Unpopulated
Land
Leq(14)
(a)
70
7 0(c
Code:
a. Since different types of activities appear to be associated with different levels, identifI-
cation 01 a maximum level for activity interference may be difficult except in those
circumstances where speech communication is a critical activity. (See Figure D-2 for
noise levels as a function of distance which allow satisfactory communication.)
b. Based on lowest level.
c. Based only on hearing loss.
d. An 1 eq(8 of 75 dB may be identified in these situations so long as the exposure over
the remaining I( hours per day is low enough to result in a negligible contribution to
the 24-hour average. i.e.. no greater than an Leq of 60 dB.
Note: Explanation of identified level for hearing loss: The exposure period which
results in hearing loss at the identified level is a period of 40 years.
*Refcrs to energy rather titan arithmetic averages.
Source: Identification of Levels of Environn ntal Noise Requisite to Protect
Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA
550/9—74—004)
12.6-12
-------
12.6.4 Potential Impacts of Siting Alternatives
There are three aspects of noise associated with proposed treatment
plant alternatives: noise from plant operations, construction noise and
traffic noise. In assessing the impacts of associated project noise on
nearby abuttors, several factors were considered. For operations noise.
the standards of the Massachusetts Noise Regulations and City of Boston
Noise Regulations were applied (see previous section). In the case of
the State regulation, an increase of less than 10 decibels above existing
background noise levels was allowable. The Boston regulation provided
maximum allowable noise limits of between 55 and 65 dBA. For construc-
tion noise, the Boston regulations were applied with a maximum limit of
75 (L 0 ) and 86 dBA used. For traffic noise, consideration was given to
the noise level, its frequency and duration as the basis for evaluating
impacts. The impacts of each alternative are discussed below.
a. Noise from Plant Operations
Noise from the operation of proposed treatment facilities is not
likely to represent a widespread or significant impact at either Deer
Island, Nut Island or Long Island. The MDC, Site Options Study (M&E,
1982) determined that noise from the Deer Island wastewater treatment
facility would result in an increase of less than one decibel in back-
ground noise at the nearest residence in Point Shirley (about one half
mile away). At the prison (within 700 feet), noise level increases were
within two decibels of background levels. The range of instant on-site
readings recorded on Deer Island were a low of 38 dBA at the old pump-
house to a high of 88 dBA at the existing pump station.
Recent MDC studies indicated that the noise of muffler throb from
the existing diesel engines at Deer Island resulted in a 2 dBA oscil-
lation over a background reading of 41 dBA at the nearest Point Shirley
residence (about 2,200 feet). Proposed new improved treatment facilities
utilizing electric motors to replace the current diesel engines will
result in a noise reduction of about this magnitude from present
conditions.
12.6-13
-------
EPA criteria (EPA - 430/9-76-003, January 1976) state that changes
in noise level of 0 to 3 dBA are expected to cause little or no impact.
State noise regulations allow an increase in ambient noise levels by up
to 10 dBA.
The City of Boston regulations allow noise levels of 55 to 65 dBA
from operations, which, based on the noise levels recorded at the site,
indicate that operations noise from the existing facilities is a slight
impact at Winthrop residences and is within allowable limits set by the
regulations. Operations of proposed new treatment facilities with
improved equipment would result in better operations with reduced noise
impacts expected at nearby residences. Noise impacts during operations
of new facilities on the adjacent prison population would also be
expected to result in noise levels below those recorded at existing
facilities and well within maximum allowable Boston or State noise
standards.
On Long Island, the distance between the site and the nearest resi-
dences is about 12,000 feet (or six times the distance between Point
Shirley and Deer Island). No significant noise impact on residences from
proposed treatment facility operations is anticipated. The hospital at
Long Island would be within 1,500 feet of a proposed 18-acre primary (150
MGD) treatment plant site and within 200 feet of a larger 52-acre
consolidated primary (500 MGD) plant site (although the location of
potential noise generating equipment would vary). Noise levels from
operations of either size treatment plant nearby to the hospital would
result in noise level increases over background levels of less than one
decibel to no more than three decibels. Noise increases of this
magnitude would have only a slight effect on hospital residents or staff
and are within the limits set by the Boston Noise Regulations. Noise
levels would likewise be slight relative to possible on-site recreation
activities.
At Nut Island, there are a small number of residences on Quincy
Great Hill in Houghs Neck within 1,000 feet of the potential operational
noise sources at proposed treatment facilities. Peak operational noise
12.6-14
-------
levels generated on-site at a primary treatment plant were assumed to be
78 dBA (based on peak measurements of 75 to 80 dBA taken at Nut Island
and at other treatment plants). Operations noise at Nut Island under
primary treatment alternatives may lead to noise levels at the nearest
homes (about 1,000 feet from potential noise generating facilities) of
approximately 52 dBA. This is an insignificant increase above existing
conditions and does not exceed levels specified by State noise control
guidelines (greater than 10 dBA above background). This is not expected
to constitute appreciable local annoyance. Noise control measures,
including containment of major noise generating equipment within enclosed
buildings, will keep noise of operations within acceptable levels at
nearby residences (see Section 4.3.3).
Noise levels at the nearest residences to Nut Island under a
headworks option would be less than 50 decibels (based on an increased
distance of 1,500 feet) and below existing background levels. This level
of noise would result in no appreciable effect offsite (given a back-
ground in the range of 55 dBA).
A “puretone condition” is a factor addressed in the State’s noise
standards which relates to constant monotones, and can be a problem due
to constant motor whine or engine muffler throb. Proposed new treatment
facilities at all sites would result in no significant puretone con-
ditions. Existing problems with engine and muffler noise will be
eliminated by electric motors.
b. Construction Noise
Table 12.5-7 (from the 1978 Draft EIS) shows typical sound pressure
levels generated by construction equipment without added noise mitiga-
tion, such as special mufflers. The mid-range of these values is 88 dBA,
the highest is for pile driving at 101 dBA. Other construction acti-
vities may also approach peak noise levels.
Since it is not possible to predict what combination of equipment
noises will be operating at a given time over a site during construction,
12.6-15
-------
Table
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION SITE EQUIPMENT SOUND LEVELS (in dBA)
Typical
Sound Level
Construction Equipment at 50 Feet
1 Dump truck 88
2 Portable air canpressors 81
3, Concrete mixer (Truck) 85
4. Paving Breaker 88
5. Scraper 88
6. Dozer 87
7. Paver 89
8. Generator 76
9. Pile driver 101
10. Rock drill 98
11. Pump 76
12. Pneumatic tools 85
13. Backhoe 85
SOURCE: EPA 1975
-------
we have expressed this value as a range between 88 dBA, which is assumed
to be typical noise of construction equipment without mitigation (the
mode of the values presented), and 101 dBA, which represents a peak
value, based on a pile driver without special noise mitigation applied.
Additionally, separate noise calculations were made for construction
equipment assuming the application of noise mitigation measures (see
Section 12.6.5 below). Based on predicted construction practice as
indicated by the Commonwealth, a reduction in equipment noise of 10
decibels to 78 dBA (typical) and 90 dBA (peak) was used to reflect
mitigated noise levels, assuming the application of noise mufflers and
quieter construction equipment which may be available on a construction
project of this scale.
For the prediction of noise levels offsite, the following formula
was used. This formula will account for the attenuation of noise with
distance without corrections for temperature, humidity, barometric
pressure or topography. The sound pressure level (dBA 1 ) at any given
distance d 1 from a generating source can be calculated on the basis of
known noise levels (dBA 2 ) at a known distance d 2 by the formula:
dBA 2 dBA 1 -20 log(d 2 /d 1 )
This formula has been used to estimate probable noise levels at the
nearest residences or population groups to each of the wastewater treat-
ment facility sites under various distances as shown in Table 12.6-8.
“Typical” values shown in this table represent noise levels due only to
construction assuming construction noise equal to 88 dBA without
mitigation or 78 dBA with mitigation. “Worst case” values represent
noise levels likely to result from pile driving or comparable peak
construction noise activities at 101 dBA without mitigation and 90 dBA
with mitigation. The impact assessment was made using mitigated con-
struction noise levels since the MDC has reportedly carried out
mitigation practices in other construction projects and EPA and the
Commonwealth have indicated that they will require the application of
12.6-17
-------
TABLE 12.6-8
PREDICTED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS NEAR CONSTRUCTION SITES
Approx. With no Noise Mitigation With No jjatioa
Distance “Typical” “Worst Case” Max. Allowable “Typical” “Worst Case”
SITE Receptor ( feet) Noise Leve1(dB Noise Level( BAJ Noise Levels( 1B Noise Level(dB$ Noise Level th4
Deer Island Prison 200 75 89 75 (L 10 )-86 66 78
Nearest Residence 2,000 56 69 46 58
Center of Point Shirley 3,000 52 65 42 54
Long Island Hospital 6 200 75 89 75 (L )-86 66 78
1,500 57 71 10 48 60
Nearest Residence 12,000 40 53 30 42
In Squantum
Nut Island Nearest Residence 7 50 88 NA 75 (L )-86 78 NA
100 82 95 10 72 84
1,000 62 75 52 64
Center of Roughs Neck 3,000 52 65 42 54
1 Assumes construction noise equivalent to 88 dBA the mode of equIpment noise levels shown in Table 7.
2 Assumes noise generated by pile driving at 101 dBA; this noise value assumes normal equipment operations without any special alteration or muffler
applications which would lower noise levels.
3 Boston Noise Regulations, maximum allowable construction noise level at receptor boundary; this standard is used as a guideline for Nut Island, and
in Quincy where only the State regulations would apply.
4 Assumes construction noise equivalent to 78 dBA with use of standard noise mitigation practices as determined by the Commonwealth and M DC.
5 Assumes construction noise equivalent to 90 dRA with use of special noise mitigation practices as determiiled by the Corurionwealth and l 8 C.
1,500 foot distance assumes a primary plant (150 MGD) located at the Nike base; alternately, a treatment plant sited adjacent to the hospital at
a distance of 200 feet would generate higher noise levels as shown in table above.
7 At 50 feet, which can only occur under a primary option which does not utilize filling of Quincy Bay and does not relocate residents (not a likely
outcome), noise levels would be highest as shown in the table above; such a value may also result under options where the open space at the entrance
to the site is used as a staging area, but such activity would result in noise levels of limited duration under the “typical” category with a “worst
case” not applicable (NA). The successively greater distances shown above reflect varying potential noise levels under various alternatives and
construction options.
Source: CE Maguire, Inc. (Nov., 1984).
-------
maximum noise mitigation measures, to the extent feasible, in this
project.
Under typical operations with noise mitigation, noise levels
generated by construction activities at Deer Island, Long Island, and Nut
Island would be slight to moderate and well within maximum Boston and
State limits for construction activity. At the nearest residences in
Point Shirley, at the prison on Deer Island, at the hospital on Long
Island (either an 18- or 52—acre primary treatment plant), and at nearby
residences on Houghs Neck, the noise levels generated during construction
would be between 46 to 78 dBA, all well below the acceptable limits at
the respective sites.
For the limited duration of operation of peak noise generating
equipment with noise mitigation, noise levels in Point Shirley, at the
Deer Island prison, and at the Long Island hospital (as noted above) are
slight to moderate increases and still within allowable noise limits at
between 58 and 78 dBA at the respective locations.
The sensitivity of the hospital population on Long Island may
require further mitigation of noise levels beyond the construction
practices which will be required at other sites. These may be needed,
even though projected noise levels there (at 60 to 78 dBA) would be
within maximum allowable limits as set by Boston. This is particularly
true for a larger facility closer to the hospital. Special mitigation
measures, in addition to those discussed below, may be necessary at this
site.
Peak construction noise with mitigation, at nearby residences to Nut
Island, would have the greatest potential impact, even though it would
not exceed maximum noise control guidelines. Under certain circum-
stances, noise levels at this site may approach allowable limits and
could have a potentially disruptive effect on neighbors. In the case of
a primary facility on Nut Island (with filling) noise levels may, under
peak conditions, become moderately adverse (at 84 dBA) at abutting
locations, approaching maximum allowable levels. Without filling, it is
12.6-19
-------
assumed that relocation of nearby residents will be accomplished so that
peak noise levels will not exceed the standards set and would not pose
greater noise impacts on the closest remaining homes. In the case of a
headworks facility at Nut Island, peak noise levels would be slightly
adverse, well below the maximum allowable limits.
In the case of construction noise without mitigation applied, a
situation not expected to occur, typical construction noise levels would
be higher than those noted above (see Table 12.6-8); however, they would,
in most cases, still be within the limits of the allowable standards.
The only exception to this would be noise to nearby residences at Nut
Island under primary treatment alternatives (as noted above). It is
expected, therefore, under such a circumstance, that relocation of nearby
residents will be carried out in order to avoid potentially severe
adverse impacts, among them noise, and reestablish adequate buffer areas.
Even though typical noise levels are within maximum guideline limits
(as set by the City of Boston), construction noise is likely to represent
a significant annoyance and occasional disruption to nearby residents and
other groups around all three sites based on their proximity to the
construction sites. This impact, which is unavoidable, is common to any
construction project and would require mitigation measures to lessen
adverse effects.
Mitigation actions to lower construction noise to more acceptable
levels would, therefore, be employed at all sites where potentially
sensitive receptor groups reside. This would include the hospital
population at Long Island, the prison population at Deer Island, and
nearby residences at both Nut Island and Deer Island. The types of
mitigations that could be employed are discussed in Section 12.6.5
following.
c. Traffic Noise
Because of the decision to barge equipment and construction ma-
terials to the sites, and to bus and/or ferry workers to and from the
12.6-20
-------
sites to the maximum extent feasible, the minimal traffic resulting from
construction activities is not expected to be a significant increase over
existing traffic levels (see Section 12.2). It, therefore, is not
expected that truck or bus traffic will result in appreciable sustained
increases in overall traffic noise levels on the way to and from the
respective sites.
The additional small numbers of trucks and buses to and from the
sites may result in occasional increased noise immediately adjacent to
the streets along which the trucks and buses will travel, particularly in
the case of residential streets. From Table 12.6-7, it can be seen that
heavy trucks typically generate maximum noise levels of 85 to 88 dBA at a
distance of 50 feet. Buses would be less noisy and more readily absorbed
by existing traffic noise levels. It is clear that, during passage of
heavy trucks, instantaneous noise levels at nearby abuttors may be as
high as those noted above. However, the thiration of this noise is very
brief and given the small numbers of trucks (projected at 8 or less per
day on average) and buses (between 2 and 14 daily on average) only
moderate noise disruption and annoyance is expected to result. In the
case of the peak traffic levels when the number of buses may double, the
potential disruption will increase, but would still be within moderate
impact levels given the existing traffic flows.
Indications are that as the proportion of trucks in the traffic mix
increases, annoyance increases at an even greater rate (Langdon 1976).
Some complaints relative to traffic activities and traffic noise should,
therefore, be expected at all locations. Moreover, general neighborhood
dissatisfaction with a project has been shown to increase hostility to
noise interference (Taylor and Hall, 1978). If fear and/or anger is as-
sociated with the source of the noise, annoyance is also increased
(Griffiths, et al 1980). Given the high level of concern and dissatis-
faction apparent in the potentially affected neighborhoods adjacent to
all sites, negative perceptions to the project should be expected
resulting in likely complaints about construction traffic.
12.6-21
-------
12.6.5 Mitigations
The most obvious means to mitigate noise impacts is to minimize the
source of the noise. This is especially appropriate during construction
when noise levels are likely to be highest, both on-site and at nearby
receptors.
To reduce onsite construction noise, particularly involving peak
noise generating equipment such as pile drivers, noise mitigation
measures should be provided at a minimum on Nut Island and Deer Island
with further investigations on Long Island to establish the extent of
construction work necessary involving the need for special foundation
work, such as pile driving.
Noise mufflers, selection of less noisy equipment, alternate con-
struction methods which minimize noise levels (such as augering or use of
forms in place), and other noise reduction practices are commonly
available and have been used by area contractors and the Ml C in other
projects to limit noise. Such methods, if required, could be implemented
to set a noise limit that is within applicable standards at the nearest
receptor boundary. Such mitigations may increase the costs of con-
struction above the levels estimated in the SDEIS; yet, with these
mitigation practices applied, population groups around the three sites
would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of allowable limits set by
existing standards.
Additionally, scheduling of work during daylight hours (7 A.M. to 6
P.M.) will be applied; at Deer Island and Long Island, work beyond these
hours or on Sundays and holidays requires a special permit from the City
of Boston.
Scheduling of traffic to minimize on-site concentrations of heavy
trucks is also expected to be an effective means of reducing noise.
Annoyance has been shown to increase as more leisure time activities are
affected (Jonah et. al 1981). The waterfront location of these sites may
cause conflicts between construction activities and people’s leisure
12.6-22
-------
pursuits. Careful scheduling of noise generating activities should,
therefore, be used to minimize interference with leisure activities and
x educe potential noise annoyance at nearby recreational areas.
Citizens are also less annoyed if they perceive that their com-
plaints are taken seriously, adequate efforts to reduce noise are being
made, and there is some control exerted over the noise (Langdon 1976).
This suggests that a mechanism for receiving, recording and processing
complaints should be instituted and that measures taken to reduce noise
should be publicized from the outset (see mitigation discussion in
Section 6.3.3).
During operations, slight noise impacts (or less) are expected (as
noted above). However, at sites where noise may be a special concern,
such as Nut Island or Long Island, additional noise buffers and further
design measures to limit noise may be appropriate.
12.6-23
-------
SOURCES
EPA, 1976, USEPA Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works (EPA - 430/9-76-003, January, 1976).
EPA, 1978, USEPA Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Upgrading
of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System , August 4, 1978.
Griffiths et al, 1980, I.D. Griffiths, F.J. Langdon, and M.A. Swan,
“Subjective Effects of Traffic Noise Exposure: Reliability and Seasonal
Effects,” Sound and Vibration , Vol. 71(2), 1980, p. 351-386.
Havens & Emerson, 1984, Draft Deer Island Facilities Plan (unpublished)
1984.
Jonah et al, 1981, Brian A. Jonah, J.S. Bradley, and N.E. Dawson,
“Predicting Individual Subjective Response to Traffic Noise,” Journal
of Applied Psychology , Vol. 66(4), 1981, p. 490-501.
Langdon, 1976, F.J. Langdon, “Noise Nuisance Caused by Road Traffic Noise
in Residential Areas: Part III,” Journal of Sound and Vibration , Vol.
49(2), 1976, P. 241-256.
Massport 1984, Generic Environmental Impact Report, Operation of
Logan Internation Airport , Massachusetts Port Authority, Boston, I1.A.,
October 1984.
Metcalf & Eddy 1982, Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities
Planning Study Phase I, Site Options Study Pgs. 2-47, 2-48.
Taylor & Hall, 1978, S.M. Taylor and F.L. Hall, “Regulatory Implications
of Individual Reactions to Road Traffic Noise,” Transportation
Research Record 686 , 1978, p. 27-33.
12.6-24
-------
Weetman, 1984, David G. Weetman, memo to Citizens Advisory Group!
Interested Members of the Public, June 14, 1984.
12.6-25
-------
ATTACHMENT I
Field Sheets and Computation Sheets
-------
GENERA l EQUIPMENT
operator iRVJfflC Sound Level MeterJ&S/ C Site No.________________
Date_______________________ Manufacturer______________ Location 5 QiJ,4,JIVM
Tine 12. C
Day M T Serialt
Calibrator. Site ri ion
Wind S .ed JZ.. Direction Serial *__________________ y c ‘h /
Temp. j 9 Rel. Hum. tsr zt setting_Fast_Slow
other eather
lother
MISCELLANEOUS
—. ,
Traffic Count: Autos__________________
Txi.icks Other Total______
Coimnents LQ 4 i1c ’
o:
-
J!LIHWH
1
- - - - H- I - -
:::
f ’
::
4, iHi ii :: :::
E — — — —
::::I:iL 1III ::
:: ::iL11t’ ’- - -
tjir::”
11111 ititi ::
(
r
TOTAL
so
5 10
20 25
30
35 1.0
NUMBER OF aE DLNGS
-------
GENERAL EQUIPMENT SITE
Operator___________________ Sound Level Meter_________ Site No.
Date 3-jI2 1 t Manufacturer_____________ Location j J7 .),Vk
Time 2. Serial •
Day 1 M T W F S Calibrator_________________ Site Description____________
Wind Speed IQ Direction Serial * - & P -€4 1 41
Temp. & Rd. Hum._____ ,sI ii Setting_Faat,......slow
Other Weather
(other
MISCELLANEOUS
SITE SKETCH ‘ . Traffic Count: Autos_________________
£.s(
d &_ Trucks Other Total______
Coents__________________________________
1 -tO 7
in
-‘
-J
I ”
z
0
9
6
c
3
-c
:j:::_ ::4:
F
: : 4: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :‘ : : : :}:
2 :1 fL: j ’ EEEE:
• -.
• . . L - - •. -.
-. . •--• - • ._•••r_. •____ [ j_.
- J__ - -• . . -t4 - • - - - • • - - -
4 4 — EH IE E11E E E — [
‘I ! I hF F fliJ ii IT ii IIJ ii liii lilt
TOTAL
Ti
4
3-4
fo
a
5 10 15 20 25
NUMBER CF kEAD NGS
35 leO
-------
FIGURE 2. SAMPIZ L coMPuTATIce WORXSNEZT
s O U N D
100 —
99
95
97
96
95
-94
93
92
91
rLxrIVE
COUNT - SOUND ENERGY
* 100,000
79,400 —
x 63,100
* 50.100
* 39,800
* 31,6 00__.
x 25,100
20,000
15.900
* 12.600
x
_7,940
*
S
a
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
a
5
=
S
S
a
=
a
a
a
a
S
S
S
=
S
=
a
a
a
a
a
a
S
S
S
S
a
S
S
a
S
S
a
a
a
=
5
a
a
S
*
S
a
a
a
a
S
a
S
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
x
x 3,160
* 2,510 —
* 2.000
x 1,590
1,260
* 1,000
* 794
x 631
* 501
* 398
x 316
x 251
* 200
* 159
x 126
z 100
* 79.4
30.1
_ 39.9
31.6
__________ * _ 15.9
12.6
10.0
* ‘ rTa
6.31
3.01
3.98
3.16
* T.51
2.00
.L 1.59
* 1.26
I 1.00
* .794
* .631
1 .501
1 .39 5
* .316
I .251
1 .200
I
I .126
* .100
* .079
*
* .0!
*
x - . Q3L
SELATIVE TOTAL
SOUND ENERGY
l*0 C /ve;q( 5,
1
C
0
t
c i
-Ii ,
rb ..
‘1 .g 7
44.OO
1. S B
3. S a D/S B
2. 5 D (,9.l7
4 Lq
-------
GENERAL EQUIPMENT
Operator___________________ Sound Level Meter_________
Date 7ts ., ’i I’lanufacturer____________
Serial $_
Time ]: 3 ’ fM
Day S M T W F S Calibrator_________________
Wind Spe Direction Serial # -
Temp. Rd. Hum._____ isx zt Setting_Fast,_5 ow
Otner Weather
L. IOther
SITE
Site No. 3
Location 14O .Jc J4c Aj&., :
Site Description____________
t Ft7 A’ L. pL .,su7
SITE SRETCH
MISCELLANEOUS
Trucks Other Total______
Traffic Count: Autos_________________
Comments__________________________________
‘5 s5
L
I
ti
2j
rrIrrT
:: L: -
:
. . . — — .—— — — I I — — — — . . — . . —
———r
—....—— - t1L Y
• 4.. - - -
:- i -
— ; I ±
: ::::: ::: :::1
:::::::: ::k± I
J E EJ J if L 9
TOTAL
F I
9
8
7
6
S
4
3
2
1
-o
qo
30
0- 5 10 15 20 25
NUMBER CF READ:!IGs
I
35
-------
a
FI JRE 2 • S 1IPLE cO.4PUTATIc8I WORKSHEET
k I C 0
$OUND
LLVEL RZL TtVN PZLATI E TOTAL
d l COUNT SOUND ENERGY SOUND ENERGY
100 * 100,000
99 x 79,400 a
98 63,100
97 x 50,100
96 * 39,800 —
95 X 31,600 —
94 X 25,100 —
93 X 20,000 a
92 x 15,900 a
91 x 12,600
90 X 10,000 —
89 x 7,940 —
88 x 6,310
87 x 5.010 a
86 x 3,980
as 3,160
84 2.510 —
83 x 2,000 a
82 x 1,390 a
31 x 1,260 —
80 x 1.000 —
79 x 794 —
78 531
77 x 501 —
76 x 398
75 X 3 5 a
74 x 251 —
73 x 200 a
72 x 159 —
71 x 126 a
x 100 a
63 ____________________ x 79•4 a
68 _______________ x 53.1 —
6T _______________ x ! ö.1 = _____
x __________________ = —
x ____________ a
2 . x 2.t a
63 2 . x 20.0 a
x — __________
x a ____________________
x ___________________
__________________ x a 2. . L
57 x 5.31 ________
i i x
x a
U —
___________________ x ______________ a
a X a ___________________
53 __________________ x 2.00 a
I — _________
x !. a
z __________ —
x 7 4
t. x a _________________
* .!O . —
45 x .398 —
45 x .316 a
34 x .251 —
43 * . 200 a
42 £ . 159 a
4]. * . 1.26
40 x . 100
39 x . 079 a
38 * . 063 a
17 x . 050 •
34 * . 040 a
35 z .032 —
1. Si B ______ 2. S D ______
3. S% D/S ,B 4. Lq I
c.
-------
GENERAL EQUIPMENT SITE
Operator___________________ Sound Level Meter_________ Site No. LI
Date_j. /L ? Manufacturer Location ./ ) C
Time AA Serial #________________
Day S M T W f 7 F S Calib:ator — Site DescFintion___________
Wind Spe .- Di? tion_____ Serial • -
Temp. a Rd. Mum._____ ,SLM Setting Fast, Slow
Other Weather (other
MISCELLANEOUS
SITE SKETCH
Traffic Count: Autos_________________
Trucks Other Total______
Comments__________________________________
LIO 9 LE?Q 9
-‘
0
-J
V-\
c 1
__ ii I
1 —
I i It
I 1 I 1 1 . —
1—,—
—I
. lilt I WI I I H Hi I Li...f
- . -- ----
- .---.
— .. .
-- -4--I.- ,
.-
---l--. --
.‘ . -
II
Il!IIl ii
— — .,. —
- -
±
5
TOTAL
-
:: :r: i
E EEE
:i::Lf: fltl:: :::::r::::_
EEEELEEE
—i—•’—t—i —i-— — 1 1 —. —i— . — — — —
:t:It : :i:::: ::::::I: : :1::
5
2
5 10 15 20 25 30
35
NUMBERCF READLNGS
-------
FIGURE 2. SAIiPLE L COI4PUTATIC*I WORXSHEET
A I C 0
T.iVEL RELATIVE RELATIVE TOTAL
d3 COUNT SOUND ENERGY SOUND ENERGY -
100 z 100,000
99 x 79,400 —
98 z 63,100 —
97 * 50,100
96 x 39,800
95 * 31,600 —
94 x 25,100
93 x 20,000
92 1.5.900 —
x 12,600
90 x 10,000
80 x 7,940 —
88 x 6,310
87 _____ s,o l o a
86 x 3,980 a
35 x 3,160
x 2.510 =
83 x 2.000
32 x 1,590
31 x 1,260 a
eQ x 1,000
‘9 x 794 a
78 x 631 a
x 501
76 x 398 —
75 x 316 —
74 x 251 a
200
72 x 159 a
_____ 126
70 _____ 100 =
63 x 79•4 a
68 x 53.1 a
x 50.1 a
66 x 39•9
65 x 31.6
64 x 25.1
63 x 20.0 — —
62 * 15.9
61 x 12.6
60 x 10.0 _______
59 x •9 — _____
_ .— — x .5i a 2? ’
37 x 5.51 —
56 x a
x 5 .i
54 x 2.51 a
53 x 2. =
52 x _________ —
51 •1. x 1.26
I 1.00 —
49 x •794
48 I .631
47 x .501. a
45 x .398 a
45 x .316 a
44 x .751
43 x . 200 a
42 1 . 159
41 x . 126 a
40 x . 100
39 x . 079 —
38 _____ . 363 —
37 x .050 —
36 z . 340 —
15 x a
. SumS ______ 2. SumD ______
• Su D/Sum B 4. L —
-------
GENERAL EQUIPMENT SITE
Operator *W IC1& 1 Sound Level Meter_________ Site No. S
Date / 1 4J ’4 Manufacturer Location
Time 1 C) Serial •__________________
Day S M T__W F S Calibrator_________________ Site Description____________
Wind Speed Direction____ Serial * -
Temp. Hunt. SLZ4 Setting_p gt,5 w
Otner Weather lother
SITE SKETCH MISCELLANEOUS
Traffic Count: Autos_________________
Trucks Other Total______
Co ents_________________________________
L O4 1
4
-4
-4
“a
“a
-4
z
a
a
“a
4-
4 .
I ”
III I I
I I
I F 11 11!
: :
: :4::tT1T
H ’
2
jH
I I I
j I
:1:t:r: :
:
: : :_
—.—
-.-
: :.:
.—-------
‘1
‘.4
;;1
: :: Jjj E H
.4. —
k
t
Io — -
€
4.
6
5
4
3
4... —
. — .4. . — .4.
-
— —4— —4— —
— — — —4 —
TOTAL
T
- •i . - I, - -
. ..ii.i .::::::: L ::
:t: : :: : L I : : ::: : :1:
.L.: 4 : _:IIi :::::: : : :::::j
: ::: :::: :
-- - --. .. - -- __
ilj: J:: :: J
I IIiI11i
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
NUMBER OF READLNGS
-------
A1*4( 5/1oft
tk r (
PI JP.E 2. spjjp COMPUTATIt 4 WORXSHEET
A I C 0
IQURD
LIVEL RZLWrXV! RELATIVE TOTAL
43 COURT SOUND ENERGY SOUND ENERGY
100 z 100,000 a
x 79,400 —
98 z 63,100 a
97 * 50,100 —
56 x 39,800
95 31.600 —
94 x 25.100 —
93 x 20,000 a
92 15.900 —
31 x 12.600
90 10.000
89 X 7,940
88 x 6,310 —
87 X 5.010
86 x 3,980
35 x 3.160 a
2.510 a
83 x 2,000
32 x 1,590 —
31 x 1,260 —
x 1,000
79 X 794
78 x 631 —
‘77 x 501
76 x 398 a
75 x 316
‘ 74 x 251 a
73 x 200 —
‘ 72 x 159 a
71 x 126 a
x 100 a
x
‘ 4 X . 1 —
6 x Sö .1 a
x — _______
..- 5 x a _______
, _________ IT x 2. . —
_________ x o.ô a
62 x 15.9 = ________
x L2. — ________
x
x •4
x = ______
x 5 5j a _______
________ I ___________________ a
55 x 3.16 a
54 x 2.51
53 x 2.00 =
52 x 1.59 a
5 ]. x 1.26 a
50 z 1.00 —
49 .794 a
38 x .631 a
47 x .501
46 x .398
45 x .316 a
44 x .251 —
* .200 a
Ti .159 •
41 * .126 •
40 x .100 a
39 x .079 a
38 . 063 —
37 x .050 a
36 * •34Q a
35 x . 032 —
1. s a _____ 2. S D 1574.S
3. St D/S B ______ t’sq
-------
12.7 Odor Analysis
-------
12.7 ODORS
Odors caused by normal operations of new treatment facilities would
be slight at any of the sites. Odor control measures will be required at
all sites, including enclosed facilities and special ventilation systems
for treatment components where odors may be produced. Infrequent odor
problems will occur in spite of these measures as a result of inadequate
maintenance, equipment breakdowns, or process upsets. At these times
odors will likely reach offsite. The extent of their impact will depend
on the intensity of odors produced, site conditions, weather conditions,
and the promptness with which actions are taken to eliminate the source
of odor.
The types of odors which may be perceived offsite are a result of
odor causing substances in the wastewater. Hydrogen sulfide gas
(sometimes likened to the smell of rotten eggs) is the most common cause
of odors in wastewater collection and treatment systems. It can be
produced by slime growth or sludge deposits associated with wastewater
treatment facilities, or wherever anaerobic conditions occur during the
treatment process. Other less common odors can include ammonia smells
from biological activity in wastewater, gases released during the sludge
digestion process, or chlorine vapors from the onsite disinfection
practices. With prompt remedial action and close operational super-
vision, odor releases will be infrequent and of limited duration.
The current wastewater treatment facilities at Deer Island and Nut
Island include little or no odor control equipment. Odor problems being
experienced at the two sites differ. At Deer Island, the odors resulting
in the most complaints are diesel fumes from generators and occasional
chlorine vapors from chlorination system leaks. On Nut Island, odors are
produced by wastewater which has become anaerobic (septic) during the
long travel time from outlying parts of the southern MSD system to the
site. In both cases, proposed new treatment facilities would improve
existing conditions and would eliminate these problems.
12.7—1
-------
Diesel engines would not be used for the new facilities; therefore,
no further problems with odors from diesel fumes would occur. New
chlorination facilities would eliminate existing problems of chlorine
vapor leaks and new headworks would be enclosed and ventilated, thereby
improving conditions at the proposed treatment facilities which could
lead to odor problems.
When odors do occur, the severity of their impact will depend on:
- the intensity and nature of the odors produced;
- site conditions, including
• temperature
• wind direction
• wind velocity
• weather system stability
topography
• proximity of receptors to the odor source; and
- actions taken on the site to minimize odor impacts.
To evaluate the potential odor impacts of the alternatives, it is
therefore necessary to consider these factors as they relate to each of
the sites.
At any site, the potential for odor problems will vary directly with
the size of the facilities and the number of treatment components located
at each site. A headworks by itself may be a source of occasional odors,
resulting in moderate impacts at nearby receptors, largely the result of
incoming wastewater which has become anaerobic (“sour”) during the long
passage to the site. Periodic cleaning of headworks can also release
odors. If chlorine is applied at a headworks, the potential for chlorine
vapor leaks also exists.
Primary treatment facilities also contain sources of occasional,
moderate odors. Settling basins may produce odors if inadequately
maintained. Sludge handling and treatment processes may also produce
odors and chlorine leaks may occur at chlorination points.
12.1-2
-------
Secondary treatment processes by themselves are not normally a
source of offensive odors. However, all secondary siting options would
include some primary treatment also. Secondary facilities also produce
more sludge than primary systems. Sludge may cause infrequent odor
problems (especially if not properly handled and treated) leading to
moderate odors during times of process upsets or during some maintenance
procedures.
Conditions which are most likely to affect impacts of odors offsite
are wind direction and weather. The occurrence of wind patterns likely
to affect the population concentrations at each site are shown in Figure
12.7-1. From this figure, it can be seen that prevailing wind directions
at Deer Island and Nut Island are away from the nearby populations. The
percentage of occurrence of winds which could carry odors to nearby homes
or institutions are relatively low on a year-round basis. On Long
Island, the prevailing winds are towards the concentrations of people and
would, therefore, carry potential odors towards them.
The ability of workers on the site to reduce the impacts of odors
will depend upon the timeliness of worker response to odor incidents,
availability of methods for odor abatement, and the effectiveness of the
application of these methods. Responses to odor problems will vary at
each site according to the size of facilities in operation there. In
general, a smaller facility, such as a headworks or small primary plant,
could more readily respond to odor problems than a larger facility.
However, at all sites it is expected that odor problems will be dealt
with as quickly and fully as possible according to the particular events
that trigger odor releases. The following discussion considers the odor
impacts at each site which would occur during times of operational
problems or other instances of odor releases.
12.7.1 Deer Island
Infrequent odors from problems at proposed treatment facilities at
Deer Island will generally result in moderate impacts at the Deer Island
Prison, and moderate impact at residences in Point Shirley. Impacts on
12.7-3
-------
F 1G. 12.7-1
TYPICAL WIND PATTERNS IN BOSTON HARBOR
SUMMER AND WINTER
Percentages of Seasonal Winds
Shown for Each Direction
6.8
“S
Summer
Prevailing Winds LEGEND
from the Southwest
0 - 3 KNOTS
4-6
7 - 10
11 - 16
17 — 21
> 21
Ii
JANUARY
421 _
Winter
Prevailing Winds
from the Northwest
SOURCE: Metcalf and Eddy,
Inc. (1982), from “Climatology
of the U.S.. No. 82—19”, U.s.
Department of Commerce,
National Climate Center.
3.6
1.8
63
17
10
69
6.3
109 10.4
Is
8?
19
2.3
14
10.8
SW
So
45
-------
the prison which is within 700 feet of possible odor sources at the
treatment plant are most likely at times when summer weather inversions
or relatively infrequent southeasterly winds coincide odor releases.
Under these circumstances, odors may also spread to residences in Point
Shirley; however, the greater distance of these residences to the site
(2,200 to 4,000 feet) would attenuate these effects somewhat.
12.7.2 Long Island
Infrequent odors from treatment facilities at Long Island will
result in moderate impacts at the Long Island Hospital (under primary
treatment options) and on recreational visitors (assuming recreational
development proceeds). Prevailing winds will tend to move odors directly
from the wastewater treatment facilities to the hospital (1,200 feet with
an 18-acre primary plant sited at the Nike base) and towards Long Island
Head and the area of proposed intensive park use (2,000 to 3,000 feet
away). When odors do occur, moderate impacts to on-site populations are
likely under either primary or secondary treatment alternatives.
12.7.3 Nut Island
Infrequent odors from treatment facilities at Nut Island are
expected to result in moderate impacts on the closest Houghs Neck
residences. Prevailing winds will, under most conditions, conduct odors
produced at the site away from nearby residences. However, because of
the proximity of some residences on Quincy Great Hill to the site, odors
produced at times of little wind, summer inversions, or less common
northerly wind, are likely to result in moderate impacts on these
residences.
12.7-4
-------
12.8 Area Geology
-------
12.8 GEOLOGY
12.8.1 Background
This section describes the geology of Deer Island and Long Island in
terms of their construction suitability and possible constraints that may
exist. Nut Island, by virtue of its extensive man-made condition, is not
examined in this section.
The entire New England region has been blanketed by glaciers for at
least one active stage of glaciation. The last of these, the Wisconsin
Stage of the Pleistocene Epoch, occurred over 13,000 years ago. At that
time the glacial ice covering the study area was greater than 1,000 feet
thick and probably moved in a southwesterly direction. It is likely that
the glacial landforms found on Long Island and Deer Island were a direct
result of this most recent glacial period.
Four predominant soil types have been identified on Long Island and
Deer Island and provide their geologic framework. The oldest deposit,
glacial till, is the material that constitutes the drumlin landforms. A
drumlin is generally a smooth oval hill of glacial origin and composed of
boulder clay, sand and/or gravel. This material is probably an unstratified
dense deposit of glacial drift in a silty matrix based on the references
cited on the end of this section and a visual observation of other excavated
drumlins in the area. A second Pleistocene soil deposit identified by Kay
(1977) is the stratified drift consisting of sand, gravel and clay, includ-
ing some till, in areas covered with swamp. This material would also be
expected to be medium dense, although less dense and more pervious than the
till. This was identified on Deer Island.
A third type of soil identified as the recent or Holocene age is the
beach deposits of sand with occasional gravel. These sediments may reveal
some stratification due to major storms or other changes in the average
12.8-1
-------
environmental conditions. They are deposited directly by the ocean and are
generally topographically flat and low lying. They may also occur as
shallow deposits around the very stable drumlins, possibly within a few feet
above or below sea level. These deposits may be displaced by storms and
gradually reformed later under the more coimnonly occurring quiet conditions
presently existing.
The fourth soil type identified by LaForge (1932) is a local area in
the southern part of Long Island, which is especially low-lying and composed
of marine silt, muck and possibly peat. This isolated section is likely in
the salt marsh.
12.8.2 Long Island
LaForge (1932) identified three drumlins on Long Island. Small drum-
lins are located at both ends and a larger one makes up the central hill
portion of the island. Figurel2.8-1 from Kay (1977) presents the surficial
geology of the area which identifies a fourth drumlin south of the main
central drumlin.
Based on known general characteristics of these land form types, the
most desirable areas on the island for major construction are those at
higher elevations which generally are underlain by the glacial druinlins.
12.8.3 Deer Island
The major formation on this island is a drumlin. LaForge (1932)
indicates the central area of highest elevation, including the area of the
prison complex, is part of a drumlin formation. He indicates the remainder
of the island as beach sand. His plan indicates that at that time the
island was not connected to Point Shirley by beach sands. Kay (1977) does
show the connection to Point Shirley, but identifies three individual
drumlins joined by the stratified drift. These Pleistocene deposits make up
12.8-2
-------
B
HULL QUAD
£ EER
l6LAP4L
i A ]
S 4 ACA- D PObITS F 1
TM ’
I j &ALTMA29 -1
E SKg band I . 1
P T; s nd,t r*veJ
çkw Mlnorli II,
(fl PI CC6 over-
Iait b SW SP1
[ I
DRUMLiN; rnosHyhAFXforfl
4rur ij i5 ieY Ie d tv
pr viae 1 v d 4111.
E)JD MORAIP4S
+i I.
GROUi JD I 4ORAi 4E; rnos4ly till
som bedr ck
Oc y 1 RAn J ww% bed r ,ck
. 4jjp
Source Ci ra.
U.s. & ioe cci . I Su.ri ey
So Area urfiC44I
(Z.S—t
NUT
ApproX ‘ *Le
LD J
.M over aJt mmrdh [ F 1
sli*lSow •W shove
HI
-------
nearly the entire island with the exception of the northwest corner of beach
sand in an area north of the prison.
As a result of preliminary investigation, it appears that major con-
struction on Deer Island is most desirable on areas underlain by the drumlin
formations generally in the area of the present facilities. The depth to
bedrock and the degree to which leveling of the large druwlin is required
would dictate the costs of construction.
REFERENCES
1. Aerial Data Reduction Associates, [ nc. “Togographic Survey of Long
Island, Boston Harbor, MA”, April, 1981.
2. Kay, Clifford A., “Boston Area Surficial”, US Geological Survey,
November 1977.
3. LaForge, Laurence, “Geology of the Boston Area, Massachusetts,” U.S.
Geological Survey, 1932.
12.8-4
-------
12.9 Sludge Disposal
Overview
-------
12.9 SLUDGE DISPOSAL OVERVIEW
12.9.1 Summary
As noted in Section 2.5 of Volume 1 of the SDEIS, the siting of
sludge disposal facilities for the MDC treatment system is a separate
planning and environmental review process involving an analysis, now
underway, of alternative sludge management processes, their respective
costs, and environmental impacts. A full environmental assessment of
the sludge alternatives will be made prior to a siting decision on the
location of sludge disposal facilities, either at sites in the harbor
or inland.
When the impacts of siting of wastewater treatment facilities are
viewed from the perspective of possible additional requirements for
siting of sludge facilities, it is clear that: The treatment plant
siting decision is not driven by sludge siting requirements, as none of
the sludge disposal actions would alter the respective treatment plant
siting alternative’s relative impacts, and none of the treatment plant
options would foreclose a sludge management solution.
Therefore, this section examines, in a preliminary fashion, the
various sludge disposal alternatives now under study by the State and
EPA as these relate to siting of wastewater treatment facilities. The
operational characteristics of these disposal methods are considered
generically, and descriptions are provided.
12.9.2 Introduction
Analysis of alternatives for sludge disposal was undertaken for
the SDEIS only to the extent necessary to evaluate whether the possible
sludge treatment and disposal methods affect the siting of wastewater
treatment facilities. As such, disposal alternatives were considered
generically.
12.9—1
-------
The disposal methods considered for this analysis were:
1) Composting
2) Incineration
3) Ocean Disposal
4) Landfilling
The issues for siting of sludge facilities associated with each of
these disposal methods are varied according to the regulatory and
operational factors governing each method. In general, sludge disposal
would require additional land area, equipment and staffing, and costs
(capital and O&M), and would introduce added potential environmental
impacts including noise, public health, odor, truck traffic, and air
quality. However, these added effects would not alter the relative
impacts of the treatment plant siting alternatives discussed in Section
4.0 of Volume 1.
For example, land intensive methods of sludge management, such as
composting, may be constrained at the Nut Island site because the
island is too small to readily acconmiodate such facilities with
residences abutting the site; composting facilities could be accom-
modated onsite at either Deer Island or Long Island with associated
traffic volumes. Alternatively, composting can be relocated off-site,
either to another harbor location or to an inland area with associated
transportation volumes and costs utilizing either barging or trucking.
All the sites being considered for treatment plants could accommodate
sludge transfer facilities (truck or barge) if an alternate off-site
location for sludge is recoimnended. In either case, whether sludge
management activities are assumed to occur on-site or off-site, the
siting of sludge disposal facilities would not be expected to alter the
comparative siting advantages or disadvantages of the wastewater
treatment facility alternatives.
The following sections discuss regulatory background of sludge
management and identify currently proposed sludge management
alternatives
12.9-2
-------
12.7.3 Regulatory Background
12.7.3.1 Overview
Both EPA and The Commonwealth Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs (EOEA) consider composting of sludge to be a beneficial
treatment method. A pilot plant to compost about 5 dry tons of sludge
daily (about 7% of the total existing MDC sludge to be disposed of) is
being funded by EPA and the Commonwealth (DWPC and the MDC), and has
begun operations in the fall of 1984. EPA had issued a Record of
Decision on proposed sludge disposal by incineration in a previous
sludge EIS. Alternatively, EOEA is currently analyzing ocean disposal
of sludge as an adjunct and backup method to composting. In assessing
the impacts of the various sludge management alternatives on the
wastewater treatment siting decision, primary consideration is given to
composting alternatives, with the remaining disposal options also
considered.
12.7.3.2 Federal and State Policy
Since the passage of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500) in
1972, Federal Regulations favored the placement of sludges on the land
or disposal by incineration (Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 114 pp.
24358-9). EPA’s policy on sludge disposal was explained in the prior
EIS for the Metropolitan District Commission’s Proposed Primary
Sludge Management Plan (1979). The Record of Decision for this EIS,
issued in 1980, emphatically ruled out ocean disposal of sludge and
recommended incineration at Deer Island. This record of decision also
required the MDC, as a condition of the EPA grant, to:
“Investigate the feasibility of composting the primary sludge and
to dispose of as much sludge by composting as is practicable.”
12.9-3
-------
12.7.3.3 State Policy
The Commonwealth, through EOEA, has developed a sludge management
strategy which recommends composting as the primary sludge disposal
option. This policy is based on an agreed upon schedule developed
jointly with EPA, in response to court actions, to begin planning for
sludge management and develop solutions to the present unlawful
discharge of sludge to the harbor.
The State policy declares incineration to be the least preferred
of all sludge disposal options. It identifies ocean disposal options
as likely to have “the least direct impacts on public health” and
clearly favors ocean disposal as a backup to composting. Landfilling
as a disposal method is not addressed, although the State does have
provisions to allow such a disposal method.
12.7.5.2 Environmental Impacts
a. General
Site—specific environmental impacts of possible sludge
management methods, as noted above, which may affect a sludge
facility siting decision, involve operational characteristics
primarily. The construction effects of sludge facilities are
relatively minor compared with the greater construction activities
and costs associated with a treatment plant. The operational
characteristics of sludge management facilities include:
- air quality
- noise
- traffic
- site acreage and land use compatibility
- cultural resources
- visual quality and recreational resources
- health effects
- costs
12.9-4
-------
These are discussed generically below in order to identify
the potential issues which may affect a sludge site selection.
b. Air Quality
Odors produced by composting, or noxious gases produced by
incineration, could affect adjacent land uses. In Boston Harbor,
prevailing summer winds which are from the southwest would tend to
carry potential odors or gases produced out to sea and away from
population concentrations. However, during less frequent periods
of onshore winds, odors or gases may be carried towards resi-
dential areas and population concentrations.
c. Noise
Residents or others situated close to composting or transfer
facilities may hear the noise of operations (typically machinery
noises or backup beepers on equipment). Increased noise levels
would, therefore, be a potential impact, depending upon receptor
distance to a facility site. It is expected that all applicable
noise regulations would be complied with.
d. Traffic
Traffic is a potentially significant adverse impact insofar
as trucking deliveries or pickups are required. In the case of
composting facilities, this may involve two to four deliveries per
week of wood chips to a site and another fourteen to twenty trucks
daily to pick up a finished compost product for distribution.
Such truck volumes can be a significant adverse impact on local
residential areas closest to a site if the access and local
roadway conditions are not adequate to accommodate such traffic.
Barging would minimize these impacts, and is, therefore,
recommended for all sludge management methods to the maximum
extent feasible.
12.9-5
-------
e. Site Acreage and Land Use Compatibility
Both the size/acreage needed for sludge facilities and their
compatibility with other on-site uses is a potential siting issue.
The need for additional acreage to accommodate sludge facilities
on a site where treatment facilities are located may pose a
greater likelihood of significant disruption to other on-site use,
environmentally sensitive areas (if any exist), and adjacent
residential areas.
f. Cultural Resources
Recent archaeological and historical investigations in Boston
Harbor have revealed prehistoric and historic resources of major
significance on some of the islands. Sites on several islands may
be eligible, individually or collectively, for listing in the
Federal Register of Historic Places. Siting of sludge facilities
may impact on these resources. Sludge management in Boston Harbor
will have to consider, therefore, potential encroachment on and
disruption to any historic and prehistoric areas.
g. Visual Quality and Recreation Resources
Visual quality at a site may be impacted by the addition of
sludge facilities. In particular, under an incineration option
the addition of an incinerator smokestack (possibly up to 150 feet
high) would present a major change in a site’s appearance and
would become a landmark. The need to light such a tall structure
in order to provide safety to planes may necessitate use of
24-hour safety lights which would be highly visible from distant
locations. Since Boston Harbor is on the direct flight path to
Logan Airport, such an incinerator smokestack must be closely
coordinated with the FAA at this location.
12.9-6
-------
Compost facilities may not pose as great an adverse visual
impact depending on their site layout. However, such facilities
may impact a site if their appearance appreciably alters a site’s
visual quality or intrudes on other nearby activities or uses.
Barge or truck transfer facilities for ocean disposal or land-
filling of sludge would introduce added industrial appearing
elements to a site, but these would be of relatively minor visual
significance.
h. Health Effects
The public health effects of all sludge disposal methods are
regulated and monitored by State and Federal authorities. None of
the sludge alternatives would be permitted unless all potential
health concerns were examined and shown to be acceptable. In the
absence of final plans for sludge disposal, no such medical or
scientific analysis has been conducted.
i. Costs
The range of costs for the various sludge options will depend
upon the alternative(s) selected and associated equipment and
process requirements. The costliest sludge option is inciner-
ation, which also is the most technically sophisticated.
Composting and landfilling are next costly, although their cost
elements and their long-term viability differ. Ocean disposal
appears to be the least costly. Any cost estimates to be made
during the facility planning stage will reflect design plans and
site considerations at locations to be identified at a later stage
of the analysis.
12.9-7
-------
12.10 Archaeological
and Historical Resources
Report and NHPA
Compliance Summary
-------
12.10.1 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (NHPA) REVIEW
PROCESS (Section 106 )
12. 10. 1 Background
“The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and its
supporting regulations are intended to help ensure that no significant
archaeological or historical properties are irretrievably lost as a
result of federally-funded construction projects.”* Section 106 requires
federal agencies take into account what effect a federally funded,
licensed or assisted project will have on any historic or archaeological
properties either listed or eligible for listing in the National Regis-
ter. As a result, before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can
issue a construction grant, the Section 106 review process must be
completed.
There are essentially three phases (see Figure 12.10-1) to the
Section 106 review process, as follows:
1. Determination of eligibility of the property for inclusion on
the National Register (now underway).
2. Determination of the effect of the proposed project on the
property.
3. Preparation of mitigating measures for inclusion in the grant
conditions.
12.10.2 NIIPA Phases of Study
a) Phase I : Eligibility
In Phase I, the determination is made whether the property in
question should be included on the National Register. This requires an
archaeological reconnaissance survey to identify any sensitive areas
within the project area. If it appears eligible for inclusion according
12.10-1
-------
) JHPA
2. &
vl w
Pg c 5
‘
-------
to the National Register criteria (36 CFR 60.4), then EPA sends a formal
request under 36 CFR 63 to the Keeper of the National Register for
inclusion. If the Keeper agrees, then the next phase, the determination
of effect, is set to begin.
b) Phase II : Effect
In Phase II, EPA in consultation with the State Historical
Preservatin Officer (SHPO), applies the Advisory Council Criteria of
Effect (36 CFR 800.3 [ a]). If there is an effect according to this
criteria, EPA and the SHPO apply a different set of criteria to determine
whether the effects are adverse ( 36 CFR 800.3 [ b]) . If the effects are
not adverse, then EPA sends to the Advisory Council its documentation.
If, however, under 36 CFR 800.3(b) the effects are adverse, then certain
mitigating measures will be incorporated into the project.
c) Phase III : Mitigating Measures
After EPA sends its documentation of no adverse impacts to the
Advisory Council, the Executive Director may either concur or not concur
with EPA’s findings. If the Executive Director agrees, then Section 106
requirements are satisfied. However, if the Executive Director disagrees
with the finding of no adverse impact, then the Executive Director may
suggest migitation measures which, if agreed upon by EPA, are included in
the grant conditions.
If EPA does not agree with the conditions, then the project’s impact
is considered adverse. EPA must then prepare a Preliminary Case Report
(the contents of which are described in 36 CFR 800.13 [ b]), and a des-
cription of mitigation measures.
There are two routes a project can now take: the quick route and
the slow route. In the former, if the adverse impacts are customarily
mitigated in a standard manner, and all the parties can agree with the
proposed mitigation measures, then the requirements of Section 106 can be
12.10-2
-------
quickly satisfied. In this case, an on-site visit and public information
meeting are usually waived.
In the slower route, projects must go through the consultation
process. All the parties meet in an attempt to produce a Memorandum of
Agreement. A site visit and public information meeting are usually
required. If an agreement is struck, the parties ratify it, fulfilling
the 106 requirements. If no agreement is made, the Advisory Council
issues comments which EPA may accept. If EPA does not, then EPA must
explain in a written report why the project should proceed.
12.10.3 SDEIS Archaeological and Historical Analysis
In applying these review elements to the EIS process, several steps
have been initiated and others will be continued during the course of our
analysis. Discussions have been held with the Massachusetts Historical
Commission (NRC) to establish their involvement in and procedures for
potential archaeological/historical resources associated with the sites
in the Boston Harbor Island State Park.* The NRC is involved in several
reviews relative to the Boston Harbor Islands State Park which have a
direct bearing on the SDEIS analysis.
NRC had indicated that information known at the outset of the SDEIS
work suggested that both Deer Island and Long Island have potentially
significant archaeological and historical sites that required further
investigation and possible inventory. Nut Island is not considered
significant.
*Ms. Barbara Luedtke, Professor of Anthropology, University of
Massachusetts, is a Coordinator of the SDEIS effort and will lead the
summer excavation project. Mr. Duncan Ritchie, Project Archaeologist for
PAL, Inc., is in charge of the archaeological analysis.
12.10-3
-------
Deer Island was found to be largely disturbed and therefore of low
significance/sensitivity. Surveys have been conducted on Deer Island as
part of the MDC’s previous facility planning work and again for the
SDEIS. Parts of the island including the drumlin area were evaluated.
Long Island is considered to be of particular significance based on
past and recent site investigations. It has been studied for the SDEIS
during an archaeological excavation project by faculty of the University
of Massachusetts-Boston and key archaeologists of the Public Archaeology
Lab, Inc.
This effort and indeed any activities on the island is subject to a
review process that involves the Thompson Island Archaeological Board,
an advisory group to the MHC made up of prominent academics and other
professional experts in this field.
The overall significance of the islands in the Boston Harbor Islands
State Park as viewed by the State relates to their past geography and
usage by Pre-settlement Indians and siting for post industrial facili-
ties. Several sites are considered as Indian habitats during the 16th
and 17th centuries. The Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant is noted
for its still-operating steam pumping station, and the Long Island
Hospital Facility is noted for its examples of modern architecture.
Based on these combinations of prominent elements, the State is prepar-
ing to nominate the entire Boston Harbor Islands State Park to the
National Register of Historic Places .
That proposed nomination, as well as the significant elements of
these sites as expressed by the State, establishes a specific sequence of
steps for the EIS analysis to follow. First, as part of a Step I, Phase
I review, our on site walkover survey is needed to identify any potential
areas of archaeological and historical significance (Phase II, Step 1).
If any such locations are found, a written summary is submitted to MHC
and the Thompson’s Island Archaeological Board for their review and
conunent. This report is contained in the SDEIS (see following section).
Next, depending upon the results of this initial survey, a more detailed
12.10-4
-------
site analysis may be required (Phase II, Step 2). The location of
proposed new development in relation to potential resource sites would
improve a judgement in this regard.
Then, if further survey is required and if notable resource elements
are identified, a detailed site inventory and resource mitigation pro-
cedure may be called for (Phase III). Such mitigation procedures can
range from comprehensive inventory of on-site resources to actual
excavation and removal of found artifacts, or avoidance of resource areas
according to the degree of significance and uniqueness of the resources
identified and their site charaQteristics.
For the EIS process now underway, the investigations have been
carried out (through Phase II, Step 1) and these review elements will
entail a division of the Federal-State coordinating steps.
Following the site excavations carried out during the summer, and
comments on the SDEIS during the upcoming Public Hearing period, the
remaining inventory descriptions, site evaluations, and regulatory
reviews under the Phase II and Phase III (if necessary) process will be
incorporated into an Addendum Report to the SDEIS. This will be
developed, as necessary, in the Final EIS to be completed in 1985. If
deemed necessary, Phase III mitigation analysis will be carried out in
conjunction with facility final design and reviews.
It will be necessary to submit site survey and project information
to the National Advisory Council in Washington, D.C. for their Federal
“106” review concurrence, in light of the proposed National Register
nomination. It is anticipated, at this time, that such Federal review
will follow the State review and comment, as described above, in order to
assure full compliance with the MHC priorities and findings as a basis
for subsequent evaluations and recommendations on siting options,
particularly if these would involve mixed use.
12.10-5
-------
12.10.2
AN INTENSIVE LEVEL A HAEOLOGICAL SURVEY Oil
DEER AND LONG ISLANDS, BOSTON HARBOR, MASSACHUSEf1 S
Duncan Ritchie
Joan Gallagher
With a contribution by
Barbara E. Luedtke
Department of Anthropology
University of Massachusetts, Boston
Prepared for:
CE Maguire, Inc.
One Davol Square
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
Under EPA Contract #68—04-1010
Prepared by:
The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.
217 Angell Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02906
September 1984
PAL, Inc. 51—01
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT ABSTRACT . . vi
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1
RESEARCH DESIGN . . . . . . . . 8
SURVEY STRATEGIES AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
BackgroundResearch . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Walkover Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
SubsurfaceTesting . ... 19
ENVIRONMENTALSETTING. . 22
PREHISTORIC LAND USE AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS . . . . . . . . . 27
HISTORIC LAND USE AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS . . . . . . 38
Deer Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Long Island . . . . . . . . 41
ChangesinLandUse . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
RESULTS OF THE INTENSIVE SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Deer Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Long Island . . . . . . . 76
SUMMARYANDRECOMMENDATIONS.................. 82
Deer Island • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . 83
Long Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • 84
REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . • • • • . . . . . . . . . 97
11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Location of Boston Harbor, Massachusetts 2
2. Location of project areas on Deer and Long Island;
USGS Hull quadrangle, 7.5’ series . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Early nineteenth century map of Deer Island
(Wadsworthl8l7) 51
4. 1830 map of Deer Island (Hales 1830) 52
5. Early nineteenth century map of Long Island
(Wadsworth 1817) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 55
6. 1830 map of Long Island (Hales 1830) . . . . . . . . . . 56
7. Plan of Long Island, June 1868 showing Long Island Hotel
and land purchased by U.S. Government from Long Island
Land Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
8. Location of cemetery in parcel of land purchased by
City of Boston in 1900 from “Plan showing a portion
of Long Island,” Hyde and Sherry, Civil Engineers,
August 1899. 1 inch = 50 feet . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
9. USGS Boston Bay quadrangle, 1892, 1:62,500 scale . . . . 60
10. USGS Boston Bay quadrangle, 1903, 1:62,500 scale . . . . 62
11. USGS topographic map of Deer Island, 1904
(Source: Randall 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
12. USGS Hull quadrangle, 1946; revised 1950 7.5’ series
showing large cemetery on southern end of Long
Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
13. Stratification of the Deer Island project area in
zones of archaeological sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . 72
14. Location of subsurface testing within Deer Island
project area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
15. Stratification of the parade ground section, Fort
Strong on Long Is land in zones of archaeological
sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
111
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
16. Location of subsurface testing within parade ground
section, Fort Strong on Long Island 79
17. Stratification of southern end of Long Island in
zones of archaeological sensitivity 81
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Prehistoric Cultural Chronology for Southern
New England . . . . . . . . . . . 29
V
-------
MANAG T ABSTRA
In June and July, 1984, an intensive level archaeological
survey was conducted on sections of Deer and Long Islands in Boston
Harbor, Massachusetts by the Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.
(PAL, Inc.). Two project areas ranging from about 60 acres on Deer
Island to between 20 and 115 acres on Long Island were stratified
into zones of expected archaeological sensitivity on the basis of a
comprehensive literature search and walkover survey. Both project
areas had been subjected to several episodes of previous
disturbance and it was expected that there would be large areas of
moderate to low archaeological sensitivity. Background research on
the Long Island Hospital was also done and provided information on
the complex history of this institution over the last century.
Limited subsurface testing verified that both the Deer and Long
Island project areas had been extensively modified during the
construction of recent (World War I and II) military installations
(Fort Dawes and Fort Strong, respectively). Areas with high
archaeological sensitivity were located on Long Is land including
several historic cemetery areas associated with Long Island
Hospital and undisturbed sensitive areas on the southern half of
Long Island.
Survey efforts on Long Island were coordinated with the
University of Massachusetts, Boston field school in archaeology.
vi
-------
The field school surveyed the southern end of Long Island in June
and July, 1984 and located five prehistoric sites. These sites
show evidence of important occupations during the Terminal Archaic
(ca. 3,600 to 2,500 B.P.), Middle and Late Woodland (Ca. 1,650 to
500 B.P.) periods. One site (Hull-il) may have been used in the
Early Archaic period, ca. 8,500 years ago.
From the combined results of the Phase I survey by the PAL,
Inc. and the UMass Boston field school, Long Island is considered
to be a significant complex of prehistoric and historic period
cultural resources. All of the identified sites may be eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places as
elements of a multi—resource district. The cluster of prehistoric
sites on Long Island may be one of the most intact in the harbor
district and the integrity of their physical setting is an integral
part of their research value and significance. All the
archaeological sites and standing structures on Long Island must be
viewed collectively. It has been strongly recommended that plans
for any development on Long Island consider the relative costs of
the large scale data recovery program that would be necessary to
mitigate impacts to the cultural resources on that island versus
the feasibility of alternate locations. The Deer Island project
area is not considered to be archaeologically sensitive due to the
extent of previous disturbance and no further investigation has
been recommended.
vii
-------
IN’r DUCTI 1
This final report presents the findings and conclusions of an
intensive level archaeological survey of two project areas on Deer
Island and Long Island in Boston Harbor, Massachusetts (see Figures
1 and 2). This Phase I, Step II study was conducted by the Public
Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. (PAL, Inc.) under contract with CE
Maguire, Inc.
CE Maguire has been conducting analyses and preparing
materials to complete an environmental assessment for the siting of
wastewater treatment facilities in Boston Harbor. Preparation of a
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) is being
done by CE Maguire, Inc. for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The preliminary findings of the Phase I survey were
described in two previous management summaries prepared as interim
reports during work on the SDEIS. The conclusions of this
inventory and analysis of archaeological and historic resources
presented in this report is incorporated into the Supplemental
Draft EIS document.
A series of plans to upgrade Boston’s wastewater treatment
facilities and replace the inadequate facility presently operating
on Deer Island and Nut Island have been proposed over the last
several years. A recent plan (Nut Island-—Site Options Study 1982)
developed for the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) by Metcalf
and Eddy, Inc. identified numerous alternative siting options for
1
-------
0
20
Scale:
40 60 miles
Figure 1. Location of Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.
-------
i L- : -. ‘ -‘: 4 .1
&l: ‘( 1 tt
I
N
4!/QN#41
‘r t : i• - .
J. “ - —5. 5
(. ‘ -t t 1 ’. —
TilE JiL. LY —- - -: throp Head
¶ [ ‘Snake
/
Si; -
/ U
S /
\___ - ?:\ - ‘‘ i
• . :.:‘ :, /7
•
— — .
: °
#iOU (. ’ - •• \
COAF IF .Cr#C ’P.• -••
1 . 5
S .-)
*OEER ISLAND L A’
j’ R fr S I
• stand
I A
‘S
o
A Head
‘Mo. istand <1..
I) F - T
B 0 ri 1) S
, Ra insford I
y
0 A D S 0 U N 1)
—surveyed by PAL, Inc.
LI —historic cemetery area
surveyed by PAL, Inc.
—surveyed by UMass archaeological
field school
0
/
4e *
c-
FT W .4RR 1 • ‘\ Island
5—
/ —
41’
Pen 1
/
“ (“ • -.
Windmi:tPt . 4 ’
•v . 5•• ‘ --
-
—. - ANDRZWS
/
Figure 2. Location of project areas on Deer and Long Islands,
USGS Hull quadrangle 7.5’ series
+
LONG
‘ S
I
- a’7 .rmoNTpaNGLN
* 4 EAftsQANGf £.ff
-. Spectacle
•N tes Mate
STRONG
Pt
Head
Quarantine
• Rocks
3
-------
new wastewater treatment facilities to be located in Boston Harbor.
These siting options and some additional new locations were
reviewed and eight alternatives were selected for detailed study
and environmental impact assessment. Included in the list of
alternatives are sites on Nut, Deer and Long Island which encompass
various levels of treatment and range in size from 2 acres to in
excess of 100 acres.
The Phase I, intensive level archaeological survey was
limited to sections of Deer and Long Islands that might be impacted
by construction of proposed treatment facilities. On Deer Island
an area covering the central drumlin which had never been
investigated was surveyed. An earlier Phase I archaeological
survey conducted by the Institute for Conservation Archaeology,
Harvard University, covered a small area on the southern tip of
Deer Island (Randall 1981) and the existing treatment plant site
made up the remainder of the project area. A larger project area
reflecting the lack of prior investigation and undisturbed
condition was surveyed on Long Island (see Figure 2). Nut Island
was considered by the Massachusetts Historical Commission to have
no cultural resource potential because of extensive previous
disturbance and was excluded from the archaeological survey.
Several different treatment sizing options requiring
approximately 18, 62, 82 and 100+ acres were originally under
consideration for Long Island. These were initially sited based on
the MDC’s facility plans (Nut Island Site Options Study 1982). The
smaller, 18 acre primary treatment design option took advantage of
4
-------
an abandoned Nike missile base on the southwestern side of the
island and some adjacent open land. The middle sized 62 acre
primary option required a substantial portion of the open land in
addition to the Nike base on the southwestern side of the island.
The two largest options of 82 to 100+ acres for secondary treatment
alternatives encompassed the entire southern half of Long Island
and the area in the center of the island now occupied by the Long
Island hospital complex.
The middle sized 62 acre option was subsequently determined
to be unacceptable and is no longer under active consideration.
Upon review of the remaining seven options involving all sites,
revisions were made to siting plans for the Long Island treatment
facility. Based on the unacceptable adverse environmental impacts
that would result from the initial siting locations, current plans
include the 18, 82 and 96 acre options. The largest alternatives
involve utilization of the hospital grounds and the northwest side
of Long Island.
An essential component of the archaeological assessment of
Long Island was coordination of the PAL, Inc. survey effort with
the University of Massachusetts, Boston (UMass) archaeological
field school conducted on the southern end of the island in June
and July, 1984. The field school was directed by Barbara Luedtke,
Associate Professor at UMass who also served as overall
archaeological technical coordinator for CE Maguire on the SDEIS.
All stages of the intensive survey, including analysis of survey
5
-------
results and preparation of the final report were coordinated with
Ms. Luedtke by PAL, Inc.. In a preliminary meeting in May, 1984,
it was decided that the UMass field school would survey the
southern half of Long Island for prehistoric sites and the PAL,
Inc. survey would cover the parade ground section of Fort Strong,
the hospital complex and the historic cemetery areas south of the
hospital. The remaining portions of Long Island were not involved
as potential siting locations.
The intensive survey by PAL, Inc. and the UMass field school
were both performed under permit #634 issued by the Massachusetts
Historical Commission (State Archaeologist) and approved by the
City Archaeologist (Boston).
Background research for the survey began in April, 1984.
Fieldwork on the Deer Island project area was carried out in June,
1984. Intensive survey fieldwork on Long Island was completed in
August, 1984, when permission to carry out field investigations was
granted by the City of Boston and by the Division of Health and
Hospitals, Director of the Long Island Hospital. The overlapping
schedules of the PAL, Inc. intensive survey and the UMass field
school on Long Island allowed in—field consultation and
coordination between PAL, Inc. staff and Ms. Luedtke.
PAL, Inc. personnel for the Deer Island and Long Island
survey were Duncan Ritchie, Joan Gallagher (Senior Archaeologists)
and Ann Davin (Project Archaeologist).
The PAL, Inc. would like to acknowledge the assistance
provided by a number of individuals who shared their knowledge of
6
-------
the history of Deer and Long Islands. Steve Krueger (Deer Island
Plant Manager) and Ken Donovan of the Metropolitan District
Commission described the history and operation of the Deer Island
treatment facility and the earlier (1890s) pumping station and
screening plant. Meribah Stanten (Director), Ruth Sullivan and Lt.
Kearney (security) of the Long Island Hospital provided PAL, Inc.
researchers with documentary material relevant to the twentieth
century history of the hospital complex and military activity
during World War II. Peter Scarpignato, City of Boston, Department
of Public Facilities, assisted on numerous occasions by providing
background information and coordination with City Hall,
particularly during the difficult deliberations involved in
granting access to Long Island.
7
-------
RKSEA B DESI 1
The research design for the intensive level survey of Deer
and Long Islands was based on several current models of prehistoric
and historic land use/settlement systems. Those research problems
felt to be most appropriate for the interpretation of prehistoric
activity in the project areas were discussed with the technical
advisor for the project (B. Luedtke). An important aspect of the
research design was the core-periphery model employed by the
Massachusetts Historical Commission in the statewide survey program
(MHC 1982, 1984). This model has been applied to the study of both
prehistoric and historic land use patterns and also provided a way
to coordinate the findings of this survey with large—scale cultural
resource management planning.
For the prehistoric period elements of three general models
describing adaptation to gradual changes in coastal environments
were the basis for interpreting sites located during the survey.
Luedtk&s (1980) diachronic model of changes in the use of inner
versus outer Boston Harbor islands and Braun’s (1974) model of
shifts in prehistoric exploitation of shellfish species in the
Harbor provided a solid framework for discussing land/resource use
patterns at the local level. Some other recently developed
hypotheses about observed differences between Middle/Late Archaic
and Late Woodland period settlement patterns in coastal
environments of Narragansett Bay were useful for a broad scale,
8
-------
regional perspective on sites in the Boston Harbor district (Cox
and Thorbahn 1982; Cox, Thorbahn and Leveillee 1983).
In summary, Luedtke’s model suggests that throughout the
prehistoric past the islands were used as base camps for procuring
and processing various plant, animal and lithic resources from the
surrounding coastal zone environment. During the Late Archaic
period in particular, inner harbor islands, like Deer and Long
Islands, would have seen the most repeated short term use, due
primarialy to their larger size and accessibility. Outer islands,
i.e., Calf Island, were also used to a lesser extent, possibly for
special resource procurement trips. With populations in coastal
zones like Boston Harbor steadily increasing in the Middle/Late
Woodland periods (after 1500 years ago) inner islands may have been
intensively used for horticulture. These inner islands would have
been included in the territories of mainland groups and should have
some evidence of long term use by the end of the Late Woodland
period (Luedtke 1980:72—73).
Braun’s (1974) model suggests that at the local level
prehistoric groups in coastal southern New England had developed
adaptations which were responsive to variation in the availability
of several species of shellfish by about 4,000 years ago. In
Boston Harbor a pattern of gradual decline in the exploitation of
oyster, quahog and bay scallops beginning in the Terminal Archaic
peiod ca. 3,000 years ago is matched by a marked increase in the
use of soft shell clam. This trend continued through the Early and
9
-------
Middle Woodland periods and by the Late Woodland, Ca. 1,000 years
ago, soft shell Clam was used almost exclusively over other
shellfish species (Braun 1974:591). This model will be
particularly appropriate for any shell midden sites which are
expected to be present on Long Island. Long Island is also the
largest of the inner harbor islands and is most likely to contain
evidence of intensive occupation during seasonal exploitation of
shellfish resources.
From recent surveys in Narragansett Bay there are indications
of high site densities and intensive land use during the Terminal
Archaic period, Ca. 4,000 to 3,000 years B.P. The same coastal
river drainages and offshore islands do not appear to have been
important to previous, Middle Archaic populations, Ca. 7,000 to
6,000 years ago. The apparent low density of sites dating to
before 4,500 B.P. cannot be explained by inundation of site
locations due to rising sea level. A final episode of intensive
settlement in coastal/estuarine environmental settings took place
during the Late Woodland and Contact periods, about 1,000 to 500
years ago (Cox, Thorbahn and Leveillee 1983; Cox and Leveillee
1984). This concentration of Late Woodland subsistence/settlement
activities in close proximity to more recently formed estuarine
environments is probably a regional pattern covering much of
southeastern New England.
An important research question regarding the increased use of
the Boston Harbor islands during the Middle/Late Woodland period
concerned how these sites may have fit into a larger settlement
10
-------
system. These harbor island procurement/processing locations could
have formed the outer perimeter of settlement systems with centers
or cores focused on the heads of estuaries along the Neponset,
Charles, Mystic, Fore, and Saugus River drainages. For example,
Long Island lies just off the mouth of the Neponset River and could
have been part of the seasonal round of prehistoric groups based
further up the drainage.
For the historic period cultural resources on Deer and Long
Islands the basic research questions guiding the Phase I survey
were:
(1) The role of the islands in providing support facilities
for the adjacent urban core of Boston.
(2) The extent and different types of change in land use on
the islands through time.
(3) The degree and type of variability among the
developmental histories of the harbor islands.
In examining these questions, the resources employed were
both primary and secondary sources, including city histories,
previous research reports, harbor charts and maps. These sources
place the islands within an historic context, allow an assessment
of natural and cultural topographic alteration, and identify the
configuration of structures and types of land use present on the
islands at varying chronological periods.
The model used in creating a framework for addressing these
questions was the core—periphery model used successfully in other
regional studies (Gallagher and Davin 1983) and compatible with the
11
-------
research orientation of the Massachusetts Historical Commission’s
(MHC) statewide survey program (MHC 1982, 1984). This insured that
the results of the intensive (Phase I) survey could be integrated
with MHC plans for preservation and management of historic
resources within the proposed Boston Harbor National Regional
District.
The definition of a core area is essentially a zone
characterized by overlapping focal points of activity, which can
include population, civic/ecclesiastical/institutional, transpor-
tation, or economic activities. Peripheral areas are characterized
by few or no focused activities. Those that do occur are usually
specialized and relate to a specific core, or may be perceived as
unpleasant or undesirable. Fringe areas are peripheral zones that
are specifically characterized by negative or undesirable
activities, whether social, industrial or institutional (MHC
1982:8—9).
For much of their history, the Harbor Islands have been used
as peripheral areas. At different periods, they became fringe
areas, when their spatial isolation within close proximity to the
core led to the placement of institutions and facilities on the
islands that can be described as the less desirable elements
(prisons, quarantine stations, chronic disease hospitals, sewage
treatment plants) of complex urban centers.
From other investigations of urban historic sites in Boston,
archaeologists have found that historic land modification processes
and the way they change over time is an important factor in
12
-------
predicting site survival in an urban or intensively developed area.
A basic model of archaeological site survival for the Boston urban
core area was developed from several recent projects in
Charlestown. The St. Mary’s Elderly Housing (Bower, Cheney,
Gallagher 1984), Town Hill Condominium (Cheney and Mrozowski 1983)
and Central Artery Phase II (Pendery et al. 1981) projects were
located in three different topographic zones. It was found that
the lowest rate of site survival was in the most elevated zone
(Town Hill) where extensive grading of a hillside had taken place
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Successively higher
rates of site survival were found in the moderately elevated (St.
Mary’s Elderly Housing) and lower (Central Artery) project areas.
The most intensive grading and alteration of the original
topography had taken place on hillsides while seventeenth/
eighteenth century ground surfaces and fill/construction sequences
were well preserved in the less elevated zone (Bower, Cheney,
Gallagher 1984). Both the Deer and Long Island project areas had
elevations (glacial drumlins) that were extensively modified for
various institutional, military and other (reservoir) uses.
Archaeological investigation of one of the major military
sites in Boston Harbor (Fort Independence, South Boston) provided
numerous examples of large—scale demolition, grading and
construction sequences. Castle Island has been the site of seven
different fortifications beginning in the early seventeenth century
and with each fort there were modifications to the island’s
13
-------
topography (Ritchie and Moran 1976; Stokinger 1978). Military
installations may be more likely to undergo numerous episodes of
grading, demolition or construction than other kinds of sites
because of the necessity for an active fort to contain up—to—date
weapon systems or ordnance. The longer a location or facility
remains in active use the greater the probability of modification.
Islands like Deer and Long that are ‘well situated f or use as harbor
defensive sites could be expected to show evidence of sequential
military development.
14
-------
SURvicY STRATEGIES AND METH000WGY
The primary objective of an intensive archaeological survey
is to locate any previously unknown prehistoric and historic sites
within the project area. In order to achieve this result a testing
strategy, designed to investigate a representative sample of the
project area (as well as the sites within it) was employed. The
strategy used by the PAL, Inc. divided the Deer and Long Island
project areas into zones of expected archaeological sensitivity.
This is defined as the probability of locating prehistoric and
historic cultural resources from surface finds or subsurface
testing. Prior to this survey, one prehistoric site had been
identified on the southern end of Long Island, but none were known
in the project area itself.
In order to determine the probability of sites occuring in
the project area two different strategies were employed:
(1) Stratify the project area in terms of its expected
archaeological sensitivity on the basis of comprehensive
background research and a preliminary walkover survey or
surface inspection.
(2) Conduct limited subsurface testing within the
archaeologically sensitive sections of the project area
of a level sufficient to identify any previously unknown
prehistoric or historic cultural resources.
This section of the final report contains a description of how
these strategies were integrated to provide an accurate inventory
and assessment of the project areas on Deer and Long Island.
15
-------
Succeeding sections discuss implementation of these strategies and
evaluate the results of the survey.
Background Research
Background research provided the primary information for
assessing the expected archaeological sensitivity of the two
project areas. By reviewing known prehistoric cultural resources
and comparing their locational attributes with the environmental
settings in the project areas some base line estimates of
sensitivity could be made.
Review of the historic developmental/land use sequences on
both islands provided the data necessary to assess the extent of
previous modification or disturbance of soil conditions in the
project areas. A wide range of documentary and cartographic
sources were consulted during the background research phase. These
include:
(1) State and city level archives.
(2) Reports of state and city commissions or boards for
various institutions.
(3) Maps and charts of Boston Harbor including Deer and Long
Islands.
(4) State level cultural resource inventories/site files
maintained by the Massachusetts Historical. Commission.
This included sites or properties listed on or in the
process of being nominated to the National Register of
Historic Places.
(5) Previous reports on the history and archaeology of
Boston Harbor including cultural resource management
studies.
16
-------
In addition, informants familiar with the history and development
of Deer and Long Islands were consulted to collect information not
available from documentary sources.
The physical environmental setting of the Deer and Long
Island project areas was investigated by reviewing data from the
fields of geology/geomorphology, paleoenvironmental reconstruction
and ecology.
Walkover Survey
In general, a synthesis of environmental criteria and data
from all five of the data categories listed above was used to make
an initial stratification of the Deer and Long Island project
areas. Locational data from both prehistoric and historic sites
(cemetery) identified by the UMass field school was particularly
helpful for stratifying these areas and estimating construction
related impacts. This stratification scheme was further refined
during the preliminary walkover survey and surface inspection of
the project areas. Maps based on aerial reconnaissance photographs
(1 inch — 200 feet) with topographic information (5 foot contour
interval) provided by CE Maguire, Inc. were used to guide the
walkover survey. These maps provided information on general land
form and were particularly useful for locating buildings, military
structures and roadways for assessing the degree of previous
disturbance in the project areas. Environmental settings and
topographic features noted during the background research were
investigated in more detail. The walkover included a surface
17
-------
inspection of beaches, wave cut slopes along the perimeter of both
islands and other exposed soil profiles for evidence of prehistoric
cultural materials or features (shell midden) or historic trash!
fill deposits. Examples of eroded prehistoric sites were known
from Thompson and Calf Islands where features have been exposed.
Erosion rates of as much as 1/2 foot (15 cm) per year had been
recorded at West Head on Long Island and it was expected that some
sites might be found in eroded condition (Kaye 1967; Luedtke 1980;
Barber 1983). The historic cemetery area south of the hospital
grounds was also inspected during the walkover; its general
condition and probable original extent were noted.
The original plan for the walkover survey described in the
technical proposal was to use Hoff er soil augers to examine soil
profiles at fixed intervals along transect lines. Attempts to use
soil augers on the compacted, rocky glacial till derived soils
found in both the Deer and Long Island project areas were generally
unproductive. The augers were barely able to penetrate the rocky
topsoil left in the project areas after extensive grading and
landscaping.
In less rocky soil conditions the 40 cm deep auger cores are
an effective means of identifying soil anomalies resulting from
past cultural activity, such as charcoal, shell fragments, brick,
coal or oxidized subsoil. Subsurface testing during the survey was
done with small shovel test pits which exposed a full topsoil!
subsoil profile.
Following the walkover inspection the Deer and Long Island
18
-------
project areas were given a final stratification into zones of high,
moderate to low archaeological sensitivity or previously disturbed
areas with no archaeological potential. More intensive
investigation consisting of subsurface testing was planned for
those zones of moderate to low sensitivity within both project
areas. The only areas of high archaeological sensitivity were
several historic cemetery areas which were investigated through
documentary and cartographic sources.
Subsurface Testing
Sections of the project areas considered to be
archaeologically sensitive were investigated with shovel test pits
placed at 20 m intervals along random and judgementally oriented
transects. Since the PAL, Inc. intensive survey did not include
any of the Long Island project area considered to have high
archaeological sensitivity, 10 m test pit intervals were not used
and the 20 m interval was felt to provide sufficient coverage.
This procedure was consistent with the subsurface testing
scheme used by the UMass field school on the more sensitive
southern half of Long Island. For that survey shovel test pits
were placed at 10 m intervals in zones of greater expected
sensitivity such as areas close to sources of fresh water or where
test pits encountered prehistoric cultural material. A testing
interval of 20 m was used in areas showing visible evidence of
previous disturbance (see Appendix). For the random transects a
standardized system for selecting random angles which were then
19
-------
converted to compass headings was used to orient the transect
locations.
Test pits averaged 50 x 50 cm in size and were excavated with
a shovel in 10 cm arbitrary levels. All soil from the shovel test
pits was hand screened through 1/4 inch mesh hardware cloth to
recover any cultural material. Prehistoric and historic cultural
material from test pits and soil profiles were recorded in the
field on standardized forms. Munsell Soil Color charts were used
to standardize descriptions of soil horizons observed in test pit
profiles. Following subsurface investigation the location of the
random and judgemental test pit transects was field mapped.
Cultural features (roadways, concrete bunkers, demolition rubble,
dump areas, historic foundations, etc.) relating to previous
episodes of historic/recent activity were also mapped.
At the completion of the subsurface testing phase of the
survey, documentary photographs in both black/white and color were
taken of the most significant and representative historic
structures within the project areas. On Deer Island this included
the pumping/screening building from the earlier (1890) treatment
plant, wood frame carriage house and various military facilities
such as the radar station/command post on Signal Mill. The
historic cemetery area, representative building facades within the
hospital complex and concrete bunkers were documented on Long
Island. Prehistoric and historic cultural material collected from
the surface or excavated from test pits was placed in marked bags
20
-------
in the field and returned to the PAL, Inc. for processing. The
initial stages of laboratory processing involved washing, measuring
and cataloging all the historic cultural material recovered during
fieldwork.
Historic cultural materials found as small fragments of field
trash were cataloged according to material (glass, ceramic, brick,
iron) and functional categories (bottle, plate, building
materials). More temporally sensitive artifact ceramics were
identified as to type such as redware, creamware, peariware, etc.
Following cataloging and analysis all cultural materials were
packed in sealed and labelled polyethylene bags and durable
cardboard boxes for curatiori at the PAL, Inc., in Providence, Rhode
Island.
21
-------
NVI TAL swrrING
Extending out from the northern edge of Boston Harbor in a
southeasterly direction, Deer Island is separated from Long Island
by Presidents Road, the main shipping channel in the harbor. Long
Island is located in the approximate center of Boston Harbor and
because of its northeast/southwest orientation Long Island Head is
only about 1520 m (5,000 ft) south of the tip of Deer Island. Deer
Island currently forms a large peninsula connected at its northern
end with the mainland in Winthrop. This island was always
separated from Winthrop by Shirley Gut, a shallow channel that
gradually silted in during the late nineteenth century, while the
present causeway is a recent development completed in 1936.
Boston Harbor is a continuation of the Boston Basin, a
structural and geologic basin. The topography within the basin is
typical of glacial outwash with numerous drumlins. There are about
180 driimlins in the general basin area (La Forge 1932). Bedrock
outcrops occur mostly in the upland sections of the basin where the
cover of glacial drift is thin. A few outcrops appear in the
harbor such as Squaw Rock in Squantum and others on Slate Island
and in Ringham Harbor in the southern part of the submerged basin.
Most of the islands are drumlins; some of the smaller ones may
represent the tops of larger drumlin features that are submerged or
buried in deposits of marine clay. The distribution of drumlin
islands within the harbor may be related to the topography of the
22
-------
buried bedrock surface. Those large islands with northeast!
southwest orientations like Long and Peddock’s Islands occupy
higher bedrock ridges that follow the strike of several local fault
zones. The drumlins themselves do not appear to have bedrock
cores. The Boston Harbor drumlins are typically composed of dense,
green—grey glacial till and silty clay with some gravel layers and
containing pebbles, cobbles and few boulders. The pebbles and
cobble inclusions are generally of locally derived grey argillite
or slate from the Cambridge Argillite, the major bedrock unit
underlying the harbor. The upper surface of the till is usually
oxidized to a light tan or buff color (Kaye 1976:46-51).
The prominent drumlin on Deer Island, Signal Hill, is
oriented S 750 E, the general direction of movement of the glacial
ice sheet that covered the Boston area during the latest Wisconsin
period glaciation ca. 14,000 years ago (Brenninkmeyer 1976:207).
Long Island is a drumloidal complex composed of a small, well—
formed drumlin at the northeast end (Long Island Head), a large,
central complex and a remnant of a small drumlin at the southwest
end (West Head). The drumlin complex in the center of the island
is compound in structure, made up of three drumlins grouped
together. The three sections of Long Island are connected by other
glacial and littoral deposits (Kay 1967:158, 1976:521). The cobble
covered beaches and eroding shoreline of the islands probably
provided some lithic resources such as large cobbles and boulders
of felsite that would have been used by prehistoric groups as
23
-------
sources of raw material for chipped stone tools. Glacial till
deposits or saltmarsh sediments were probably the source of clay
used by prehistoric potters for the manufacture of ceramic vessels.
The shallow offshore waters surrounding Deer Island contain a
large mud flat on the protected harbor side (west/southwest) and
rocky shoals on the east/northeast side. Great Fawn and Little
Fawn shoals extend out from the northeast shore of the island where
they are exposed at low tide and provide temporary feeding areas
for various species of shore birds. Similar flats extend out from
the east/southeast shores of Long Island and evidently provided
suitable habitat for formation of shellfish beds that were an
attraction to prehistoric populations.
During most of the extended period of prehistoric use of the
Boston Harbor Islands, Deer and Long Island would have presented
somewhat different environmental settings than they do today.
Lowered sea level during the post glacial period roughly 11,000
years ago would have left both islands as elevated drumlins above
the floodplain of the Charles, Mystic and Neponset Rivers. By
7,000 years ago marine inundation had covered estuaries now under
Boston Harbor and over the next several thousand years salt water
proceeded up the Charles and other river drainages flooding former
freshwater wetlands. This process appears to have stopped by about
2,500 years ago allowing the formation of tidal mud! lats in Boston
Harbor. This was an important environmental event since the
shellfish beds which occupied the tidal flats became a focus of
prehistoric settlement! subsist once patterns. Minor changes in the
24
-------
configuration of the harbor and the temperature and/or salinity of
its waters appear to have continued over the last 1,500 years.
Prehistoric sites were located near tidal flats or covets that have
been altered or disappeared behind beach ridges. Changes in the
species composition of the shellfish beds near these sites due to
various environmental factors also appears to be reflected in the
shell remains found in midden deposits (Dincauze 1974; Braun 1974).
Prehistoric groups visiting sites on Calf and Thompson
Islands caught a wide variety of fish from Boston Harbor including
cod, tautog, dogfish and sturgeon and the offshore waters around
Deer and Long Island probably contained a similar range of species
(Luedtke 1980:56-57; Barber 1983:9). Both Deer and Long Islands
had small sources of fresh water, either in wetlands or small
springs. On Deer Island two ponds, now filled in, were in active
use during the nineteenth century (Cow Pond, Ice Pond) and may have
been created by artificially enlarging existing springs or
freshwater marshes.
There are two areas of existing freshwater and saltwater
marshes on the west end of Long Island, one adjacent to the barrier
beach on the southwest shore and another cattail marsh at Bass
Point on the southeast side of the island. Prehistoric sites were
found along the edges of both wetlands by the UMass archaeological
field school and they were clearly an important resource for the
prehistoric hunter/gatherer groups using the harbor islands.
These two islands were originally forested but this natural
25
-------
resource was rapidly depleted in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries due to the demand for timber and firewood in the rapidly
urbanizing Boston core.
Palynological analysis of a sediment core taken from a salt
marsh on Calf Island indicated that the former forest cover on that
outer harbor island may have been mostly pine and oak with maple,
birch, walnut/hickory, basswood and sassafras (Kaplan 1975).
On Thompsons Island, just north of Long Island, the present
vegetation includes a grove of large oak trees that probably
approximates the original appearance of the harbor islands. The
present vegetation on Long Island consists mostly of smaller, tree
species typical of early succession in abandoned farmland such as
chokecherry, aspen, pitch pine and black locust. Common shrubs
include sumac and bay laurel. Some stands of mature trees also
remain around the Long Island Hospital complex.
On Deer Island, the continuous processes of historic land use
including the prison, treatment plant and military installations
have been responsible for maintaining land in cleared condition.
Most of the project areas covered in the Phase I survey were open
meadow—like areas with tall grasses and various weeds (goldenrod,
milkweed, etc.).
26
-------
PRERISTORIC LAND USE AND SET LERENT PATr cHS
The prehistoric cultural resources of the Boston Harbor
district are an important component of the available data base of
cultural resources in coastal, eastern Massachusetts. These sites
have survived several hundred years of varying degrees and types of
historic land use. To fully understand and appreciate the
prehistoric sites which were identified in the Phase I survey it is
necessary to view them in the broader interpretive context provided
by the known data base.
The Boston Harbor islands have not been the subject of
investigations by avocational archaeologists like the coastal areas
to the north (Salem/Beverly, Ipswich) and south (North River
drainage, Plymouth) of Boston or the Blue Hills and Neponset River
drainage on the southwest edge of the Boston Basin.
The Boston metropolitan area is unusual in comparison to
other urban areas because some early collections of prehistoric
material were preserved from sites that are now gone. Collections
assembled in the late nineteenth century from sites along the lower
Charles and Mystic River drainages by local prehistorians (J. W.
Fewkes, G. B. Frazar, F. Putnam) have been valuable sources f
information about sites long since destroyed. Sites located at the
confluence of various streams with the Charles River near Magazine
Beach and Mt. Auburn Hospital in Cambridge, Watertown Arsenal and
the Perkins School for the Blind in Watertown were visited by
27
-------
collectors during various episodes of development and construction.
An important locus of prehistoric activity at the confluence of the
Mystic River and Alewife Brook in Arlington was also the source of
at least one (G. B. Frazar) large collection.
The Boylston Street fish weir was first discovered during
subway construction in 1913. Several later multi—disciplinary
studies (1939, 1946) were among the first paleoenvironmental
reconstructions carried out in southern New England and outlinend
the process of marine inundation of the lower Charles River
(Johnson 1942).
Dincauze’s survey of archaeological resources in the greater
Boston area conducted in 1967—1968 was the first large—scale
inventory and assessment of prehistoric sites. This survey
included the Boston Harbor islands revealing some of the important
research potential contained in the sites located in the harbor
district (Dincauze 1974:39).
A later investigation of twelve harbor islands was the first
archaeological survey to focus specifically on the islands. An
important product of this survey was a model of how prehistoric
land use/settlement patterns changed from the Late Archaic to Late
Woodland periods (Luedtke 1975, 1980).
With the exception of the earliest Paleo—Indian period (Ca.
11,000 B.P.), a complete sequence of prehistoric occupation within
the Boston metropolitan area can now be constructed from available
data (see Table 1).
28
-------
Table 1. Prehistoric Cultural Chronology for Southern New England.
General Period
Identified Temporal
Subdivisions*
Cultural Aspects
Paleo-Indian
12000—8000 B.P.**
(10000—6000 B.C.)
(1) Eastern Clovis
(2) Piano
Big-game hunting in small
groups with a specialized and
uniform lithic technology was
the rule for a few, highly
mobile groups of small size.
Early Archaic
9500—7000 B.P.
(7500—5000 B.c.)
(1) Bifurcate-Base
Point
Assemblages
Socioeconomic patterns unknown
but the basic Archaic lithic
technology was established.
Small, widespread populations
were probably practicing
diversified hunting and
gathering.
Middle Archaic
Late Arrtha i c
Hunting and gathering
especially within drainage
systems. Fishing gear appears
and local lithic sources used.
Social organizations probably
at band level.
4500—3000 B.P.
(2500—1000 B.C.)
(1) Brewerton
(2) Squibnocket
(3) Small Stemmed
Point
Assemblages
Intensive hunting and
gathering was the rule over
entire region in diverse
environments. Shellfish were
exploited for first (2) time.
Perhaps population and group
sizes were at maximum for the
Archaic period.
*Te ed Phases or Complexes
**Before Present
8000—4500
B.P.
(1)
Neville
(5500—2500
B.C.)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Stark
Merrimack
Otter Creek
Vosburg
29
-------
Table 1. (Continued).
Identified Temporal
General Period Subdivisions* Cultural Aspects
Transitional
3600—2500 B.P. (1) Atlantic Same economy as the earlier
(1600— 500 B.C.) (2) Watertown periods, but there may have
(3) Coburn been groups migrating into New
(4) Orient England, or local groups
developing technologies
strikingly different from
those previously used. Trade
in soapstone became important.
Burial rituals became complex.
Early Woodland
2600-1500 B.P. (1) Meadowood There was apparent population
(600 B.C.—300 A.D.) (2) Lagoon decline. Sites of this period
are rare. Pottery was first
(7) made. Little is known of
social organization or
economy.
Middle Woodland
1650-1000 B.P. (1) Fox Creek Economy focused on coastal
(300- 950 A.D.) resources. Horticulture may
have appeared late in period.
Hunter-gathering was still
important. Population in-
creased from the previous low
in the Early Woodland.
Late Woodland
1000 450 B.?. (1) Levanna Horticulture was established
(950-1500 A.D.) by now. Coastal areas seemed
to be preferred. Large groups
sometimes lived in fortified
villages and were organized in
complicated political al-
liances. Some groups may have
still relied solely on hunting
and gathering.
30
-------
Table 1. (Continued).
Identified Temporal
General Period Subdivisions* Cultural Aspects
Proto-Historic
and Contact
450— 300 B.P. (1) Algonquian Groups such as the Wampanoags,
(1500—1650 A.D.) Groups Narragansetts, and Nipmucks
were decimated by disease(s)
just prior to arrival of Euro-
pean settlers. Political,
social and economic organiza-
tions were very complex, but
collapsed in face of disease
and European expansion.
31
-------
The discovery of a potential Early Archaic component on the
Hull—li site on Long Island during the Phase I survey filled in one
minor gap in this sequence. This site is particularly important
because the other coastal locations used around 8,500 to 8,000
years ago are under Boston Harbor. A few sites representing other
aspects of Early Archaic settlement patterns in the Boston area are
located on large river systems draining into coastal waters. A
large terrace of glacial outwash sand/gravel above the Charles
River in East Watertown was apparently occupied by Early Archaic
groups; a single bifurcate base projectile point was collected
there in the late nineteenth century (Dincauze 1973:32).
Along the Saugus River north of Boston Harbor, Early Archaic
hunter/gatherers were among the first groups to extract fine
grained, red—pink volcanic material (Saugus jasper) from the Saugus
Quarry site, a small lithic source area within the Lynn Volcanic
complex. Several other bifurcate base point find spots
representing temporary camps used by Early Archaic hunter!
gatherers were recorded from the three major river drainages
(Mystic, Charles, Neponset) emptying into Boston Harbor (Dincauze
1974:45).
Marine transgression and the creation of Boston Harbor
drowned most of the sites located near the coastal/estuarine
environmental settings of 7,500 to 6,000 years ago. The available
information on Middle Archaic period settlement patterns and other
activities in the harbor district is limited in comparison to
adjacent, inland sections of the Boston Basin. One of the
32
-------
prehistoric sites located on the southern end of Long Island by the
UMass field school, Marsh Locus 1—2, yielded a broken Neville point
(see Appendix I). If this large non—midden site does contain more
Middle Archaic material it could be an important source of
information needed to reconstruct settlement and resource use
patterns in the harbor around 7,000 years ago Earlier survey work
in the Boston Basin suggested that the majority of Middle Archaic
sites not under shallow, offshore waters were in three general
environmental settings, adjacent to rivers, lakes and marshes or
bogs (Dincauze 1974:45).
Extensive Middle Archaic depositions possibly the result of
brief but intense seasonal use of favored site locations have been
located in the Neponset and Cochata River drainages along the
southern boundary of the Boston Basin. At the Green Hill,
Ponkapoag and Gill’s Farm sites, Middle Archaic groups carried out
a wide range of activities including manufacture of chipped and
ground stone tools from lithic raw materials obtained in the Blue
Hills and at other lithic source areas along the Neponset River.
Processing of other resources (fish, meat, plants) collected from
riverine wetlands or other environments was carried out on these
sites creating numerous pit and hearth features. Middle Archaic
groups quarried large amounts of matamorphosed slate (hornfels) and
rhyolite from lithic source areas in the Blue Hills and many sites
around the perimeter of this area were used as temporary workshops.
At the Green Hill, Ponkapoag and other Neponset drainage sites
33
-------
hundreds of broken, discarded prefornis for chipped and ground stone
tools (projectile points, adzes/gouges, semi-lunar knives) have
been excavated from Middle Archaic contexts (Cote 1958; F. Carty,
personal communication 1983).
Like many other areas of coastal southern New England,
significantly more data is available on Late Archaic activity in
Boston Harbor in comparison to earlier time periods. Relatively
high densities of Late Archaic sites have been recorded in the
Boston metropolitan area. The Boylston Street fish weir was
constructed early in this period (Ca. 4,500 years B.P.) in the
recently formed Charles River estuary. This wood and brush
facility for trapping fish in the inter-tidal zone appears to have
been maintained/repaired on a seasonal basis by hunter/gatherers of
the Small Stem Point tradition. Investigation of a shell midden on
Peddock’s Island uncovered a vary unusual Archaic inhumation burial
under the midden deposit. A radiocarbon date of 4135 + 225 years
ago (GX—2528) indicated that it was probably affiliated with a
Small Stem Point deposition pre-dating the formation of the midden
(Dincauze 1974:48).
Other Late Archaic populations, particularly those affiliated
with the Susquehanna tradition, used the Boston Harbor islands and
other locations along the Charles River estuary. One of the sites
(Hull—il) on Long Island was apparently used by Susquehanna
tradition people (see Appendix I). The Calf Island site in the
outer harbor probably contained a fairly substantial Late Archaic
deposition that was mostly destroyed by rising sea level and
34
-------
subsequent erosion. One of the subsistence related activities
carried out by Late Archaic hunter/gatherers may have been
construction and operation of a fish trap or weir between Calf and
the Brewster Islands. Sea level would have been about five feet
lower than at present and Calf, Little Calf and the Brewsters would
have been connected creating a funnel—like channel with its apex
near the Calf Island site. This would have made this site area a
good location for a weir or fish trap facility (Luedtke 1980:64).
By around 3,000 years ago, Terminal Archaic populations were
still using some of the same site locations that had been parts of
earlier Archaic settlement patterns in the harbor district. The
Hull—li site on Long Island is a good example; steatite vessel
sherds found there by the UMass field school probably belong to a
Terminal Archaic or Early Woodland component. The largest sites
possibly representing the cores of Terminal Archaic (Orient
complex) and Early Woodland settlement patterns in some coastal
drainages were near the head of estuaries along the Mystic and
Charles Rivers (Dincauze 1974:50). There are indications that the
harbor islands contain important Early Woodland sites, mostly shell
middens. Small midden sites probably occupied around 2,500 years
ago were recorded on Thompson Island (Shaw 1984) and during the
1984 UMass field school on Long Island. The Early Woodland and
first half of the Middle Wodoland period mark an important shift in
basic subsistence/settlement patterns not only in Boston Harbor but
across the southern New England region as well.
35
-------
Exploitation of several species of shellfish (soft shell
clam, scallop, oyster, quahog) intensified rapidly during the
Middle Woodland period in response to the stabilization of sea
levels and establishment of suitable habitat (tidal flats) for the
formation of shellfish beds. Some large shell midden sites were
created in the Boston Harbor district and they have a much wider
distribution across the islands than sites of most preceding time
periods. Both midden and non—midden Middle Woodland sites were
located near estuarine environments along the shore of the harbor
and at the estuary head base camps used by previous Terminal
Archaic and Early Woodland groups in the Charles and Mystic River
drainages (Braun 1974:589-591; Dincauze 1974:51). Surveys by both
avocational and professional archaeologists along the southern
shore of the harbor district in Weymouth have also identified
significant Middle Woodland sites (Huntington 1979).
The concentration of settlement/subsistence activities in the
coastal/estuarine and off—shore island environments of the harbor
district continued into the Late Woodland period, after about 1,000
years ago. It is estimated that a majority of the small shell
midden sites in the harbor district of unknown cultural affiliation
are probably Late Woodland sites (Dincauze 1974:53). This estimate
seems to be supported by recent survey information from various
harbor islands which has identified many large and small midden
sites of probable Late Woodland affiliation. Calf Island in the
outer harbor appears to have functioned as a base for specialized
resource procurement and processing activities. Recently
36
-------
discovered sites on Long Island include similar procurement!
processing loci and possibly a Late Woodland farmstead. On nearby
Thompson Island most of the midden sites appear to contain some
Late Woodland deposits resulting from intensive collection and
processing of shellfish (Luedtke 1980; Barber 1983; Shaw 1984).
In general, the Boston Harbor islands seem to contain many
different elements of Late Woodland settlement systems that would
have been based at large estuary head base camps. During the late
prehistoric period just prior to European contact it appears that
the ecologically diverse estuary head environments were selected as
the location for major base camps forming the core of river basin
territories. Certain inner harbor islands were used for intensive
shellfish processing and probably for farming (Long Island,
Peddocks Island, Thompson Island, etc.) and could have been
important parts of the territories of groups based in the Charles,
Mystic, Neponset or other river basins. Outer harbor islands, like
Calf Island and the Brewsters would have been occupied on brief,
seasonal trips for exploiting specific marine resources (fish,
shellfish, sea birds) (Dincauze 1974:53; Luedtke 1980:72—73).
37
-------
HIS LVRIC LAND USE AND DEVKLOPMENT PArri xNS
The historic development of Deer and Long Islands is directly
related to urban processes in the city of Boston and reflects
various stages of its growth and expansion.
Deer Island
Deer Island’s role in supporting the functioning of the city
was examined within the core—periphery framework. Preliminary
research indicated that from the time of the earliest recorded use
of the island by Europeans, it served as a resource base for the
inhabitants of Boston (Sweetser 1882:194). It was granted to the
city, along with Long, Hog and later Spectacle Islands, in 1634.
Later, funds generated by the rental of the island went toward the
support of the Boston school fund.
The island’s use as a fringe zone within Boston’s periphery
began in 1675—76, when many Native Americans were interned there
during King Phillip’s War. These people were placed on the island
under extremely harsh conditions, and petitioned the Court to be
sent elsewhere, citing a lack of food and firewood that threatened
their lives (Massachusetts State Archives 1676:30/200a). They were
to remain there until the end of the war, however, when the island
was used to imprison defeated Native American soldiers.
The role of the island as the location for individuals and
institutions considered undesirable within the core continued for
a8
-------
many years. It was used to quarantine seamen suspected of carrying
smallpox (Massachusetts State Archives 1677:61/166), and later for
the quarantine of great numbers of Irish immigrants in the lB4Os.
The quarantine area was subsequently used as the site of the new
Almshouse, built in 1850—1852, and designed by Luther Briggs, Jr.
The older Almshouse and House of Industry, in South Boston, was
removed not only because the structures were dilapidated and
overcrowded, but because it was contributing to the decline of a
core area neighborhood (Committee on Public Buildings, 1847).
Again, Deer Island served as a convenient location for institutions
considered unsuitable for the city itself.
The trend continued throughout the next century, with a
prison (1858), sewage treatment plant (1889 and 1968), cemetery
(1907) and other ancillary structures constructed since the mid—
nineteenth century.
The prison is now part of the Suffolk County Correctional
Facility. In 1896, it incorporated the 1850—1852 Almshouse and the
1854 House of Industry and House of Reformation. By 1904, the
prison complex was the largest in the State, with 1793 prisoners.
In that year, a new prison for women was added (Board of Prison
Commissioners 1904).
During the late nineteenth century, the complex was, like the
hospital complex, on Long Island, developed as a self—sufficient
community. The 1,200 to 1,500 inmates ranged in age and condition
from adult convicts to pauper children. The institution grew much
of its own food, and maintained a herd of cows and large numbers of
39
-------
pits (Sweetser 1887:198—199). Cattle were watered at the Cow Pond
and ice for the institution taken from the Ice Pond, two freshwater
ponds that have now been filled. Inmates produced goods in
workshops and convicts carried out the traditional penal activities
of breaking rocks.
The self sufficient nature of the institution was emphasized
by its spatial isolation from Boston. Connected by a ferry that
crossed the shallow, narrow passage of Shirley Gut, it effectively
removed inmates from the community, one that was seen as
contributing to their downfall (Sweetser 1887:200).
The sewage treatment plant was built in 1889, by the
Metropolitan District Commission (MDC). It was part of the MDC’S
North Sewer District. In the 1890s, effluent was gravity—fed to
the East Boston Station, then pumped up about 12 to 15 feet to Deer
Island (Kenneth Donovan, personal communication, July 1984). The
pumping engines were powered by coal that was brought in on barges
that drew up on wharves in front of the pumping—screening plant.
Associated with the plant was a four to six family wood frame
residence known as the “chief’s building” and a large carriage
house with a single family residence on its east end. The “chief’s
building” has been demolished, and the residence/carriage house is
in poor repair, currently used for storage by the MDC.
In 1968, the pump/screening station on Deer Island was
upgraded and enlarged. It now serves 22 communities which made up
the North System of the Metropolitan Sewerage District (MSD), and
40
-------
is connected to seven area pump stations (Commonwealth of
Massachusetts 1971). It covers about 26 acres of the central
section of the island.
The cemetery and other burial grounds were either relocated
or disturbed in the subsequent construction activities that
occurred on the island. Military functions, too, were peripheral
activities that took place on the island. The large drumlin in the
north central section of the Island was known as Signal Hill for
many years, having been used as a signal station since the War of
1812. Naval engagements took place near the island during the
Revolution, and in the War of 1812, the U.S.S. Constitution was
said to have sailed around the island in an attempt to evade
British warships.
The island’s strategic position in relation to Boston Harbor
required that it be fortified during World War II. Fort Dawes was
built by the U.S. Department of Defense on the southeastern section
of the island between 1941 and 1943. It consisted of a series of
concrete bunkers, gun emplacements, a small observation tower, and
a radar station on top of Signal Hill. Never used to house troops
or munitions, the fort is now under the jurisdiction of the US
Navy, having been placed under Mcaretaker status” in 1946
(Massachusetts Area Planning Council 1972).
Lang Island
Long Island’s historical development was studied within the
same context as that of Deer Island. Like Deer, Long Island was
41
-------
first used as a pasturage and wood—collection area for Boston.
Unlike Deer, however, Long Island’s resources were assigned to 37
different individuals who quickly deforested the island. By 1639,
it was laid out in lots, and the land rented for the benefit of the
town school. The agreement was not kept up, however, and the land
passed into private hands by 1667.
Land use on the island was primarily agricultural in nature.
Deeds of the mid to late seventeenth century refer to island
properties comprising “uplands, meadows, outhouses and gardens”
(Tennta 1983:12). During King Phillip’s War in 1675—1676, Indians
confined on Deer Island were given land for planting on Long Island
(Massachusetts State Archives 30:194). The land belonged to Henry
Mayer, who agreed to allow them to improve 100 acres.
For many years, almost the entire island was owned by John
Nelson, a famous military hero, who gave his name to the island.
He began to acquire land on the island in the l680s, but later
mortgaged it. His heirs reacquired his 200 acre estate in 1724,
but it then passed to James Ivers, whose heirs held possession of
most of the island until it was purchased by the Long Island
Company in 1847.
During this period it is difficult to assess the precise type
of agricultural land use on the island. It is recorded that the
Americans removed the “cretors” or livestock from the island in
1775, consisting primarily of sheep and cattle. Assuming that the
inhabitants of the island were relatively self-sufficient, they
42
-------
probably cultivated orchards, small vegetable gardens, and some
acreage in grain to support themselves.
Military functions were peripheral activities that augmented
the primarily agricultural land use of the island up to and during
the Revolution. The British occupation of the island ended with
the American capture of the livestock that sustained the garrison.
After the British withdrawal, the Continental Army constructed
defenses on the Eastern bluff (Mika]. 1973:72). These same heights
were later fortified during the War of 1812. A lighthouse and
keeper’s house were built in 1819, on the same bluff. The Long
Island lighthouse has been nominated to the National Register of
Historic Places and is under review by the National Park Service.
This site is adjacent to the proposed siting area.
During the Civil War, the island was used to quarter Union
troops. At the end of 1863, there were 1,000 conscripts and
several companies of heavy artillery on the island (Sweetser
1882:167) in what was then known as Camp Wightman near Long Island
Head. A battery of guns was constructed on the Head immediately
before the war. Its usefulness as a military site was attributed
not only to its sanitary merits, but to the security it affords
against desertions (Sweetser 1882:167).
In 1867, the fort on the Head was renamed Fort Strong; the
original Fort Strong was located on Noddle’s Island. It was
extensively redesigned during the Spanish American War, when gun
batteries were installed (Kales 1976:72). Around 1910, some of the
guns were allegedly removed and taken to fortify the island of
43
-------
Corregidor in the Phillipines (R. Sullivan, personal communication,
July 1984). Troops were again stationed in the Fort during World
War I. During World War II, the Fort served as a mines operation
center. The most recent military use of the island was the
installation of a Nike missile base on the southern end of the
island. While the missiles have been removed from the underground
silos, the base remains intact, and has been used as a temporary
archive for volumes from the Boston Public Library.
The peripheral nature of the island was also expressed in its
use as a ..esort in the 1840s. While some recreational activities
were carried out on Deer Island between the end of the Revolution
and the 1840s, the scale of the Long Island resort was far more
extensive. It was a speculative venture, and the Long Island Rouse
and Long Island Hotel were built as part of a planned community.
Its role was to be an elaborate recreational community in close
proximity yet completely different in density from Boston.
The Long Island resort complex was originally owned by the
Long Island Company, a group of speculators who purchased a major
portion of the Island between 1847 and 1866. In that almost 20
year period, the company constructed a hotel building of three
stories, at least one two—story frame cottage, and several wooden
Outbuildings. They intended to develop much of the island as a
seaside community, but did not succeed. After several changes of
ownership, by 1882, the planned streets were occupied only by a
feeble group of shabby cottages” (Sweetser 1882:168).
44
-------
The hotel buildings were used as the headquarters for Camp
Wightman during the Civil War. After the war, it returned to a
recreational mode, but the island’s development as a resort was
hindered by its access to petty criminals and gangs. The isolation
of the island from urban stress broke down in the 1880s.
Perhaps the most visible and extensive cultural feature on
Long Island is the present Boston City Hospital complex. The City
purchased land belonging to the Long Island company in 1882. The
first municipal institution established was the city almshouse.
Using the old hotel property, the city housed 650 paupers on the
island in 1885 (Massachusetts Area Planning Council 1972:71).
Like the institution on Deer Island, the city almshouse was
located on Long Island to free the city from maintaining municipal
charities and prisons in South Boston and West Roxbury. The
pattern was established when thirty years before, the city had
moved the almshouse from South Boston to Deer Island.
The history of the Long Island institution is extremely
complex. It evolved slowly from a poorly equipped pauper home with
additional hospital facilities to a fine medical facility. Between
1882 and the present, over 20 structures and ancillary facilities
have been constructed, altered, remodelled and sometimes abandoned.
A brief outline of the institution’s development is presented
below.
The city purchased land belonging to the Long Island Company
in 1882, and a tract of 182 acres was taken by order of the City
Council in 1885 (Boston City Document 15 1929). Initially, the
45
-------
years of operation, there were close administrative ties between
the two island institutions. The laundry for both was done on
Rainsford Island, for example, as no laundry was built on Long
Island until after 1890. By 1892, the Long Island complex was made
up of a large brick administration building (built in 1887), a
hospital building and a large farm. The complex was originally
intended to be a “Home for the Indigent.” Women were transferred
from the Austin Farm in 1887 and men from Rainsford Island in 1889
(Connelly 1932:20).
In 1898, the City of Boston, under the personal sponsorship
of Mayor 3osiah Quincy, constructed a summer camp for boys in the
southern section of the island “on the southeast slope of the
western promontory of Long Island,” near the present causeway
(Boston City Document #144, 1898). The boys were housed in
thirteen tents, and fed in a wooden pavilion. Plans were made to
fill lowlying areas near the camp, but there is no record of this
actually being performed. At that time, no road connected the camp
to the hospital complex, and supplies were brought overland by
horse and wagon borrowed from the hospital.
In the l890s and early 1900s the institution was open to any
“adult pauper” who applied for admission. From a central office,
these individuals could be assigned to any of the city’s charitable
institutions. They included a small almshouse section of the Deer
Island complex, the old Charlestown Almshouse for the Aged, the
Austin Farm for Women, or the Rainsford Island Almshouse. Poor
46
-------
institutions. They included a small almshouse section of the Deer
Island complex, the old Charlestown Almshouse for the Aged, the
Austin Farm for Women, or the Rainsford Island Almshouse. Poor
children were sent to the Marcella Street home, when their parents
were unable or unwilling to care for them. Those applying for
relief could be aged, sick, demented, criminals or lewd women
(Boston City Document 1122 1892:30). As a result, the Long Island
institution gained a reputation as a haven for the dissolute. Of
particular concern to reform minded administrators was the pass
system. Inmates could routinely request passes to look for work,
visit family or any other reason. Unfortunately, many of the
clients exhibited self—destructive behavior, drinking to excess or
committing crimes. Many were found to rotate between the penal
institutions on Deer Island and the Long Island Almshouse. For
years, then, the medical component of the institution suffered
somewhat from underfunding and overcrowding, as it was felt that
an almshouse hospital is good enough for the people for whom it is
intended (Boston City Documents #15 1904).
By 1904, the situation began to improve. The institution was
becoming more a hospital for the treatment of the chronically ill
than an almshouse. Many of the patients admitted at this time
suffered from tuberculosis, the disease which predominated as the
cause of death for Boston’s citizens in the late nineteenth century
(City of Boston Board of Realth 1885). So many were admitted, in
fact, that the authorities were forced to house tubercular patients
with relatively healthy inmates of the dormitories.
47
-------
The high population of severely ill patients naturally led to
the necessity for burial of those who succumbed to their condition.
In some years, hundreds of deaths took place in the hospital.
Friends and relatives claimed many for burial (Boston City
Documents #29 1904), but others were interred in an institutional
cemetery near the property line with Fort Strong.
By the 1920s, many of the existing buildings were in need of
repair. They included the central administration building, built
in 1887, the dormitory for women and superintendent’s house, built
in 1895 and the chapel, built in 1886. New buildings then included
the 1916 men’s ward buildings and nurse’s home and the 1914
domestic buildings. The funding necessary for these improvements
was apparently granted consistently between 1900 and 1920. At
least part of this public funding, however, was offset by the
highly productive farm run in part by male clients.
Until the early twenties, when rising prosperity made it
difficult to procure farm laborers, the hospital was able to
produce much of its own food. The pasture for cattle was well
fenced with barbed wire, and the piggery was well stocked. As a
result, milk and pork were the most valuable farm products of the
institution in 1904. The workers also cut ice for preservation,
and mowed the fields to produce hay and fodder for livestock. The
land was also heavily cultivated, yielding eighteen different kinds
of vegetables. Such self—sufficiency was also a phenomenon at
other state institutions, notably the Worcester Hospital for the
48
-------
Insane and the Bridgewater State Prison. Deer Island itself
maintained a thriving farm in conjunction with the prison complex.
This agricultural use of the hospital grounds continued well into
the 1920s, when cultivation resumed during the early years of the
Depression.
New construction and alteration of older buildings continued
throughout the succeeding decades. In 1929, a new children’s
hospital was built (Boston City Document *15, 1928). In 1932, a
new recreation building was constructed under the sponsorship of
Mayor Curley. At this time, the complex contained over 1,225
inmates, of which 450 were hospital patients.
A major innovation was the creation of a treatment program
for alcoholics in 1941. From the early years of the institution,
superintendents and visiting physicians had recommended the
segregation and treatment of alcoholics.
A study of the institutional population in 1947 revealed that
even by that date, the popular perception of the hospital was that
it was still just the Boston poor farm (Rosenbiuth Associates
1948:13). In 1948, the hospital housed both chronic invalids and
destitute individuals, 415 men and 65 women in the institutional
section and 480 custodial patients. In 1952, additional facilities
were constructed for the care of chronic invalids. It now houses
up to 400 patients and indigents and has a staff of approximately
400. Many of the 20 buildings are now unused, due to the greatly
reduced client population and disrepair of the structures.
49
-------
Changes in Land Use
Deer Island
The natural processes of erosion and subsequent deposition
have changed the outline of the island. As early as 1763, the town
of Boston appointed a committee to determine what measures could be
taken to prevent the encroachment of the sea upon the is land
(Massachusetts State Archives 1763:118/104).
The filling of Shirley Gut, the former channel separating
Deer Island from the mainland, was initially a natural process. In
the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the channel was
fairly deep and distinct. By the mid-nineteenth century, the
passage was beginning to be passable in winter. By the late
nineteenth century, prisoners were able to swim across (Sweetser
1882:193), although it remained navigable. It was only a few feet
deep at high tide, however, by 1935, when it was effectively
filled, and Deer Island joined in the mainland (Randall 1981:8).
Other changes on the island were culturally determined. While
residence on the island occurred as early as 1642, with the
exception of interned Native Americans, there was little permanent
occupation until the mid—nineteenth century.
A map drawn in 1817 (Figure 3) shows three structures on the
island and a map of 1830 (Figure 4) shows one structure. These may
represent the hotel kept by William Tewksbury in the early
nineteenth century (Snow 1971). With construction of the almshouse
in 1850—1852, the House of Industry in 1854, and the House of
50
-------
I
6
a a’,
1 :4+
I
4
4
p
S c.
I,’ 6%
S
S
‘V
.9
.p •
5%
S
p
7
9%S.
‘ S
• -
5%
‘a
I
IA
Figure 3. Early 19th century map of Deer Island (Wadsworth 1817)
showing location of structures.
4
S
S.
4
2%
I,
A,
Jr
4
I
*
-‘I .
51
-------
I
I
I.
,f)
/ 1 4 ,/li, ,;,
1
• 1
4?
,‘• I
I ’
r
•-
I
S
( __r
-/1.
IJ-)
.4 ,
V.’
A
I ..
r4
‘-4
‘ -4
w
a)
J
.41 9-1
0
0
en
‘-4
U,
a)
‘ -I
U I
en
‘-4
‘ - 4
00
4
4
-------
Reformation, the population swelled to 1,500 by the 1880s (Sweetser
1882:194).
The increase in the number of structures necessary to house
this population changed the earlier appearance of the island. The
landscape was affected by the excavation of a great number of
unmarked burials, the construction of ancillary structures, the
creation of dumping areas and other alterations concomittant with
change in land use. It was in the twentieth century that the most
visible change took place. A cemetery in the western section of
the island was moved in the construction of Fort Dawes in 1940, the
old Cow Pond was filled in and the sewage treatment plant
constructed by the MDC in 1889 was expanded in 1968.
Long Island
The types of land use and the manner in which they changed on
Long Island through time has been studied as a component of the
project’s research design. In general, changes in historic land
use have been functional in nature (i.e., from agricultural to
recreational) and relatively undisruptive. However, military usage
caused significant alterations to the island’s topography. Another
early example of this type of physical change was the construction
of seawalls in the nineteenth century to retard the loss of shore
frontage. Thus, relatively little shoreline change has been caused
by erosion or aggregation.
Well into the nineteenth century, the landscape of the island
was a relatively treeless plain, with some low ridges in the
53
-------
eastern end. Early records refer to dwelling houses, probably
small farmsteads, on the island in the 1670s and 1680s (Tennta
1983). Throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries,
scattered dwellings and outbuildings constituted the low density
settlement pattern of an agricultural landscape.
The use of the island at an early date for the collection of
wood and as pasture for sheep and cattle created an almost treeless
landscape by the early nineteenth century. At this point, however,
the number of structures began to decline from four in 1817 (see
Figure 5) to “a single farmhouse” (Sweetser 1882:161) in 1840.
This single structure appears on a map of the harbor made in 1830
(see Figure 6). Evidently, a second growth forest developed on the
southern part of the island by the lB6Os, as a Civil War era record
describes “the south side, thickly studded with trees” (Sweetser
1882:167).
Non—agricultural land use was confined to the construction of
military fortifications and a lighthouse until the mid-nineteenth
century. In 1776, American forces set up gun emplacements on East
Head. During the War of 1812, a battery of guns was set up in
approximately the same location, possibly reusing the old
Revolutionary fortifications. The lighthouse on Long Island was
built on the same bluff in 1819, although some sources refer to an
earlier beacon construction in 1794 (Tennta 1983:8).
The island was virtually abandoned by the l840s, when the
Long Is land Company began to purchase acreage for the construction
of its resort complex. During the hotel construction, both large
54
-------
‘ U
I t
— .e
*H..:.H
• ‘C -\
‘C
/
b
# 1
a
“ A
“4 a
• • ! 4 L
-
•.. , . ‘•::
• -
It
‘k.
4
•
tp •e•.••
S
‘ I
•:Y .
‘S.
‘ I x
St t
2
S I ’ - ,’
t1(
I I I ,
- Figure 5.
of structures
Early 19th century map of Long Island (Wadsworth 1817) showing location
a.
(0
S i
‘4
em
¶
ft.
g . e
I
.4
1k
. 4
.4
.4
4’
k
.
“Si
54
%1.
a
55
-------
lit
Sc
I • .t’ -
‘3
(
I
...
miss.
4 l 5
• — 5,
• 5’
-.
“I’.
1h
V
Figure 6.
1830 ap (Hales 1830) of Long Island
56
-------
and small structures were built in the central part of the island,
including the main houses, cottages and outbuildings (see Figure
7). A colony of Azorean Portuguese fishermen occupied the
coastline 1 ear the hotel from the 1850s. They were supposedly
evicted in the 1880s by the city, however, a contemporary map of
the island shows that their huts were still extant in 1900 (see
Figure 8).
The most striking topographic change came with the grading
and construction necessitated by the creation of Fort Strong on
Long Island Read. Above the natural bluff are abandoned
bonthproofs, a moat and several low grassy mounds that appear to be
natural in origin. By the early twentieth century, the fort
contained several avenues of officers’ houses, a rail spur, ferry
landing, fortifications and an extensive parade ground. Most of
these structures were demolished by the City of Boston after
acquiring part of the US Government’s holdings in the 1960s.
The most prominent feature of the island’s landscape today is
the complex of over 20 buildings that comprises the city’s Chronic
Disease Hospital, erected over a period of approximately 70 years,
between the 1880s and the l940s. It represents the area of highest
structural density on the island.
The increasing density of structures is shown on USGS
topographic maps issued between 1900 and 1946. At the turn of the
century, the complex consisted of nine structures, without formal
roadways or any expansion to the southern portion of the island
(see Figure 9). By 1903, the complex had increased in complexity,
57
-------
/
p.
àps £L .4
itãt, 4 s”,_.
4 ’,
I
I’.
4
I ’
‘I
.‘
‘I , ,
‘—It... —
a. .’
. I.
S.
I
‘4
. iaI ,.,. + ‘
f4 4&4.
%4b7.
.,a. .
‘S
a
‘I
4...
ad’
‘0
(I) 4 .1 ‘
o
‘44’0r
o w
4 . 10
I •
ao’0
Ii r4’ t
w
bOO
n
Li
.• ..
It.. ....p?
£
S
S
1’•
$
I
p
S.
Co
Lt’
Pb
p I t
I.
I
-
I t’ ..
‘S
I
I
t
I
$
•
I
I
!•• eS. — ! I t I t
-------
? .-‘ . _‘ 01
“
;t — - -:&
4 .4i ne #onumenr
i ;1
. I_____________
4 4 O48OO. 5 j3
. + _______________________ .
Figure 8. Location of cemetery in parcel of land purchased by City of Boston in 1
From “Plan Showing a Portion of Long Island” Hyde and Sherry, Civil Engineers,
August, 1899. Scale: 1”50’.
• - .-•
-1
-a.
I
• -:
• .
:
1’
4
V -
.
59
-------
:\V uihro 1 ,
-,. iI .i .itd.
r j.
\ uI.
SLurl.y
J
1 ’ei Islaiui
s. •,:.;•
I.
GRiArMwPV al4GoN
• DEER ISLAND
* LIACON
ItIIL%II flei I J e %i
/3 0 S 7
.1
i; •.-. -t. c 11’
i%l(,Hd -
1ji .
\ — ----—-- - ‘•-.•-•-----.-
LONG ,S AND LI6.1 •j (iii;;t liic 1
• L_ \ L)Vk 1 I? 1+iIJIl
hide b ’
(t4( fr / BOSTON L16fr
/ - - - . NARROWS LIGNT
f 101 I’.111I14L J FORrWAR tN
- ) .
i )
•—•T — - ‘ It .to d L4and
oii lLtnd Qu&ri ut e Rt i ’ ind 11 p
—
,, J11 dd ks
S — \fr i }tftck
— - \‘ I’hncesUt’ad-
‘ uiI. 1 zi1 p
-
:- - • - ‘• •. ‘•• --
_ c _\
/J1 .X’GH
- ttfla1 1oon I .’Lnnti
(;P9 ]diuLd/Th
* __ M ;-_ ! nt . 1,ihu,sd
‘A.’ j - • 1%.
Figure 9.’ 1892 USGS Boston Bay Quadrangle 1/62,500 reprinted 1900.
60
* Dt t --
———
.-(.
j 4 (
}Sinukiii isltui’I
— -J$7tite Beavi lit”
II A )‘ - T
\tniI4 .
-------
with larger structures joined by a series of roads and two
elaborate wharves for the reception of staff and inmates using the
ferries joining the facility to the mainland (see Figure 10). Less
than a decade later the hospital had expanded further, with most
structures interconnected, an elaborate system of roadways in
place, and an extension of the roads almost to the southern tip of
the island of West Head (see Figure 12).
The presence of unrecorded and unmarked burials is one
important component of the island’s land use. During the
Revolution, a naval battle off the shore of Long Island resulted in
the deaths of 36 British troops. They were buried in an unrecorded
location on the island. It is also possible that the inhabitants
in the late seventeenth to early nineteenth centuries maintained
the kind of small family plot cemeteries that are a common feature
throughout the New England region. After the Civil War, 79
veterans who had been buried on Rainsford Island were reinterred on
the southern end of Long Island (Tennta 1983:10). A memorial marks
the area. With the establishment of the city almshouse and other
institutions in 1882, the city began to bury the deceased patients
and inmates of the facilities. A map of 1900 shows a cemetery to
the east of the main hospital buildings, between the hospital and
the complex on East Head (Bee Figure 8). By the 1940s, a large
cemetery was located on the southern end, near the Civil War marker
(see Figure 12). It is now directly east of the abandoned Nike
base to the south of the hospital complex. Over 2,2000 unmarked
graves are said to be located on the island (Kales 1976:71). The
61
-------
GroversCIiff ,
/ ,
Wrnthrop
\‘
:Ba h .:, “ •
‘ I . ’
- .-1 Wrnthrop Head --
•Snakel.’ — .
- -
Apple )Oeer Island
BOSTOA\
[ A i ii V
• Spectacle
Si \..
Hangmen
IT I iV C ’
.J).a1 •Y
‘%‘ .) I .
C
Ram Head
Bar
• Mate
‘r .. S.
.5 . . 5.. S r.
S. 5/• ..
Gallups • •
• • - .
P7WARRE i
I Georg4i
- S
;S;. •/• •1
• .Quorantine
/
• S •••• •• S
• S
Wend milL
Pt.
55• • •
7
- ,Peddocks. t
-- -.5 ,
Jisland
( ROCk
: , • ;Princ Head
N . .1 Sheep)..
I
\ -‘V
Qutn’r y
: reat H H
: .
yJ3 . - 5 ) .L.$.
Roar.
* I..
- -
‘ -‘ .2 \ ,\eS ’
a,
— - -S--- S
- - .
1 )
‘ Telei raph .,4.
•‘•“•S,. -•-
L -
-jgi.
iHufl -
• .
S. : •S #
N Strawberr - ’
II .1 .)I\ lull
, . mk )l.
f l
•• .1
/ -
I
-j
Figure 10. 1903 USGS Boston Bay Quadrangle 1/62,500 reprinted 1939.
62
20
S
S
I
S
‘5 •i 1 .,’TiOC)n
-------
:
r
1 a 3 V
•;.W 34
- /‘ :I ip J.i::.J”
•: . •. .1 ..:
4 A : •] $ 34
3 13
i.? .. t’,4%
‘ ...:..:..S L
u ‘
.
•P •
: • 3)’ 3I •(4
:
I
‘ “ ;\i •r .
7 __ - a
— 31
/ - \
31 3 34 j, 3 1
M r N )3
IfZY3t1 3 ’ 4
) , Y
31
— 10 uia ,:sts
fW. FI t$tLL) B
7 7
‘I ’ •4
Figure 11. 1904 USGS topographic map of Deer Island. Source: (Randall 1981).
63
-------
041’
SO UN - ’ -’
FJ ID T
RANSZ a N
is PAW$E Lff
/b.j —r’ -....’.
‘ ‘SpectaCIe
island
ienl
&
B 04D S
0
‘TI
f 5 en II
/
ooriM. ad’
,4,MO l l Iand
)
4 \ o
c
/1
,
—--- -
12. Hull Quadrangle, USGS, 1946 edition, revised 1950
*
H.sd
/
B
/
0
0
•DttR NLAND 6 N
+
Low’
•Ns ss Mats
cemetery
0
Island
H..d
Qu s i$h S
Itocks
cemetery area on southern part of Long Island.
-------
cemetery was subdivided into Catholic and Protestant sections (Mr.
Kearney, personal communication), but graves in both areas were
either unmarked or indicated only by plain concrete markers.
In summary, changes in the island’s topography and structural
density through time can be correlated with discrete changes in the
institutional administration of the island. While in the iands of
private owners, from the late seventeenth to the mid—nineteenth
centuries, the island was essentially an agricultural settlement
with low structural density. After the acquisition of large
parcels of land for real estate speculation by the Long Island
Company, many new structures were constructed in the northern
section of the island. These structures were used to some extent
for military purposes during the Civil War. The encampments were
primarily tents, however, which had little permanent impact on the
island. Construction of a later military installation (Fort
Strong) after the Civil War did have a major impact on the
topography of Long Island Head and the level area north of the
hospital. Fort Strong remained in active use through World Wars I
and II. A series of bunkers or bombproofs, gun emplacements and
other structures of reinforced concrete remain on the parade ground
area and the east head of Long Island (Mikal 1973:74).
The unique characteristics of Deer and Long Islands are more
difficult to define than their similarities. Both islands exist in
a peripheral relationship to the city of Boston and they share a
functionally similar early history. They contain fringe
institutions such as prisons, hospitals, waste treatment
65
-------
facilities, cemeteries and military installations. Their
topography has been altered to varying degrees by successive
episodes of grading, construction and demolition. On both islands,
areas of open space remain undeveloped, in contrast to the majority
of space in the urban core.
The character of the two islands, including their open areas,
are different in both extent of development and nature of uses.
Deer Island’s continued institutional expansion makes the presence
of these multiple institutional uses and the effects of
topographical alteration more striking. Previous archaeological
survey determined that much of the island has been so altered
during previous episodes of construction that there is little
likelihood of recovering intact archaeological deposits or original
ground surfaces (Randall 1981) while the burials there had been
disturbed or relocated in prior activities. On Long Island,
however, despite extensive alteration in the northern section of
the island, the southern section remains relatively intact. The
major impacts to the southern section have been the construction of
the causeway in 1951, the establishment of the cemeteries after
1939, and the construction of the Nike missile base in the l960s.
Here, archaeological survey has shown that despite these
activities, major prehistoric archaeological sites remain intact
(see Appendix I). Between Deer and Long Islands, the major
difference, therefore, lies in the relative amounts of disturbance
to the islands themselves.
66
-------
The similarities in both islands are attributable to their
sharing of a common relationship to the city of Boston. In the
seventeenth century, both islands aided in the functioning of the
urban core through their utilization as collection areas for
firewood and as a pasture for domestic animals. These were crucial
functions, as Boston Neck was almost devoid of firewood from the
earliest years of settlement, and the need for grazing and
protection of domestic animals was an essential component in the
early agricultural economy of the urban village.
Rent paid by those who used, improved and exploited the
islands during this early period was levied to defray the cost of
the Boston School. The income derived from the use of the islands,
then, was used to support core institutions.
Native Americans were interned on Deer Island during King
Phillips War in the winter of 1675—1676. After the first months,
harsh conditions and meager supplies prompted the authorities to
consider placing these prisoners elsewhere. They were finally
granted 100 acres to improve on Long Island, although there is
little evidence that they actually occupied the island.
67
-------
RESULTS OF THE INT 1SIVE SURVEY
The results of the comprehensive background research
indicated that the Deer Island and Long Island project areas were
within a coastal environmental zone with a complex record of
prehistoric and historic period land use. The high natural
resource potential of the harbor district in general, made it
attractive to prehistoric hunter/gatherer groups over at least the
last 8,000 years and some fairly high densities of prehistoric
sites are known from various islands. However, in the case of Deer
and the eastern end of Long Island, intensive land use over the
last 300 years has eradicated any traces of prehistoric cultural
resources.
Historic period land use patterns on both islands were very
similar primarily because of the peripheral position of these
islands in relation to the urban core represented by the city of
Boston. Background research indicated that historic land use on
Deer and Long Islands during the seventeenth and eighteenth century
was primarily agricultural and pastoral in nature (planting fields,
pasturage for animals) or involved the collection of resources
(wood, fish, shellfish). There was a small amount of short—term
military use such as the prisoner—of—war camp on Deer Island (1675-
1767) and construction of a small gun battery on Long Island Head
during the Revolution (1775—1776). These activities probably had a
relatively minor impact on the prehistoric sites on the islands.
68
-------
In contrast, later nineteenth and twentieth century land use
patterns and developments were of types that caused significant
alteration or modification to the topography of these islands.
These included construction of institutional (almshouse, prison,
hospital complex), military and waste (sewage) disposal facilities.
On Long Is land, construction and possibly landscaping/grading
in connection with development of recreational facilities (Long
Island Hotel) and real estate speculation in the mid—nineteenth
century was responsible for some changes to the island. In its
earliest stages the institution reused the existing recreational
buildings (hotel) but rapidly expanded beyond it.
On the basis of the background research, available
environmental data (geomorphology, ecology, etc.), a walkover
inspection and the preliminary findings of the UMass field school,
the Deer Island and Long Island project areas were stratified into
three zones of high sensitivity, moderate to low archaeological
sensitivity, and previously disturbed. In addition, a large
percentage of the project area on both Deer Is land and lesser
degree on Long Island had been previously disturbed and therefore
had little or no archaeological potential.
For the general purposes of this Phase I inventory and
assessment survey, the southern end of Long Island investigated by
the UMass field school was included in the stratification scheme.
In ranked order of known and expected sensitivity for prehistoric
and historic period archaeological resources those zones are:
69
-------
(1) High Sensitivity — This included the locations of known
prehistoric sites, historic cemeteries and suspected locations of
unmarked cemeteries or burial grounds. It also includes
undisturbed areas in environmental settings that would have been
used by prehistoric or historic populations. These are generally
areas suitable for settlement or in close proximity to
environmental zones with high natural resource potential. These
conditions would ha’ je led to prehistoric or historic use resulting
in the deposition/discard of varying densities of cultural
material.
(2) Moderate to Low Sensitivity — In some sections of Deer
and Long Island this includes areas that are relatively undisturbed
but have locational attributes that are not completely favorable
for intensive land use. For example, areas with excessively rocky
or steeply sloped surfaces tend to limit the kinds of activities
people might have carried out there in the past. Other areas of
poor to moderate sensitivity are wetlands or places with poorly
drained soils. Some of the activities carried out there (farming,
collecting resources) may not have resulted in the deposition of
cultural materials or construction of features that could be
readily identified as archaeological sites. Other areas of
moderate to low sensitivity have somewhat favorable locational
attributes but show some evidence of previous alteration or
modifications. Sites can occur in these less sensitive settings
70
-------
but they are usually difficult to locate and identify or have lost
some integrity through earlier disturbance.
(3) Previously Disturbed , Not Sensitive — In these areas,
historic or recent alterations of the original ground surface have
been severe enough that any archaeological deposits would have been
substantially disturbed or destroyed. Within these areas there is
little or no likelihood of finding archaeological sites. Examples
are former building sites, access roads, borrow pits or places
where the soil has been stripped by heavy machinery.
Deer Island
The approximate locations and extent of these three strata or
zones on Deer Island is shown in Figures 13 and 14. Figure 13
illustrates the stratification of the Deer Island project area in
terms of archaeological sensitivity. The majority of the area has
been previously disturbed. During the walkover it was found that
the entire western slope of the drumlin had been graded, probably
during the 1967—1968 construction of the existing treatment plant.
In addition, borrow material has been excavated from a fairly large
pit on the western end of the drumlin crest. Loam topsoil possibly
stripped from the area of this borrow pit was found in several
large piles immediately west of the reservoir occupying the drumlin
crest. Much of the top of the drumlin has been altered by the
construction of the reservoir and a bunker/radar facility
associated with Fort Dawes. Other large bunkers, including one gun
emplacement have been constructed on the north and east facing
71
-------
-moderate to low
archaeological sensitivity
I\\N -previously
k \ disturbed
Figure 13. Stratification of Deer Island project area in zones of
archaeological sensitivity.
72
U I
-------
/ 7/ -. lir; :)(
f Ii a , 2
/ __
/
II ‘ ‘1
1
,
‘ ‘ / t
— /1’ /1’ L__ / j 11
/1 H__
1/
I
•___) \
K.
Figure 14. Location of subsurface testing within Deer Island project area.
73
-------
slopes (bay side) and around the base of the drumlin. Construction
of a high granite block seawall and a perimeter road below the
large gun emplacement/bunker on the east end of the drumlin totally
removed the original shore line within the project area. It was
originally expected prior to actual fieldwork that this might be
the most archaeologically sensitive portion of the project area due
to its locational attributes.
The area of low to moderate sensitivity included most of the
upper slope of the drumlin on the southern, eastern and
northeastern facing sides below the crest (reservoir area).
Subsurface testing was concentrated in this zone and consisted of a
series of eight judgementally placed test pit transects with a
combined length of over 1,000 meters. A total of 50 test pits
averaging .5 x .5 m in size were excavated at 20 m intervals along
these transects. These test pit transects were oriented to provide
the most even coverage of the less disturbed sections of the crest,
southwest and north/northeast slopes of the drumlin (see Figure
14). The soil profiles observed in the test pits along these
transects were generally similar, consisting of a dark grey—brown
stony loam (plowzone) topsoil over compact rocky, light yellow,
grey glacial till subsoils.
The only exception to this pattern were a few test pits at
the eastern end of transect ST—7. Near the reservoir deep deposits
of loam topsoil extending to 50 cm below surface were observed in
several test pits not far from the large loam piles mentioned
earlier.
74
-------
In general, the subsurface testing confirmed that a majority
of the project area has been disturbed heavily by several episodes
of construction activity. The earliest episode may have been
during the construction of the reservoir on the drumlin crest.
From cartographic evidence it appears that the reservoir was built
sometime in the first half of the twentieth century, between 1904
and the end of World War II since it first appears on a USGS
quadrangle map issued in 1946 (see Figures 11 and 12). The major
construction episode on the Deer Island drumlin was during World
War II when Fort Dawes was installed and most of the observed
disturbance can be attributed to it.
Test pits excavated in the central—eastern portion of the
drumlin showed that in most areas the topsoil has been removed or
densely compacted by machinery, making hand excavation extremely
difficult. For example, on transect ST—4 all of the test pits
located near a bunker/gun emplacement associated with Fort Dawes
showed compacted soils and the pits closest to the buildings had no
topsoil at all. All transects had some test pits in which the soil
had been disturbed.
No prehistoric cultural material of any kind was found during
the course of the subsurface testing. Scattered historic field
trash (i.e., glass, ceramic sherds) dating to the mid or late
nineteenth to early twentieth century was found in a number of
isolated test pits. This historic material was recovered from
plowzone contexts and is not associated with any specific site or
structure.
75
-------
Long Island
The final stratification of the parade ground section (Fort
Strong) of the Long Island project area is shown in Figure 15. As
the background research indicated, the construction of Fort Strong
altered the original topography over much of the northern end of
Long Island. The physical effects of intensive military
development were noted during a preliminary walkover of the parade
ground area carried out in early July, 1984. Concrete bunker/gun
emplacements, access roads and brick or concrete left from the
demolition of military structures occupied a large percentage of
the parade ground perimeter. The parade ground itself had been
carefully graded to a level surface suggesting that underlying soil
horizons are altered or show truncated profiles. Inspection of the
topographic maps (1” = 200’) used to guide the walkover survey
showed that the present surface of the parade ground only varied
about 1 1/2 ft (113.1 ft to 114.7 ft) in elevation. The initial
stratification of the parade ground indicated that it consisted
mostly of areas with low to moderate sensitivity and visible
evidence of previous disturbance.
The only area of high archaeological sensitivity in this
section of Long Island was the suspected location of an historic
cemetery just beyond the western boundary of the parade ground.
This small cemetery plot appeared on an 1889 map of property
purchased by the City of Boston (see Figure 8). Based on this map
the estimated location of the unmarked cemetery was a rectangular
parcel of land bounded by several asphalt roadways (see Figure 15).
76
-------
Figure 15. Stratification of
parade ground section, Fort Strong
on Long Island in zones of
archaeological sensitivity.
yreviously disturbe
areas
moderate to low
archaeological
sensiti4ity
—high
sensitivity, histOl
cemetery area
qi
-------
This parcel could not be inspected during the walkover survey since
it is enclosed by a chain link security fence. Subsurface testing
in the parade ground area verified and slightly refined the
original stratification scheme by determining that all of the
parade ground had been previously disturbed.
Eight randomly oriented test pit transects with a combined
length of 600 m were used to investigate the parade ground and some
adjacent areas. A total of 37 test pits averaging 50 x 50 cm in
size were excavated at 20 m intervals along these transects (see
Figure 16). Truncated and disturbed soil profiles were observed in
all of these test pits. No prehistoric cultural material was found
and historic materials consisted entirely of structural debris
(brick, concrete, burnt wood/charcoal, window glass). Several
transects crossed extensive deposits of brick, concrete and stone
rubble and filled—in foundations resulting from the demolition of
structures following World War II. The open parade ground area has
been altered by grading and apparently some filling with beach
sand/gravel. Small open areas around demolished buildings now
covered with brush had all been graded and disturbed.
On the southern end of Long Island, inspection of the
cemetery along the side of the main access road showed that the
presently unmarked burial ground north of the Civil War monument
was probably much larger than the area now being maintained. Small
square concrete blocks like those visible under thick grass in the
burial ground were found in bulldozed dirt piles beyond the present
eastern boundary. The depressed area (elev. 147.8 ft) containing
78
-------
- I
0
w.I
Figure 16. Location of subsurface testing within parade ground and adjacent
sections of Fort Strong on Long Island.
II
79
-------
this unmarked burial ground also has several overgrown asphalt!
gravel pathways. Several gravestones including a late eighteenth
century slate stone have been found under dense vegetation in the
overgrown area east of the plot now being maintained. Rows and
hummocks marked by a few holes (collapsed grave shafts ?) were also
very visible in an overgrown meadow area east of the large white
cross marking the northernmost cemetery plot. This cemetery also
appears to have originally covered a much larger area. One
informant (Lt. Kearney) indicated that it formerly extended almost
to the upper edge of the beach along this section of the southeast
shore of the island. This description conforms to the L-shaped
configuration for the cemetery shown on a 1946 topographic map (see
Figure 12).
Intensive subsurface testing completed during the UMass
archaeological field school yielded the majority of the data now
available for prehistoric activity on the southern half of Long
Island. The procedures used to locate the five prehistoric sites
that were identified and a summary of the cultural materials and
features found on those sites is presented in Appendix I of this
report.
A general stratification of the southern end of Long Island
into zones of known and expected archaeological sensitivity is
shown in Figure 17. This sensitivity map was based on the results
of the UMass field school on combination with background research
and surface inspection by PAL, Inc. staff.
80
-------
k
DOS TO/s 4
k
“ S f ‘1’ •f’ ’
* ,uI
_iioderate to low
archaeological sensitivity
_high archaeological sensitivity
including locations of known
prehistoric and historic sites.
k
Figure 17. Stratification of southern end of Long Island
in zones of archaeological sensitivity.
‘c
k
J Previously disturbed
areas
AL L\A
t AAA
-------
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIOMS
The Phase I, Step II survey of Deer and Long Islands
assembled and analyzed a diversified body of information from
various sources to provide an inventory and assessment of cultural
resources that should serve as a useful planning tool and document.
Although the survey did not identify any prehistoric sites on
the Deer Island drumlin or the northeastern end of Long Island, a
large amount of information on historic/recent period activities on
these islands was reviewed. This data should be of some value for
future research and cultural resource management in the Boston
Harbor district.
The most important result of the Phase I survey was the
identification of six prehistoric sites on the southern end of Long
Island by the UMass field school. As a group these sites are
probably the largest known cluster of prehistoric cultural
resources on the Boston Harbor islands.
The general conditions encountered in the military
installations (Fort Dawes, Fort Strong) on Deer and Long Islands
were quite similar in terms of previous disturbance. However,
there are major differences between the two project areas because
of the hospital complex and the large, relatively intact, open area
on the southern half of Long Island. The significant cultural
resources on Long Is land and the potential impacts to them posed by
the proposed wastewater treatment facilities require special
82
-------
consideration. For this reason, separate summaries of survey
results on Deer and Long Islands and recommendations for mitigating
project impacts are presented in this section of the report.
Deer Is1*riil
In general, the results of the PAL, Inc. Phase I survey
paralleled those of the previous intensive survey conducted on Deer
Island by the Institute for Conservation Archaeology (ICA), Harvard
University in 1981 (Randall 1981). Extensive disturbance was found
throughout the project area and there was a very low probability of
locating any archaeological Bites in good condition. It is
unlikely that any prehistoric sites still exist on the southern
half of Deer Island. Both the ICA and PAL, Inc. intensive surveys
were unable to identify any on the elevated drumlin or the lower
area occupied by Fort Dawes.
The various structures belonging to Fort Dawes are of some
historical interest as examples of twentieth century military
development in Boston Harbor but would not be considered eligible
to the National Register of Historic Places because they are less
than 50 years old and lack integrity. Given their poor condition
and the fact that much of the original machinery has been removed,
the same may be true of the brick pump station/screening
plant and wood frame carriage house/residence associated with
earlier sewage treatment facilities on Deer Island (Randall 1981).
The pump station was built in 1889 and the historical significance
of this structure is related to its role in the technological
83
-------
advancement of wastewater treatment for the metropolitan Boston
area. Further examination of the pump station/screening plant is
necessary to evaluate its present condition and integrity. These
structures were documented on an MHC area form prepared by PAL,
Inc. as part of the Phase I survey on Deer Island.
The data on historic period and recent land use patterns has
been useful f or reconstructing the chronological sequence of
development and its relationship to the expansion of Boston as an
urban core area. It could also be used to estimate when the
prehistoric resources that probably existed on Deer Island might
have been destroyed.
In summary, no potential significant prehistoric or historic
period cultural resources were identified on Deer Island during the
Phase I, Step II archaeological survey conducted by the PAL, Inc.
and no further investigation is recommended.
Island
The Phase I survey on Long Island was able to collect
documentary and archaeological information from almost the entire
island. The very different kinds of historic/recent land use to
which the northeastern and southern parts of the island had been
subjected was evident after completing the background research and
walkover inspection. Subsurface testing in both sections of the
island by PAL, Inc. and the UMass archaeological field school
verified these observations and led to the identification of six
prehistoric sites on the southern half of the island. Recent
84
-------
structural remains consisting of concrete bunkers, foundations and
brick demolition rubble marking the locations of buildings
associated with Fort Strong were the only cultural resources found
in the open, parade ground area east of Long Island Hospital.
Fort Strong covers the northeast end of Long Island and has a
history of active military use beginning in the Civil War, however,
no evidence of that first episode appears to have survived within
the project area. All the structures represented by foundations
and demolition rubble around the perimeter of the parade ground
were part of the World War II garrison. Earlier maps (1892, 1903)
show structures in the parade ground area of Fort Strong but they
do not appear to match the locations of foundations and rubble now
bordering the parade ground. The available evidence suggests that
earlier structures were removed during extensive reorganization of
this military facility prior to or during World War II. No
standing structures with the exception of concrete bunkers/gun
emplacements remain on the parade ground.
Like Fort Dawes, the structural remains on the parade ground
of Fort Strong are important as recent examples of the long history
of military land use in Boston Harbor. However, it is unlikely
that they would be eligible to the National Register of Historic
Places since they do not meet the minimum age requirement and lack
integrity. This area of Long Island would not be involved in any
construction of proposed wastewater treatment facilities and there
are no expected project impacts.
The estimated location of the small historic cemetery plot
85
-------
east of the hospital complex as indicated in Figure 15 is also
outside the area that would be affected by any proposed
development. Like the other poorly documented, unmarked cemeteries
associated with the hospital complex, it represents a very
sensitive historic period cultural resource. Any additional
archival or historic background research on the Long Island
Hospital complex should include this cemetery so that its exact
location, period of active use and extent can be determined. This
small plot may contain some of the 2,000 marked and unmarked graves
believed to exist on Long Island.
On the northeastern half of Long Island, episodes of
intensive institutional and military construction and development
in the mid nineteenth to mid twentieth centuries probably destroyed
any prehistoric sites that might have been located there. In
general, the shift in land use on this island from basic resource
collection (firewood, etc.) and agricultural or pastoral activities
in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to large scale
institutional and military development in the mid—nineteenth
century was probably a critical point. This shift almost certainly
reflects important structural changes which were taking place
simultaneously in the urban core area represented by the city and
port of Boston. Support facilities such as almshouses, military
defenses and prisons were moved out of the core area itself and
into the peripheral zone of the harbor islands.
The significant cluster of six prehistoric sites on the
86
-------
southern end of Long Island represent archaeological resources that
survived the period of intensive institutional and military
development. An important factor in their survival seems to have
been the use of this part of Long Island for mostly agricultural
purposes. Agricultural land use is less destructive; prehistoric
sites may suffer some minor physical alteration (formation of
plowzone) from cultivation but can remain essentially intact.
Other cultural material (historic ceramics, glass, coal ash, etc.)
seems to have been added to these sites as field trash or from
minor episodes of dumping institutional refuse (Long Island
Hospital) but their integrity is still good. Shell midden deposits
and various other features (pits, lithic workshops) remain on these
sites and have important research potential.
We know from documentary research that from the late
nineteenth century to about the 1960s the Long Island Hospital
supported itself by intensive farming and cultivation of the open
areas on this island. These fields were probably located for the
most part to the south and west of the hospital complex in the area
surveyed by the UMass archaeology field school. From other
documentary and cartographic sources the construction date of the
cemetery (1930s) and main access road (1939—1946) on the southern
half of Long Island was established. These two small scale
developments also appear to have infringed on prehistoric site
areas. The most recent military installation, the Nike base on the
southern end of Long Island, may have destroyed a site due to its
location on an elevation overlooking a wetland. Subsurface testing
87
-------
around the perimeter of the base by the UMass field school revealed
evidence of disturbance but the area northwest of the Nike base is
considered to be archaeologicaliy sensitive. Since they have
survived a long sequence of historic land use the prehistoric sites
on Long Island and the categories of data they contain are
important resources for reconstructing the prehistory of the
greater Boston area.
The results of preliminary analysis of the prehistoric sites
found by the UMass field school, interpretations of their probable
f’rnction and some explanation of their significance is presented in
Appendix I. The following information is a general summary of
these findings.
The six prehistoric Sites investigated by the tJMass field
school are considered to be a major contribution to the data base
for the Boston metropolitan area. As the original Phase I, Step II
management summary mentioned, any newly discovered sites on Long
Island would be important for investigating research problems and
current models of prehistoric subsistence/settlement patterns at
both local and regional scales. The City Archaeologist (Boston,
Department of the Environment) has indicated that because of the
scarcity of intact prehistoric sites like these in greater Boston,
it is essential that these sites be preserved. At this time, there
is insufficient information available to be able to evaluate
adequately the significance of these resources, which include
unique classes of data. The best example is Hull—il, which is now
88
-------
the only known site with an Early Archaic component in the Boston
metropolitan area. A data recovery or mitigation program only
collects what is judged to be a statistically adequate sample of
any site. The lack of comparable sites in this environmental
setting makes the determination of an adequate sample extremely
difficult.
Investigation of Hull—li, the only previously known site,
revealed evidence of several older, Archaic components underlying
the Woodland shell midden deposit. An Early Archaic bifurcate base
projectile point (Ca. 8,500 years old) was recovered from this site
and is a very significant discovery. This is the first evidence of
Early Archaic occupation found in the Boston Harbor district and
Hull—li may contain important data needed to reconstruct
settlement/subsistence patterns for this time period. Steatite
(soapstone) vessel fragments of probable Terminal Archaic (Ca.
3,200 to 2,500 B.P.) affiliation and sherds of typical Early,
Middle and Late Woodland ceramic wares were also found. In
addition to midden deposits resulting from intensive processing of
shellfish (softshell clam), this site also contained evidence
suggesting that large, glacial erratic boulders of felsite were
quarried for raw material. Very high densities (roughly 400 pieces
per square meter) of felsite chipping debris and boulders with
large flake scars were found during the UMass field school
investigation.
The five smaller prehistoric sites generally consisted of low
density clusters of chipping debris and burnt rock, although one
89
-------
site yielded a midsection fragment of a bifacial tool blade that
may be of Late Archaic affiliation (Susquehanna tradition, ca.
3,800 to 3,000 B.P.). Some small hearth features were also found
that contain charcoal suitable for radiocarbon dating. One of
these small sites near the southern end of the island has a
northerly aspect and is apparently the first site to be identified
on the north side of a Boston Harbor island. Ceramic vessel sherds
from this site indicate it was occupied during the Middle and Late
Woodland periods, Ca. 1,500 to 500 B.P.
The HullR site, a Late Woodland period camp was found in n
unusual location far from any freshwater source, but on light,
sandy soil that might have been well suited to horticulture. Small
Late Woodland agricultural sites were predicted as part of a model
of Woodland period land use/settlement patterns on the harbor
islands and this site could be used to test that model (Luedtke
1980 and personal communication, July 1984). In general, the five
small sites appear to be camps occupied for specific activities
(resource collection/processing, farming) and are important
additions to the data base for the metropolitan Boston area.
Light scatters of prehistoric chipping debris found along the
shovel test pit transects are an indication that prehistoric
hunter/gatherer groups were using the whole island rather than
restricting activity to only specific site areas.
From the available data and results of preliminary analysis
we are recommending that all the prehistoric sites on Long Island
90
-------
be considered together as elements of a multi—resource National
Register District such as the Boston Harbor District now being
assembled by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. A more
detailed survey and examination of these sites at the Phase II
level of investigation should be conducted to determine the extent
and evaluate the significance of these sites. Their research value
is greatly enhanced because they can be viewed together as integral
components of prehistoric settlement/land use systems rather than
as single sites.
Like the prehistoric cultural resource, the Long Island
Hospital can be most effectively evaluated as a complex of
interrelated structures and sites. This complex is an excellent
example of a fringe or peripheral zone institution providing
support for an adjacent urban core and ufitsN well with the theme
of the proposed Boston Harbor National Register district. Its
significance at the local level lies primarily in the major
position this institution has held in serving the city of Boston
and it would be an integral part of any historic district. At the
state—wide, regional level the Long Island Hospital complex is
representative of a pattern of relatively economically self—
sufficient institutions that took care of those persons in need of
state support (the insane, chronically ill, indigent—paupers,
prisoners).
The architecture of the hospital complex reflects its history
of institutional use and the functional changes that took place
there during the last century. For example, the core of the
91
-------
hospital complex is a large building built as a dormitory that now
contains administrative offices. Other buildings have designs that
reflect specific functions and contain wards, medical treatment
areas or maintenance/physical plant facilities such as the laundry
and heating system. The entire plan and appearance of the hospital
complex reflects constant construction and/or alteration of
buildings beginning in 1904 and continuing steadily through the
l920s and 1930s until the early 1970s.
Preservation of this complex should be considered as a future
management option. The hospital still serves as a treatment center
for chronically ill and alcoholic persons for the city of Boston.
The entire complex may be National Register eligible, and
this would include associated cemetery areas on the southern half
of the island. The open, southern end of Long Island represents
the original physical setting for these historic resources and any
development would be an alteration of their context.
These cemeteries were in active use until fairly recently
(1940s) and are an integral component of the complex. Cemeteries
like these are inherently sensitive, especially more recent plots
because of the legal procedures involved in reinterment. In
addition, human burials are protected by a recently enacted state
law (Chapter 659 of the Acts of the 1983 Legislature). This
protection is extended to unmarked burials such as those in the
large plot south of the hospital. Even if it were possible to move
these cemeteries, the expense in terms of project delay and actual
dollar cost of archaeological monitoring would be tremendous.
92
-------
To provide a base line of information for National Register
nomination processes the Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. has
completed an Area form (Massachusetts Historical Commission record)
for the Long Island Hospital. A large amount of additional data
exists and an in—depth study beyond the scope of this Phase I
inventory is needed to assess this data. To record the hospital
complex adequately, the expertise of an architectural historian and
archive quality photographic documentation is needed.
At present, three design options for wastewater treatment
facilities involving project areas of approximately 18, 82 and 96
acres are under consideration. The former Nike Missile Base
located on the southern end of Long Island has been identified as
the most likely site for a portion of a treatment facility which
would occupy roughly 18 acres. Archaeological survey work in the
areas surrounding the Nike base was conducted as part of the UMass
field school. Subsurface testing with shovel test pit transects
covered the entire perimeter of the base and sections of the open
area to the northeast. Although no prehistoric or historic
archaeological resources were identified by the field school survey
there is a strong possibility that sites may exist in areas not
covered by this survey (B. Luedtke, personal communication).
Even if the 18 acre size option were selected not all of the
proposed facility would fit within the area occupied by the Nike
base. An additional area of five or six acres west of the main
access road would probably be necessary to accommodate components
of the facility such as sedimentation tanks and provide space for
93
-------
storage of construction materials and machinery. Secondary impacts
during construction could involve as much as 25 acres and would
extend beyond the Nike base into areas which are considered to be
archaeologically sensitive. One favorable aspect of this option is
that it would not require any relocation of the existing access
road further east. Relocation would adversely affect a Civil War
monument/cemetery along the road and at least one prehistoric site
area on Bass Point.
The 18 acre option poses a less severe potential impact to
cultural resources than the two larger options but it would still
require some additional archaeological investigation. Due to its
smaller area it may be possible to develop a mitigation plan for
this size option. At a minimum, this plan should include
additional archaeological survey work in the area northeast of the
Nike base to supplement the data collected by the UMass field
school. Time constraints on the field school limited the amount of
subsurface testing that could be carried Out there, but it is
considered to be archaeologically sensitive. Certain locational
attributes such as the small wetland just north of the Nike base
and a small ridge beyond it are favorable for prehistoric sites.
More intensive survey work is needed to establish the presence or
absence of archaeological sites in this area.
The larger proposed facilities requiring project areas of 82
and 96 acres would necessitate the removal of the Long Island
Hospital complex and would involve large areas known to contain
prehistoric sites and historic period cemeteries. To properly
94
-------
document and mitigate project impact on the entire hospital complex
prior to demolition would require large expenditures of both state
and federal funds. This would probably have a net effect of
prolonging project planning and design of the wastewater treatment
facilities for a minimum of several years.
Other major alterations to the present configuration of Long
Island such as relocation of the main access road to the hospital
could lead to serious adverse affects on prehistoric sites (Hull—
11, Hill site, etc.) which are considered to be potentially
eligible to the National and State Registers of Historic Places.
Equally as important is the large unmarked cemetery plot bordering
the east side of the access road. Selection of either large scale
option would require extensive Phase II site examination level
archaeological investigations to delineate accurately the extent
and content of both prehistoric site areas and unmarked cemetery
plots on the southern half of Long Island. The cemeteries present
a particularly difficult situation since the available data
suggests that other unmarked graves may be located beyond the
presently maintained plots bordering the road.
In general, the 82 and 96 acre size options may not represent
a situation in which avoidance of cultural resources is possible.
Given their large scale relative to the total area of Long Island
these proposed options could pose a serious disruption to the
physical context of various cultural resources and may prove to be
difficult to mitigate.
As we have discussed in several previous management summary!
95
-------
memoranda, several very important issues regarding the adverse
effects of this project on cultural resources must be considered
while the project is in the planning stages. Resolution of these
issues will require negotiation between the various federal (EPA,
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation) and state agencies (MUC,
MDC) involved and the City of Boston (Department of the
Environment). Since construction designs for the proposed
treatment facility have not been finalized, it is difficult to
discuss impacts to specific archaeological sites or historic
structures. However, it appears that any planned construction
regardless of size will constitute some form of impact to resources
on Long Island. Even at the smallest scale (18 acre facility) the
proposed sewage treatment facility may affect the overall integrity
and character of Long Island. Much of the significance of both the
prehistoric and historic resources lies in the fact that Long
Island is the largest island in Boston Harbor with relatively
intact, open areas. Groups of prehistoric and historic sites in
physical settings that retain most of their original integrity are
rare in the Boston metropolitan area. Given its restricted area
and distinct geographic boundaries it may be appropriate to discuss
context for cultural resources on Long Island in terms of the whole
island. In real terms, this would mean that any mitigation of
project impacts or data recovery program may need to include the
entire island. At a minimum, it should focus on the site areas and
zones of direct and secondary impact from proposed construction of
wastewater treatment facilities.
96
-------
REFERENcES CiT. u
Barber, Russell
1983 Archaeological Survey and Testing on Thompson Island,
Boston Harbor: The 1982 Field Season. Unpublished ms. on
file at Thompson Island Education Center.
Board of Prison Commissioners
1904 Public Document Number 41, 4th Annual Report of the Board
of Prison Commissioners of Massachusetts for the year ending
September 30, 1904. wright and Potter Printing Company,
Boston.
Boston Board of Health, City of
1885 14th Annual Report.
Boston City Document, No. 122
1892 Final Report of the Special Committee Appointed by the
Mayor to Inspect the Public Institutions of Boston.
Boston City Document, No. 144
1898 Report on the Boston Municipal Camp for Boys on Long
Island; Initial Season ending September 3, 1898.
Boston City Document, Numbers 15 and 29
1904 Volume 2, Annual Report of Pauper Institutions Trustees,
Document 29.
Boston City Document, No. 15
1928 Annual Report of Institutions Department, 1928.
Bower, Beth, John Cheney and Joan Gallagher
1984 Intensive Survey of St. Mary’s Housing for the Elderly
Project Area, Charlestown, Massachusetts . Submitted to the
Archdiocese of Boston, Office of Planning. Prepared by The
Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc., Providence and the
Museum of Afro-American History, Roxbury.
Braun, David Pe
1974 Explanatory Models for the Evolution of Coastal Adaptation
in Prehistoric Eastern New England. American Antiquity
39:582—596.
Brenninkmeyer, Benno M.
1976 Dynamics of Sedimentation and Coastal Geology from Boston
to Plymouth. In Geology of Southeastern New England, edited
by Barry Cameron, pp. 205—223. 68th Annual Meeting New
97
-------
England Intercollegiate Geological Conference. Science
Press, Princeton.
Cheney, John and Stephen Mrozowski
1983 Archaeological Investigations for the Town Hill
Condominium Project . The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.
Report. Submitted to Paramount Develpoment Association,
Framingham.
Connelly, Patrick J.
1932 Islands of Boston Harbor, 1630—1932 . Chapple Publishing
Company, Dorchester.
Committee on Public Buildings
1847 Report on the Removal of the Houses of Industry and Other
Public Institutions at South Boston to Deer Island . Boston
Committee on Public Buildings, J. H. Eastburn, Boston.
Cote, W. C.
1958 Observations and Conclusions Regarding the Archaeology of
the Cochato River Valley Area. Bulletin of the Massachusetts
Archaeological Society 19(2) :22—26.
Cox, Deborah C. and Peter F. Thorbahn
1982 Archaeological Investigations in Narragansett, Rhode
Island , the Campbell and Sprague I Sites . Department of
Anthropology, Brown University Report. Submitted to Lee,
Pare and Associates, Inc., Pawtucket, Rhode Island.
Cox, Deborah C., Peter Thorbahri and Alan Leveillee
1983 An Archaeological Assessment of the Pettaquamscutt River
Basin . The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc., Report #12-
1.. Submitted to Rhode Island Historical Preservation
Commission.
Cox, Deborah, Ann Davin and Alan Leveillee
1984 Final Report on the Archaeological Data Recovery Program
at the Jamestown Bridge Site ( RI-711) . The Public
Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. Report. Submitted to R. A.
Cataldo and Associates, Inc., Pawtucket.
Dincauze, Dena F.
1972 The Atlantic Phase: A Late Archaic Culture in
Massachusetts. Man in the Northeast 4:40—61.
1973 Prehistoric Occupation of the Charles River Estuary: A
Paleographic Study. Archaeological Society of Connecticut
Bulletin 38:25—39.
1974 An Introduction to Archaeology in the Greater Boston Area.
Archaeology of Eastern North America 2(l):39—67.
98
-------
Huntington, Frederick
1979 Archaeological Investigations at the W. K. Webb State
Park, Weymouth, Massachusetts. Institute for Conservation
Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University.
Johnson, Frederick (editor)
1942 The Boylston Street Fish Weir. Papers of the R. S.
Peabody Foundation for Archaeology 2. Andover, MA.
Kales, Emily and David
1976 All About the Boston Harbor Islands . Harman Publishing
Co.., Inc., Boston.
Kaplan, Lawrence
1975 Paleoethnobotany. In Final Report on the Archaeological
and Paleobotanical Resources of 12 Islands in Boston Harbor ,
pp. 112-127. Report submitted by Barbara Luedtke to
Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources.
Kaye, Clifford A.
1967 Erosion of a Sea Cliff, Boston Harbor, Massachusetts. In
Economic Geology in Massachusetts , edited by 0. C. Farquhar.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
1976a Outline of the Pleistocene Geology of the Boston Basin.
In Geology of Southeastern New England , edited by Barry
Cameron, pp. 46-63. 68th Annual Meeting New England
Intercollegiate Geological Conference. Science Press,
Princeton.
1976b The Surficial Geology of the Boston Basin. In Geology of
Southeastern New England , edited by Barry Cameron, pp. 158-
159. 68th Annual Meeting New England Intercollegiate
Geological Conference. Science Press, Princeton.
LaForge, L.
1932 Geology of the Boston Area, Massachusetts. USGS Bulletin
839, 105 p.
Luedtke, Barbara
1980 The Calf Island Site and the Late Prehistoric Period in
Boston Harbor. Man in the Northeast 20:25—76.
Massachusetts Historical Commission
1982 Historic and Archaeological Resources of the Boston Area .
The Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston.
1984 Historic and Archaeological Resources of the Connecticut
Valley . The Massachusetts Historical Comission, Boston.
99
-------
Massachusetts State Archives
1676-1763 Manuscript on file at the State House, Boston.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
1972 Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan. On File at
Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources.
Mikal, Alan
1973 Exploring Boston Harbor . Christopher Publishing House,
North Quincy.
Pendery, Steven; Claire Dempsey; Edward Gordon; John Cheney; and
Russell Barber
1982 Phase II Archaeological Site Examination of the Project
Area for the Central Artery, North Area, Charlestown,
Massachusetts . Institute for Conservation Archaeology,
Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Randall, Debra
1981 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed MDC Sludge
Management Plant, Deer Island, Massachusetts . The Institute
for Conservation Archaeology, Harvard University. Submitted
to MDC and Havens and Emersn, Inc., Boston.
Ritchie, Duncan and Geoffrey Moran
1976 Phase I Archaeological Investigations of Fort
Independence, South Boston, Massachusetts . Department of
Anthropology, Brown University Report. Submitted to
Metropolitan District Commission, Boston.
Rosenbiuth and Associates
1948 Finance Commission of the City of Boston, Administrative
Survey of the Government of the City of Boston. Report No.
36, parts 1 and 2.
Snow, Edgar R.
1971 The Islands of Boston Harbor, 1630—1971 . Dodd, Mead and
Company, New York.
Snow, Leslie C.
1984 Archaeological Survey and Testing on Thompson Island,
Boston Harbor: The 1983 Field Season. Unpublished report on
file at Thompson Island Education Center, Boston.
Stokinger, William
1978 A Final Report of Archaeological Investigations of Fort
Independence: 1976-1997 . Department of Anthropology, Brown
University Report. Submitted to Metropolitan District
Commission.
100
-------
Sweetser, M. F.
1882 King’s Handbook of Boston Harbor . Moses King, Cambridge.
Tennta, Lisa
1983 Long Island Research Project. Unpublished ms. on file at
University of Massachusetts, Boston, Department of
Anthropology.
101
-------
12.11 Legal and Institutional
Constraints on
Long Island and
Deer Island
-------
WARNER & STAcKP0LE
RESEARCH MEMORANDA
LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS
TO THE SELECTION OF
THE LONG ISLAND ALTERNATIVE
August 28, 1984
and
THE DEER ISLAND ALTERNATIVE
November 27, 1984
PREPARED FOR
C. E. MAGUIRE
Prepared by
Warner & Stackpole
28 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 725—1400
Under EPA Contract #68—04—1010
-------
Table of Contents
PAGE
Long Is’and
I. INTRODUCTION . 1
II. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 2
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 3
IV. SUMMARY 4
V. DISCUSSION 6
A. MDC Authority 6
1. Statutory Authority 6
2. Prior Public Use Doctrine 7
3. Article 97 of Massachusetts Constitu-
tion 10
4. Department of Environmental Management
Consent 11
5. Restriction on Acquisition of Burial
Places 12
6. Massachusetts Division of Capital
Planning and Operations Jurisdic—
tion 14
7. Applicability of Federal Executive
Orders 16
B. Proposed Metropolitan Water Resource
Authority 18
C. Legal and Administrative Impediments to the
Use of Long Island 21
1. Massachusetts Historic Commission 21
(a) Summary of M.G.L. c.9, §26-27D ... 22
(b) Effect on State Registry
Property 23
(c) Adverse Effect and Consultation .. 25
(d) Impediments Presented by the Act . 27
(e) Unmarked Skeletal Remains: M.G.L.
c.9, §27C 28
2. National Historic Preservation Act .... 29
(a) Introduction 29
(b) Summary of NHPA 30
—1—
-------
PAGE
(c) Effect on Listed or Eligible
Property 32
(d) Adverse Effect Consultation 32
(e) Impediments Posed by NHPA 34
3. Coastal Zone Management 35
(a) Introduction 35
(b) State Consistency Issues 37
(c) Federal Consistency Issues 42
4. Executive Orders on Wetlands and
Floodplains 42
Deer Isfand
VI. INTRODUCTION 43
VII. SUMMARY 44
VIII. PUBLIC PROTECTION OF DEER ISLAND PROPERTIES .... 45
A. History of Deer Island 45
B. Applicability of Article 97 47
C. Applicability of the Prior Public Use
Doctrine 47
1. Deer Island Correctional Facility .... 48
2. Land Outside the Correctional
Facility 50
D. Protection Afforded by the Doctrine 53
E. Applicability of M.G.L. c .114 §17E 54
F. Comparison to Long Island Issues 56
IX. PRISONER RIGHTS IMPACT 59
X. CONCLUSION 61
—ii—
-------
INTRODUCTION
We have been requested to conduct a preliminary analysis of
the legal and institutional constraints affecting the acquisition
and use of Long Island, in Boston Harbor, for a sewage treatment
facility serving all or part of the Metropolitan Boston area.
The request is made in the context of a larger analysis being
conducted as part of the alternatives analysis prepared for inclu-
Sian lfl the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required by the
National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.s.c. 4321 et seq . (NEPA).
The use of Long Island is being considered in conjunction with
several alternatives for sewage disposal in Boston Harbor, some
of which involve the further use of Deer Island and Nut Island.
There are issues common to the use of any harbor island,
such as the generally applicable standards established to issue
state and federal permits. These needed approvals include wetlands
protection, waterways, and ocean disposal permits from state
agencies, and dredge and fill, construction in navigable waters,
and effluent discharge permits from the United States Envirorunental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps). They will be discussed in this memorandum
only to the extent that significantly different issues or concerns
can be anticipated with respect to Long Island which would not be
raised with Deer Island or Nut Island.
In general, our objective has been to identify both legal
and administrative issues which may affect the use of Long Island
for a sewage treatment facility, recognizing that many of these
issues may be contested in litigation. In most cases, we have
-------
not attempted to predict the outcome of such controversies, but
have merely offered an estimate of the magnitude of the problem
presented.
Our analysis relies upon the accuracy of certain facts with
respect to environmental conditions, legal ownership, and positions
taken by various public bodies. Because of time and cost limita-
tions involved in this effort, we have not conducted an independent
verification of many of these matters. We have attempted to
identify those assumptions in this memorandum, and can discuss
what might be done to clarify these points.
Every effort has been made to avoid bias in favor of or
against selection of the Long Island alternative. As will become
apparent below, the ultimate selection will depend very heavily
on political considerations and, possibly, actions taken or not
taken by the Massachusetts legislature. Because of this, many of
the issues discussed herein may be seen as merely creating the
landscape upon which the debate will take place.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
A. Does the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) presently
have the authority to acquire, by eminent domain, all or part of
Long Island to construct and operate a sewage treatment facility?
Would the proposed Metropolitan Water Resources Authority have
such power?
B. Assuming the MDC has the requisite statutory authority,
what legal and institutional impediments exist to construction of
such a facility?
-2-
-------
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In responding to the questions presented we have found it
important to rely upon certain facts regarding Long Island.
Foremost among these are the ownership of Long Island and the
current use and condition of the property. At present, all of
Long Island is held in fee by the City of Boston, under the care,
custody and control of the City of Boston Department of Public
Health and Hospitals (Health and Hospitals). In the event Health
and Hospitals no longer uses the island for health and hospital
purposes, care and control will revert to the City of Boston
Public Facilities Commission (Public Facilities). Public Facil-
ities could subsequently transfer care, custody and control to
another city agency, lease the property to any private or public
entity, or begin the process of selling the property.
Historically, Long Island has been used for residential and
agricultural purposes, and several public institutional uses,
including an alms house (poor house), a defense installation,
recreation, and public health and hospital uses (its current
use). It contains many historic and archaeologic artifacts and
up to 2000 unmarked graves, which may be scattered across the
island. A formal cemetery has been identified on one part of the
island, which is known to contain the remains of civil war soldiers.
The island consists of an upland area, known as the “head,”
and a lower expanse on which the former military installation and
hospital are located. The island contains an area considered to
be a barrier beach, and areas which are wetlands as defined by
-3—
-------
the Wetlands Protection Act. It is probable that some portions
o the island provide a habitat for wildlife, and that some
fisheries and shelifisheries resources can be found off the
island’s shore.
Some sources have reported that the hospital building complex
is being considered for nomination to the State and National
Register of Historic Places. We have, however, been unable to
verify these reports.
The most recent draft of the Boston Harbor Island State Park
Master Plan Update, prepared by the Department of Environmental
Management (DEM), proposes to develop all of Long Island except
for the hospital area as part of the Boston Harbor Islands State
Park. Katherine Abbott of DEM has indicated that only preliminary
discussions between the DEM and the City of Boston have taken
place regarding a long-term lease of parts of Long Island for
this purpose.
SUMMARY
The availability and future uses of Long Island are affected
by a number of important legal and administrative requirements
discussed in this memorandum. Because the City of Boston Depart-
ment of Public Health and Hospitals has been given care, custody
and control of Long Island, any subsequent public use of the
Island may be subject to the applicability of the Prior Public
Use Doctrine, which requires a majority of the legislature to
approve the transfer of use. Similarly, the legislature is
-4-
-------
required to approve the acquisition of burial grounds in Massachu-
setts; there may be areas of Long Island which might be defined
as a burial ground. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Management has been given control over the use and disposition of
the Boston Harbor Islands by a special act of the legislature,
thus requiring the Metropolitan District Commission to obtain
approval of its proposed acquisition of Long Island from that
state agency. Under the provisions of a relatively recent state
law, the Executive Office of Administration and Finance must
approve the acquisition of land by state agencies, including
MDC takings for waste water treatment purposes. The proposed
Metropolitan Water Resources Authority, intended to assume the
water and sewer responsibilities of the Metropolitan District
Commission, would be subject to these same legal requirements,
with the possible exception of Administration and Finance
approval.
Both the Massachusetts Historic Commission Act and the
National Historic Preservation Act require the applicable state
and federal agencies to consider alternatives which would avoid
or mitigate adverse effects of the proposal on properties listed
or nominated for listing on the state or national Register of
Historic Places. This process does not mandate adoption of any
particular alternative, but does impose consultation processes,
and at the federal level, may involve a determination by the U.S.
Secretary of Interior. The state and federal Coastal Zone Manage-
ment consistency determinations similarly involve consultative
processes designed to ensure that state and federal actions are
—5-
-------
consistent with the policies of the state Coastal Zone Management
Program. Conflicts between state agencies on this consistency
issue are resolved by the state Secretary of Environmental Affairs;
conflicts between state and federal agencies may be resolved by
the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. Finally, the federal Executive
Orders on Wetlands and Floodplains are applicable to the proposed
project if federally funded, and require that EPA avoid direct
and indirect support of floodplains and wetlands development
wherever there is a practicable alternative.
To the extent that proposed construction activities on Long
Island could be restricted to areas away from sensitive environ-
mental resources, historic and archaeologic resources and existing
hospital activities, impacts on these resources can be minimized,
perhaps avoiding some regulatory problems. Some of the issues
discussed herein may also apply to a lesser extent to the Deer
Island alternative.
DISCUSSION
A. MDC Authority to take Long Island by Eminent Domain for
Construction and p ration of a Sewage Treatment Facility
1. Statutory authority
The MDC is statutorily empowered to take land by eminent
domain. M.CL. c.92 §77 grants the MDC the power to ‘take by
eminent domain . . . any lands . . . necessary for carrying out
the provisions of this chapter relative to the construction,
maintenance and operation of systems of sewage disposal . . . -‘,
In addition, sections 78 through 80 of this chapter grant the MDC
-6-
-------
eminent domain power for the purpose of establishing and maintain-
ing reservations, metropolitan water systems, and boulevards.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has character-
ized the breadth of the MDC ’S eminent domain powers under these
statutes as “extensive.” Commonwealth v. Massachusetts Turnpike
Authority , 346 Mass. 250, 255 (1963). There have been no re-
ported successful challenges to land takings by the MDC on grounds
that the MDC has attempted to take land outside the bounds of its
authority.
2. Prior Public Use Doctrine
The well-accepted Massachusetts common law doctrine of Prior
Public Use states that public lands devoted to one public use
cannot be diverted to another inconsistent public use without
plain and explicit legislation authorizing the diversion. Robbins
v. Dep’t of Public Works , 335 Mass 326, 330 (1969); see also,
Higginson v. Treasurer of Sch. House Comm’rs of Boston , 212 Mass.
583 (1912). An important threshold question, then, is whether
the circumstances surrounding the ownership and use of Long
Island support the contention that the island is protected by
this Doctrine. If it is so protected, the Massachusetts legisla-
ture must approve the transfer of use from hospital use to sewage
treatment facility use. Because of this Doctrine’s importance,
we will examine its application in some detail.
Two questions arise in determining whether the Prior Public
Use Doctrine would bar the MDC from taking Long Island for the
construction of a sewage treatment plant without explicit legis—
—7—
-------
lative authorization: (a) has Long Island been devoted to a
specific public use, and. (b) would the construction of a sewage
treatment facility be an inconsistent public use?
(a) Has Long Island been devoted to a specific public
use ?
Long Island presently contains a state hospital, an abandoned
federal defense base and undeveloped land. It could be argued
that the headland areas, and possibly the defense base area, are
not used, and thus not “devoted” to a public use. If these areas
were not devoted to a particular public use, one might argue that
the geographic scope of the Doctrine’s application was limited
only to the hospital area.
One test, however, for discerning whether a prior public use
exists is whether the land has been appropriated to a particular
public use by some governmental body. Newburyport Redevelopment
Authority v. Commonwealth , 9 Mass. App. Ct. 206, 239 (1980). In
the case of Long Island, however, the legislature has reportedly
placed the island, in its entirety, under the care, custody and
control of the City of Boston Department of Public Health and
Hospitals. It could alternatively be argued, therefore, that a
public use of the entire island presently exists, regardless of
any lack of actual use of portions of the island.
(b) Will the construction and operation of a sewage
treatment facility on Long Island be “inconsistent” with the
prior public use ?
The Prior Public Use Doctrine does not address all changes
in use, but only those that create a new use “inconsistent” with
-8-
-------
the original use. Case law indicates that uses are not necessar-
ily inconsistent simpiy because the later taking may impair the
original use. Op. Att’y Gen. May 25, 1967, 223, citing Easthamp-
ton v. County Commissioners of Hampshire , 154 Mass. 424 (1891).
The courts have set a high threshold for determining that an
inconsistency exists. For example, in Easthampton , the court
held that a strip of land could be taken from a schoolhouse 1 t
for a needed town way without legislative approval, despite the
fact that taking the strip would “injure the lot considerably for
school purposes, but [ wouldj not prevent its use . . . .“ East—
hampton , 154 Mass. at 424.
In another case, Muir v. City of Leominster , 2 Mass. App.
514, 317 N.E.2d 212 (1974), the court’s analysis of this issue
focused on whether the land in question was clearly devoted to a
public use at the time of the proposed transfer. The Court
reasoned that because the property was not presently in public
use, and could be devoted to any number of public uses, no further
legislative action was required.
In the case of Long Island, proposed configurations of the
primary sewage treatment facility would not physically and directly
involve the actual hospital buildings area. Configurations of
the secondary treatment facilities would involve relocation of
the hospital. If one considered the geographic scope of Health
and Hospital’s use to include only the buildings and associated
grounds, or assumed that the construction and operation of a
sewage treatment facility on adjacent land would not prevent the
-9-
-------
use of the hospital buildings, then it could be argued that the
Prior Public Use Doctrine would not apply in the case of primary
facilities, either because the particular area on which the
sewage facility would be constructed was not devoted to a prior
public use, or because the new use would not be inconsistent with
the hospital use.
(c) Protection afforded by the Doctrine
If the protection of the Prior Public Use Doctrine is trig-
gered, the Doctrine requires legislative approval by a majority
vote of the legislature. Op. Att’y Gen. April 12, 1976, 159.
The legislation authorizing the diversion in use must explicitly
identify the land to be taken, the existing public use and the
new use. Brookline v. Metropolitan District Commission , 357
Mass. 435, 440-41 (1970).
3. Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution
Article 97 of the Massachusetts Consititution (amending
Article 49 of the Constitution) creates a codified variation of
the Prior Public Use Doctrine applicable to certain resources.
In brief, Article 97 provides that public land taken or acquired
for conservation, scenic, historic or recreation purposes may not
be used for other purposes or otherwise disposed of without a
two-thirds vote of the legislature. Op. Att’y Gen. April 12,
1976, 157. The scope of applicability of Article 97 is therefore
narrower than that of the Prior Public Use Doctrine, since Arti-
cle 97 applies only to those public uses specifically enumerated
in the article. Furthermore, regardless of subsequent use, the
land in question must specifically have been taken or acquired
-10-
-------
for one of the enumerated purposes, and not merely devoted to
such use. Newburyport Redevelopment Authority v. Commonwealth , 9
Mass. App. Ct. 206 (1980) (land used by public to provide access
to National Historic District was not taken or acquired for that
purpose and therefore not subject to Article 97).
The potential applicability of Article 97 to Long Island
turns on whether Long Island was ever taken or acquired for any
of the public purposes enumerated in Article 97. Although it is
known that the City of Boston operated a summer camp on Long
Island in 1898, the records do not indicate that any land was
taken or acquired for that purpose. No research has revealed
that any portions of Long Island have been acquired in a manner
which would invoke the provisions of Article 97.
The SJC has opined that the operation of Article 97 is
retroactive, and therefore applies tO property acquired prior to
the effective date of the 1972 constitutional amendment. Opinion
of the Justices, 1981 Mass. Adv. Sh. 1361, 1384. However, it is
clear that the passage of Article 97 has had no effect on the
separate requirements and applicability of the Prior Public Use
Doctrine. The Attorney General has concluded that, where the
Prior Public Use Doctrine applies but Article 97 does not, the
common law requires simple majority approval. Op. Att’y Gen.
April 12, 1976, 159. Article 97 was designed to supplement, not
supplant, the common law doctrine of prior public use. Op. Att’y
Gen. June 6, 1973, 139, 146.
—11—
-------
4. Consent required by the Department of Environmental
Management
The MDC’s authority to acquire Long Island is affected also
by chapter 742 of the 1970 Acts and Resolves of the Massachusetts
legislature. Section 8 of that Act provides:
[ I]n, under or bordering Boston Harbor there shall be
no acquisition of land by any . . . public agency or
instrumentality other than the [ Department of Environ-
mental Management (DEM)] without the approval of the
[ DEM], and no public land on or bordering said area may
be . . . used as a . . . refuse disposal area, and no
sand, gravel or soil may be removed therefrom or depos-
ited thereon, and no structure may be built thereon,
without the approval of the [ DEM].
Because Long Island lies within Boston Harbor, the DEM’s approval
is required to allow both the MDC’s “acquisition” of the land,
which term appears broad enough to encompass an eminent domain
taking by the MDC, and the construction of the facility.
Any decision by DEM with respect to the use and disposition
of Long Island is likely to be affected by the DEM’s plans to add
areas of the island to the Harbor Islands State Park, and by
comments made by other state and local agencies in the Coastal
Zone Management consistency review process. As discussed later
in this memorandum, under the state Coastal Zone Management regu-
lations, the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs is generally empowered to resolve these conflicts between
state agencies. However, it is possible that the provisions of
chapter 742 would diminish the Secretary’s authority under those
regulatory provisions.
—12-
-------
5. Restriction on the Acquisition of Burial Places
As discussed earlier, Long Island may contain up to 2,000
unmarked graves, in addition to a known civil war cemetery.
M.G.L. c.114 §17 provides as follows:
A town shall not alienate or appropriate to any
other use than that of a burial ground, any tract of
land which has been for more than one hundred years
used as a burial place; and no portion of such burial
ground shall be taken for public use without special
authority from the general court . “Burial place ’ t , as
referred to in this section, shall include unmarked
burial grounds known or suspected to contain the remains
of one or more American Indian. (emphasis added)
Thus, legislative approval would be required for the MDC 1 s
taking of any portion of Long Island which constitutes a “burial
ground.” Because the exact locations of the graves are not
known, but are suspected to be clustered in several different
locations on the island, it is conceivable that much land on the
island is subject to the legislative approval requirement. It is
also possible that further examination and research may reveal
only a few identifiable “burial places” on Long Island, as that
term is narrowly defined. The M.G.L. c.114 §17 requirement is
considered to be a legislative confirmation of the Prior Public
Use Doctrine, requiring a majority vote of approval by the legis-
lature. Op Att’y Gen., June 6, 1973, p. 139. However, should
the MDC determine that it can avoid use of any “burial ground,”
or if it determines that the proposed use is not inconsistent
with use as a burial ground, the MDC might proceed without legis-
lative approval.
—13—
-------
One issue which may arise is whether areas of unmarked,
random burials of persons constitutes “burial grounds” within the
above statute. In interpreting the definition of “burial ground”
under the statute, the case of Town of Sudbury v. Dept. of Public
Utilities , 351 Mass. 214 (l 66), should be noted. In Sudbury the
Department of Public Utilities (DPU) concluded after a hearing
that the remains of one human being (in this case, an American
Indian) and the possibility of others scattered throughout the
area were not, in its opinion, a basis for designating the land
as a burial ground within the statute. Id. at 226. The Sudbury
court affirmed the DPU’s finding on the basis that the statute,
at the time consisting of only the first sentence of the present
version, “plainly refers to a tract of land definable and readily
identifiable as a burying ground.” Thus, the existence of randomly
buried American Indians was held to fall outside the coverage of
the statute.
The Sudbury case apparently was the impetus for the 1983
amendment to the statute, which added the definition of “burial
place.” Read literally, that definition states only that areas
containing the remains of one or more American Indians shall fall
within the ambit of the statute. Presumably, however, most or
all of the persons thought to be buried on Long Island are not
American Indians. The amended statute therefore serves only to
alter the narrow Sudbury holding, since neither the amended
statute nor case law defines whether the remains of one or more
randomly buried non-American Indians, as may exist on Long Island,
-------
constitute a burial ground under the statute. Consequently, it
is not clear whether the statute as amended would create any
stronger presumption that any random burial sites on Long Island
are entitled to the protection afforded by the law.
6. Massachusetts Division of Capital Planning and Opera-
tions Jurisdiction
The deputy commissioner of the Massachusetts State Division
of Capital Planning and Operations (DCPO) has the discretionary
power to approve or disapprove acquisition of real property by
state agencies such as the MDC. This power is given to the deputy
commissioner by chapter 579 of the Acts of 1980, which created the
Division of Capital Planning and Operations within the Massachusetts
Executive Office of Administration and Finance. The authority of
the DCPO is described in M.G.L. c.7, § 39A-43G.
The deputy commissioner performs both a coordination function
and an acquisition function. He is responsible for the “integrated
and coordinated planning and budgeting of capital facilities on
an annual and long-term basis.” M.G.L. c.7, §39B(a). A water
resource improvement by the MDC, such as a sewage treatment
facility, is specifically included within the definition of a
“capital facility.” Id. at §39A(f).
The deputy commissioner is also responsible for the “acqui-
sition, allocation and disposition of real property.” Id. at
§398(b). To carry out this responsibility, the deputy commis-
sioner of the DCPO has the authority to acquire and control real
property on behalf of state agencies. Id. at §40E. This power
is given by section forty E (40E) notwithstanding previous
—15—
-------
similar delegations to the agencies themselves, including the
MDC.
The deputy commissioner may re—delegate this power to state
agencies but for this delegation to be effective, the deputy
commissioner must give written approval before the transaction is
finalized. M.G.L. c.7, §40E.
By withholding approval, and thus refusing to delegate, the
deputy commissioner of the DCPO could block the acquisition of
property that the MDC wishes to use for a wastewater treatment
facility. The Massachusetts legislature could remove this impedi-
ment by adopting legislation authorizing the MDC to acquire the
necessary real property notwithstanding the provisions of chapter
seven.
Purchase or acquisition by eminent domain by the new Metro-
politan Water Resources Authority (the “Authority”) of land for a
sewage treatment facility appears not to require approval by the
deputy commissioner of the DCPO. The Metropolitan Water Resources
Authority Act, House Bill 5915, would apply only four relevant
sections of chapter seven to the Authority: sections thirty-nine C
(39C) (information filing requirements); forty A (40A) (record
keeping and reporting); forty J (40J) (disclosure statements);
and forty K (40K) (inventory of public property and central
depository for deeds and records of public property). These
serve only to provide information to DCPO in its role of coordi-
nator of state capital projects, and specifically do not re-
linquish power to DCPO.
-16-
-------
7. Applicability of Federal Executive Orders to the Land
Acqui sition
We have reviewed the possiblity that an acquisition of Long
Island by the MDC might be subject to the federal Executive
Orders on Floodplains (E.O. 11988) and Wetlands (E.O. 11990) on
the theory that the acquisition might constitute a federal action.
The Executive Orders, and regulations of EPA promulgated there-
under (at 40 C.F.R. 6.302) provide that the Orders shall apply to
federal financial assistance as well as direct federal activities.
The MDC’s purchase of land to be used for the sewage treatment
facility, however, appears to be entirely independent of the
federal government, since the costs of land acquisition will not
be reimbursed by EPA.
Although it may be argued that the state’s purchase is an
“integral part” of major federal action, see, e.g., Citizens for
Balanced Environment and Transportation, Inc . v. Volpe , 376
F. Supp. 806, 813 (D. Conn.), aff’d per curiam , 503 F.2d 601 (2d
Cir. 1974), or that the state is a “partner” of the federal
government, see , Monarch Chemical Works, Inc . v. Exxon , 452
F. Supp. 403, 501 (D. Neb. 1978), and that, therefore, the state
may be enjoined from exercising its power to acquire land, the
instances in which injunctions have been appropriate all involved
more federal action than is present here. See, e.g., Monarch
Chemical , 452 F. Supp. at 501-02 (city to use federal funds to
purchase land and to be reimbursed by state); Greenspon v. Federal
Highway Administration , 488 F. Supp. 1374, 1381-82 (D. Md. 1980)
(relocation expenses of railroad, including acquisition of land
—17—
-------
by City of Baltimore, to be reimbursed by federal government).
No eminent domain cases have been located in which the taking was
considered to be a “federal action” without substantial federal
funds being involved in the actual purchase of the land. There
are a great many cases in which private parties have unsuccess-
fully attempted to enjoin projects after the state agency acquired
the land. See, e.g., Citizens for Balanced Environment and Trans-
portation, Inc . v. Volpe , 376 F. Supp. 806; see also, Citizens
for Responsible Area Growth v. Adams , 680 F.2d 835 (1st Cir.
1983) (airport expansion not “federal” if no federal funds in-
volved); Friends of the Earth, Inc . v. Coleman , 518 F.2d 343 (9th
Cir. 1975) (individual parts of airport expansion may be sever-
able). Based on existing case law, it appears that all obligations
under the Executive Orders will arise only after the state acquires
the land. A discussion of the impact of these Orders is included
later in this Memorandum.
B. Proposed Metropolitan Water Resources Authority Statutory
Power to acquire all or parts of Long Island by eminent domain
As part of our analysis regarding the feasibility of a state
agency acquiring all or part of Long Island to construct a sewage
treatment facility, we have examined the most current proposed
bill to create the Metropolitan Water Resources Authority (the
“Authority”), House Bill 5915 (the “Bill”) submitted to the
legislature April 19, 1984 by Governor Michael Dukakis. Several
sections of the Bill contain provisions relevant to the Authority’s
power to acquire real estate for its statutory functions, includ-
- 18-
-------
ing the provision of sewage treatment and disposal services.
These sections are discussed below.
Section 6 of the Bill contains the general powers provision
for the Authority. Section 6 (j) provides that the Authority may
“acquire and take and hold title in its own name by purchase of
any [ real] property and to exercise the power of eminent domain”
in the same manner as is presently afforded to the MDC for similar
purposes. No other statutory limitations are proposed in the
Bill with respect to exempt properties or areas which would
preclude the full exercise of the right to acquire real property
by eminent domain.
By express statutory provision, the Authority would be
subject to the provisions of the Prior Public Use Doctrine, and
Article 97 of the state Constitution, where the Authority sought
to acquire land devoted to a prior public use, or acquired for
certain public purposes. Section 4(c) of the Bill provides that:
Under this act (i) no lands or easements taken or
acquired for the purposes authorized by article ninety-
seven of the amendments to the constitution of the
Commonwealth shall be used for other purposes or dis-
posed of, and (ii) no lands devoted to a public use
shall be diverted to another inconsistent public use,
except in all instances in accordance with the laws and
the constitution of the Commonwealth.
This provision of the Bill appears to codify the provisions
of Article 97 and the Prior Public Use Doctrine, and expressly
subject the Authority to their requirements.
More notable, however, is a provision contained in Section 9(a)
of the Bill, which modifies the requirements for approval under
-19-
-------
the Prior Public Use Doctrine applicable to the Authority. That
section states:
(a) In addition to every manner of acquiring
interests in property authorized generally by this act
or by other law, the authority may acquire from any
person [ defined by the Bill to include cities and
towns I real . . . property . . . by eminent domain in
accordance with the provisions of chapter seventy-nine
or chapter eighty A of the General Laws; provided,
however, that no property or rights already appropri-
ated to public use shall be so taken without the prior
approval of the governor . (emphasis added)
This requirement for approval by the governor, apparently to
be applied to proposed takings of property protected only by the
Prior Public Use Doctrine, is unlike the present statute governing
the MDC, and adds another level of independent governmental
approval before a taking of lands appropriated or dedicated to
public use will be allowed. Thus, while the proposed Authority
would have the same powers as the MDC to acquire Long Island by
eminent domain, to the extent parts or all of Long Island have
been appropriated to public use, not only the legislature, but
the executive branch must authorize the acquisition. While it
may be possible for the legislature to override a governor’s veto
of a Prior Public Use Doctrine bill, the Bill would give the
governor absolute veto power.
Finally, the Authority would be subject to all of the statu-
tory and regulatory requirements discussed in later sections of
this Memorandum. Although the Authority is intended to be an
independent entity, it has not been made exempt from the applica-
bility of state environmental or historic statutes and regulations.
—20-
-------
It has, however, apparently been proposed to be exempt from the
requirements for approval by the DCPO.
C. Legal and Administrative Impediments to the Use of Long
Island
Although the MDC may be able to acquire Long Island with the
approval of the legislature, DCPO and DEM, the construction and
operation of a sewage treatment facility at Long Island would be
subject to a number of state and federal requirements limiting
the island’s development. The most important problems expected
to be encountered in facility siting, design, and construction
are raised by the Massachusetts Historical Commission Act, M.G.L.
c.9 § 26-27D, the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C.
§470 et ., the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §1451 et
the Executive Order on Wetlands, E.O. 11990, and the Execu-
tive Order on Floodplains, E.O. 11988. Each of these major
issues is discussed below.
1. Massachusetts Historic Commission Jurisdiction
The Massachusetts statute establishing the Massachusetts
Historical Commission (MHC), M.G.L. c.9 § 26-27D (hereinafter the
“Act”), establishes procedures which require each state agency
which undertakes a project to determine if the project will
“affect” a property on the State Register of Historic Places (the
“State Register”). If a project will affect a State Register
property, the state agency is to seek comments from the MHC,
including whether the project will have an adverse effect on the
State Register property. If the MHC finds such an “adverse
effect” the state agency is required to consult with the MHC and
-21-
-------
consider alternatives to the project which would minimize those
adverse effects.
The Act, which closely parallels its federal counterpart,
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 et
seq . (1976), is primarily a notification and comment statute.
The Act does not require the state agency to accept modifications
and alternatives put forth by the MHC. Nonetheless, the Act
poses several obstacles to the MDC project if the Act’s procedures
are applicable. First, there is the potential for long delays
during the review and consultation process, during which period
the project may not proceed. Second, if an “adverse effect” is
found by MHC, the MDC and other state agencies involved will be
required to consider alternatives mitigating the adverse effects,
and to document the reasons for not accepting them. Because of
the potential significance of this law, we will explain its
procedures in some detail.
(a) Summary of the Act
The threshold question governing applicability of the Act is
whether the project “affects any property listed on the state
register of historic places.” The State Register contains (1) all
districts, sites, buildings, or objects determined eligible for
hating or listed in the National Register of Historic Places;
(2) all local historic districts established pursuant to M.G.L.
c.40C, or a special law; (3) all landmarks designated under local
ordinance or by-law; (4) all structures and sites subject to a
preservation easement approved or held by the MHC pursuant to
-22—
-------
M.G.L. c.184 §32; and (5) all historical or archaeological land-
marks certified pursuant to M.G.L. c.9 §27.
At the present time, Long Island is not listed in the State
Register. However, subsequent listing of all or part of the
island is a possibility. Because of the possible presence of
significant historical and archaeological features, Long Island
may be placed on the State Register through eligibility for the
National Register or designation as a landmark district by the
Boston Landmark Commission (BLC). Although Long Island may
contain archaeological or historical landmarks, certification as
a historical or archaeological landmark is a consensual procedure
and requires written consent of the person claiming ownership and
others with recorded interests in the site or structure. M.G.L.
c.9 §27.
With respect to National Register listing or eligibility,
which would place the site on the State Register, the Massachu-
setts regulations list the federal procedures which, if followed,
will suffice to list a property. The procedures are those listed
in the federal regulations implementing the NHPA (36 C.E.R.
Part 60 (listing on the National Register) and 36 C.F.R. Part 63
(eligibility for listing on the National Register)). The criteria
for eligibility are also listed in the federal regulations (36
C.F.R. 60.4).
As to landmark status, the Boston Landmarks Commission
(“BLC”), has the authority to designate landmarks, landmark
districts, architectural conservation districts, or protection
-23-
-------
areas in the Boston Harbor. Thus, all or part of Long Island
could be designated a landmark district or landmark by the BLC
pursuant to the procedures and criteria in the statute creating
it. St. of 1975, c.772 §4.
(b) Effect on State Register Property
Under state law, the affected state agency must determine if
the project will “affect’ t any property listed on the State Register
as early as possible in the planning process, prior to such state
agency funding, licensing or construction. The determination
must occur prior to any action that would foreclose alternatives
that could eliminate, minimize or mitigate adverse effects, or
would limit the MHC’s ability to comment. (950 C.N.R. 71.07(11)).
The regulations of the MHC prescribe a two-step procedure of
identification and assessment of effect to be undertaken by the
state agency to determine if there is an effect on a State Register
property. Initially, each state agency is to identify any State
Register properties within the area of potential impact of the
project, defined as that geographic area within which direct and
indirect effects generated by the project could reasonably be
expected to occur and thus cause a change in the historical,
archaeological or cultural qualities possessed by the State
Register property. (956 C.M.R. 71.03). The regulations provide
that not only are properties actually listed on the State Register
which are within the area of potential impact of the Project to
be identified, but also, “to the extent feasible,” those proper-
ties which “may be eligible for listing on the State Register ”
-24-
-------
(950 C.M.R. 71.07(l)(a)(2)). The MHC is charged with maintaining
an Inventory of Historic and Prehistoric Assets and is to assist
state agencies in identifying them.
If there are State Register properties within the area of
impact, a determination is to be made by each state agency whether
the project will have an effect on the characteristics which
qualified the property for inclusion on the State Register. 950
C.M.R. 71.07(l)(b). This requirement of determination of effect,
on its face including only properties listed on the State Register,
appears more limited in scope than the requirement of identifica-
tion of properties, including properties which may be “eligible”
for listing on the State Register. The criteria of effect to be
applied to make this determination are quite broad:
“a project shall be considered to have an effect when-
ever the project causes or may cause a change in the
integrity of the location, design, setting, material,
workmanship, feeling or association of property listed
in the State Register. The effect of a project on a
State Register property is evaluated in the context of
the historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural
significance possessed by the property. A project
shall be considered to have an effect whenever the
project causes or may cause any change, beneficial or
adverse, in the quality of the historical, architectural,
archaeological or cultural characteristics that qualify
the property to be listed on the State Register. An
effect may be direct or indirect.”
950 C.M.R. 71.05(1).
It is possible that the proposed construction of the treat-
ment plant on Long Island would be deemed to have an effect on
State Register property, if any part of Long Island were being
considered for inclusion on the State Register.
-25-
-------
(c) Adverse Effect and Consultation
If the state agency determines the project will have an
effect on a State Register property, notice (on a form provided
by MHC) so stating is to be sent to MHC, triggering the MHC
review process. The Executive Director of the MHC then has thirty
(30) days to determine if the project will have an “adverse
effect” on the State Register properties. M.G.L. c.9 §27C.
“Adverse effect” is not defined in the statute or the regulations,
but each of the listed examples included in the regulations might
be applicable to the Long Island situation:
1. the destruction or alteration of all or part
of a State Register property;
2. the isolation or alteration of a State Regis-
ter property from its surrounding environment;
3. the introduction of visual, audible or atmos-
pheric elements that are out of character with the
State Register property;
4. the neglect of a State Register property
resulting in deterioration or destruction; or
5. the transfer or sale of a State Register
property without adequate conditions or restrictions
regarding preservation, maintenance or use.
950 C.M.R. §71.05(2).
If MHC finds an “adverse effect” a consultation and negotia-
tion process between the state agency and the MHC commences, in
which the state agency and the Executive Director of the MHC
discuss alternatives to the project and means of mitigating any
adverse effect. The Act and regulations do not make clear whether
“alternatives” may be limited to different site configurations,
or whether consideration of other sites is required.
-26-
-------
Because of an inconsistency between the state law and imple-
menting regulations, it is not clear whether the state agency
must adopt the mitigation measures recommended. Although the
regulations require the state agency to “consider alternatives to
the project that could eliminate, minimize or mitigate adverse
effects on the State Register property, t ’ (950 C.M.R. 71.07(3))
the Act requires the state agency, in implementing its final
plans, to adopt all prudent and feasible measures that eliminate
the adverse effect. M.G.L. c.9 §27C. If the state agency fails
to agree to comply with alternatives suggested by the Executive
Director of the MHC, and the Executive Director refuses to accept
the adverse effect because there are no prudent and feasible
alternatives (950 C.M.R. §71.07(3)(b)), then the full MHC must
meet to consider the Executive Director’s proposal of prudent and
feasible alternatives, and may prepare its own statement of
prudent and feasible alternatives. If the state agency still
refuses to agree and to sign a Memorandum of Agreement so indicat-
ing, the state agency may proceed with the project, but it can do
so only after submitting an explanation of its position on the
MHC comments, and only after a ten day waiting period.
(d) Impediments Presented By The Act
(1) Suspension of activity on project.
If there is no State Register property within the project’s
area of potential impact, or if the state agencies find no affect
on a State Registry property, the project may proceed. The state
agency may also agree with the suggested measures to avoid or
—27—
-------
minimize the adverse affects and then may proceed. See e.g. , 950
C.M.R. §71.07(5)(e). However, if the MHC is required to comment,
i.e. if there is an effect, the state agency is effectively
precluded from proceeding with the project until the administra-
tive process is completed. Section 950 C.M.R. 71.07(l)(b)(4)
provides that until the Commission issues its comments, “the
state agency shall not take or sanction any action or make any
irreversible or irretrievable commitment that could result in an
adverse effect on a State Register property or that would fore-
close the consideration of modifications or alternatives to the
proposed project that could eliminate, minimize or mitigate such
adverse effects.” It should be noted that if the state agency
ultimately refuses to accept the MHC’s alternatives, “no state
agency may proceed with the project until 10 days after the
submission” of reasons for such failure to accept comments to the
NHC. 950 C.M.R. 71.07(5)(e). It would appear that all state
agencies, (DEM, DCPO, DEQE) and not just the state agency submit-
ting the statement of reasons, are precluded from proceeding with
the project.
(e) Unmarked Skeletal Remains Suspected of Being
100 Years Old or More: M.G.L. C. 9 §27C
An additional, related impediment may be raised by M.G.L.
c.9 §27C, wich provides that all activity, including construction
activity, cease until such time as the state archaeologist has
completed a site evaluation and until disposition of the remains
has been agreed upon if “any person, corporation, agency or
authority of the commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions
-28-
-------
discovers unmarked human burial or skeletal remains suspected of
being one hundred years or more.” In addition, in arranging for
the disposition of such human remains, the state archaeologist is
required to consult with the site’s owner and other interested
persons to determine whether “prudent and feasible alternatives”
exist to avoid, minimize or mitigate harm to the burial site.
If the skeletal remains are suspected of being an American Indian
burial site, the Commission of Indian Offices is to be notified
and will have a role in the consultations. M.G.L. c.7 §38. If
no prudent and feasible alternative is agreed to, the state
archaeologist is permitted to excavate the site and recover the
remains. The project is then allowed to proceed.
It is possible, given the history of Long Island and the
results of recent archaeological studies indicating the existence
of numerous unmarked burial sites on Long Island, that human
burial and skeletal remains will be found during the pre-construc-
tion and construction phases of the sewage treatment facility.
If such conditions are encountered, construction activity will be
unable to proceed without state archaeologist involvement.
However, the provisions of this section do not appear to pose any
permanent impediment to site development.
2. Applicability of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966
(a) Introduction
In addition to MHC jurisdiction, procedures under the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (“NHPA”) will be implicated if
the project is federally funded or permitted. NHPA’s procedures
-29-
-------
closely parallel the Act involving the Massachusetts Historic
Commission, and the potential legal and institutional impediments
posed by NHPA are s mi’lar to those described earlier. The key
section of NHPA for purposes of the proposed Long Island treatment
plant states:
“the head of any Federal agency having direct or indi-
rect jurisdiction over a proposed federal or federally
assisted undertaking in any state and the head of any
federal department or independent agency having author-
ity to license any undertaking shall, prior to the
approval of the expenditure of any federal funds on the
undertaking, or prior to the issuance of any license,
as the case may be, take into account the effect of the
undertaking on any district, site, building, structure,
or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion
in the National Register. The head of any such Federal
agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation . . . a reasonable opportunity to comment
with regard to such undertaking.”
16 U.S.C. §470(f).
The MDC’S Long Island project, which will require EPA approval if
federally funded, is clearly such an undertaking. 36 C.F.R.
§800.2(c). Further, language in 40 C.F.R. 6.602(a), regulations
governing EPA’s obligations to participate in impact assessments,
specifically provide that even NPDES permit approvals require
such review.
(b) Summary of NEPA
(1) Listed on or Eligible for Listing on
National Register.
The NHPA, its implementing regulations, and Executive Order
11593 require EPA to identify all properties within or about the
project area that are listed in or are eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places which may be affected by
-30-
-------
the project. 16 U.S.C. §470(f); see 36 C.F.R. 800.4(a); Romero-
Borcelo v. Brown , 643 F.2d 835, 839 (1st Cir. 1981), rev’d on
other grounds, 456 U.S. 305 (1982). Listing of a site or district
on the National Register is accomplished by certain nomination
and review procedures. See 36 C.F.R. 60. Because of conflicting
federal district court interpretations, it is unclear whether a
site or district must be identified for study by EPA only where
there has been a determination by a state or Federal agency that
the site or district is eligible, or where it merely meets the
“eligibility criteria.” (Compare Committee to Save the Fox Build-
v. Birmingham Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta ,
497 F. Supp. 504, 512 (1980)(requiring determination) with Hough
v. Marsh , 557 F. Supp. 74, 88 (ID. Mass. 1982)(no determination
needed)). Some support for the latter interpretation, however,
may be found in EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. 6.301(a), which
require the identification of properties “potentially eligible
for listing on the National Register.”
The specific area to be examined for eligible properties is
the “area of the undertaking’s potential environmental impact”
(36 CF.R. 800.4(a)), which is defined as the “geographical area
within which direct and indirect effects generated by the under-
taking could reasonably be expected to occur.” 36 C.E.R. 800.3(o).
EPA must consult the State Historical Preservation Officer (“SHPO”)
when determining the area of potential environmental impact and
the scope of surveys needed to identify eligible properties
within that area. 36 C.F.R. 800.3(o), and 800.4(a)(2). The
—31—
-------
extent of the studies required to determine if there is an elig-
ible property will vary, but a standard of reasonableness seems
to have developed. Wilson v. Block , 708 F.2d 735, 754 (D.C. Cir.
1983).
The determination in each case of a property’s eligibility
is the responsibility of the agency and of the SHPO: See C.F.R.
800.4(a)(3). In the absence of an abuse of discretion, their
application of the regulations to the facts will be sustained.
Wilson v. Block, supra at 746.
Section 800.4(a)(3) of 36 C.F.R. states that when a “question”
exists as to a property’s eligibility, the Secretary of the
Interior shall be requested to make a final determination. Sec-
tion 63.2(c) of 36 C.F.R. states that a “question” exists “when
the [ federal] agency and the State Historic Preservation Officer
disagree or when the agency determines that a question exists.”
(c) Effect on Listed or Eligible Property
Section 800.4(b) of 36 C.F.R. requires each agency, in
consultation with the SHPO, to determine for each listed or
eligible property within the potential environmental impact area,
whether the project will affect the historical, archaeological,
or other characteristic of the property that qualified it for
inclusion in the National Register. The agency is to determine
whether an effect is present according to the criteria of 36
C.F.R. §800.3(a). 36 C.F.R. 800.4(b)(l). If, however, the
agency determines merely that the project will have no adverse
effect, the agency’s determination must be submitted to the
-32-
-------
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for review and comment,
36C.F.R. 800.4(d), 800.6(b).
(d) Adverse Effect Consultation
If EPA finds an adverse effect pursuant to the criteria of
36 C.F.R. 800.3(b), which are identical to the State criteria of
adverse effect, then the Federal Agency official, the State
Historic Preservation officer, and the Executive Director of the
Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (the “Executive Direc-
tor”) must formally commence the consultation process to consider
feasible and prudent alternatives to the undertaking that could
avoid, mitigate, or minimize adverse effects on a National Regis-
ter property or eligible property. 36 C.F.R. Part 800.6. EPA is
obligated to provide all information necessary to consider altera-
tions and modifications which could avoid or mitigate the adverse
effects (36 C.F.R. §800.4), but an important limitation may be
that alternative sites need not be considered, only changes to
the existing proposal. Wicker Park Historical District Preserva-
tion Fund v. Pierce , 565 F. Supp 1066, 1074-75 (N.D. Ill., 1982).
Upon the failure of the consulting parties to agree upon the
terms of a Memorandum of Agreement which would incorporate feasible
and prudent alternatives to avoid or satisfactorily mitigate the
adverse effects of the undertaking, the Executive Director may
recommend that the entire Council undertake consideration of the
proposed undertaking to the chairman of the Council. The chairman
is to decide, within fifteen days, that such a meeting would be
beneficial. If so, a panel representing the Council will consider
-33-
-------
the matter within thirty (30) days of the chairman’s decision or
the full Council will consider it not less than sixty (60) days
from the date of the chairman’s decision. The Council or the
panel is to issue its comments within fifteen (15) days after its
meeting. If EPA decides not to follow the panel’s comments, the
chairman of the Council may convene the full Council to consider
the matter within thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice
that the Agency will not follow the comments. After receipt of
the Council’s comments, the EPA Administrator is obligated to
take the comments into account in reaching a final decision with
regard to the proposed undertaking. 36 C.F.R. 800.6(d)(7). In
addition, although EPA may not accept the Council’s comments, EPA
must submit a detailed written report to the Council including
the actions taken in response to the Council’s comments and the
effect that the actions will have on the effected National Regis-
ter or eligible property. The Council may issue a final report
to the President detailing EPA’s action and making recommendations
for changes in Federal policy and programs. 36 C.F.R. §800.6(d)(l).
Once this final report has been given to the Council, EPA will
have satisfied its obligations under the NHPA, and may proceed.
(e) Impediments Posed by NHPA
(i) Suspension of Activity.
NHPA, like its Massachusetts counterpart, contains provisions
that preclude EPA from taking any action that could result in an
adverse effect on a National Register or eligible property during
the pendency of the review and consultation process. See 36
-34-
-------
C.F.R. 800.4(e); 36 C.F.R. 800.6(c)(3); 36 C.F.R. 800.6(d)(6).
NHPA also contains statutory review periods: the Executive Director
has 30 days to object to Determinations of No Adverse Effect, 36
C.F.R. 800.6(a); the Executive Director has 15 days to recommend
consideration by the Council if the consulting parties cannot
agree, 36 C.F.R. 800.6(b)(7); the Chairman has 15 days to deter-
mine whether the undertaking will be considered by the Council,
36 C.F.R. 800.6(d)(l); the panel meets within 30 days of the
Chairman’s decision to consider, 36 C.F.R. 800.6(d) (2)(i); the
full Council will consider the project at the next regularly
scheduled meeting, but not less than 60 days after the Chairman’s
decision to consider, 36 C.F.R. 800.6(d)(2)(ii); the Council is
to issue comments within 15 days after a meeting, 36 C.F.R.
800.6(d)(5); the Council may meet to review the project within 30
days of notice that EPA will not follow the Panel’s recommendations,
36 C.F.R. 800.6(d)(6).
However, the consultation process itself has no specific
time limit and the NHPA requires EPA to provide the information
necessary for an adequate review of the effect of a proposed
undertaking or a National Register or eligible property and for
adequate consideration of modifications or alterations to the
proposed undertaking that could avoid, mitigate or minimize
adverse effects. 36 C.F.R. 800.4.
(ii) Public Participation, Litigation.
The NHPA, like the Massachusetts Act, encourages public
participation, 36 C.F.R. 800.15 (public participation encouraged);
-35—
-------
36 C.F.R. 800.5(b)(3) (public information meeting to be held
during consulting process if requested by one of the consulting
parties). Such public participation and the thorough procedures
for the consideration of alternatives to avoid or mitigate adverse
effects have created significant delays because of litigation.
See, e.g., Wicker Park Historical District Preservation Fund v.
Pierce, supra at 1074-1075, listing several potential causes of
action, and standards of review.
3. Coastal Zone Management Issues
(a) Introduction .
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) is
an administrative program approved under the provisions of the
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16
U.S.C. 1451 et . As an administrative program, no state
statutes specifically empower the Massachusetts Office of Coastal
Zone Management to review and regulate activities in the coastal
zone; rather, Coastal Zone Management policies were developed to
be administered within the existing state permitting and licensing
framework to ensure compliance with the objectives of the Coastal
Zone Management Act. Although the Massachusetts CZMP has been in
place since 1978, only in 1983, by Chapter 589 of the Acts of
1983, was the Office of Coastal Zone Management formally placed
within the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.
See Ch. 589 of the Acts of 1983, 4A.
Regulations of the Massachusetts CZMP are promulgated at 301
C.M.R. 20.00 (state consistency program) and 301 CMR 21.00 (federal
—36-
-------
consistency program). The state consistency program requires the
application of CZMP policies to state permitting and licensing
activities (to which only the regulatory policies apply) and
state financial assistance and direct state actions (to which
both regulatory and non-regulatory policies apply). The federal
consistency program requires the determination of consistency
between the CZMP policies and federal activities (direct federal
actions), federal permitting and licensing, and federal financial
assistance to state and local government. Because the proposed
construction of a new sewage treatment facility at Long Island or
Deer Island will involve direct state action (construction by the
MDC), state permitting and licensing (issuance of state wetland
permits and water pollution discharge permits, among others)
federal permitting (NPDES permit) and possible federal financial
assistance to state and local government (the EPA Construction
Grant), both state and federal consistency regulations are appli-
cable. Further, subsequent federal permits required for facility
construction, including section 404 and section 10 permits, would
also be subject to federal consistency review. Because these
federal permits are issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
however, it will be the Corps of Engineers which must make the
consistency determination for those permits.
(b) State Consistency Issues
Under the state program, three EOEA agencies are potentially
subject to the CZMP policies and must make their actions conform
to the policies to the greatest extent possible. The actions of
_37...
-------
the NDC, a defined EOEA agency, are required by 30]. C.M.R. 20.06
to be consistent with the CZMP policies to the fullest extent
practicable. The MDC actions involved in the proposed Project
include both the acquisition, by eminent domain or purchase, of
land needed for the sewage treatment facility, and the construc-
tion of the facility. The Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering (DEQE), an EOEA agency, will be required to issue
approvals for the project under state waterways, water pollution
and wetland protection statutes. It can be argued that the DEM,
as the agency empowered by Section 8 of Chapter 742 of the Acts
of 1970 to control the use and disposition of the Boston Harbor
Islands (including Long Island and Deer Island), must ensure that
its decision under that authority is consistent with the CZMP
policies, although it is not clear whether the statutory provi-
sions of chapter 742 may allow the DEM to act in contravention of
CZMP policies without recourse. In addition, the DCPO may be
subject to the consistency requirement, although its action would
be substantively identical to that of the MDC.
In determining whether any of the above-described actions
are consistent with the CZMP, the agencies concerned must give
special attention to all of the regulatory policies of the CZMP.
However, four of these policies deserve specific mention:
Regulatory Policy number 1: Protect significant
resource areas (salt marshes, shellfish beds, dunes,
beaches, barrier beaches, and salt ponds) for their
contributions to marine productivity and value as
natural habitats and storm buffers.
30]. C.M.R. 20.05(3).
-38-
-------
The implementation of this policy is focused on actions
taken in areas subject to the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts
Wetlands Protections Act, M.G.L. c.131 §40, and the Coastal
Wetland Restriction Program, M.G.L. c.130 §105; on the issuance
of Waterways licenses under M .G.L. c.91, and in reviews by the
Division of Marine Fisheries (where impacts on shellfish areas
are involved) and by DEM (where impacts on an ocean sanctuary
will be considered). Long Island is known to contain a coastal
wetland and barrier beach. In evaluating the siting alternatives,
these resources may suggest that this policy would discourage use
of Long Island. Note that impacts on ocean sanctuaries may be
the same whether Long Island or Deer Island is involved in the
decision; however, new shellfish areas adjacent to Long Island
may raise concerns with the Division of Marine Fisheries not
raised at Deer Island. Similarly, the fisheries and shell
fisheries values protected by M.G.L. c.242 §40 may be more signif-
icant at Long Island than at Deer Island.
Regulatory Policy number 2: Protect complexes of
marine resource areas of unique productivity (Areas for
Preservation or Restoration (APR5)/Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC5); ensure that activities
in or impacting such complexes are designed and carried
out to minimize adverse effects on marine productivity,
habitat values, water quality, and storm buffering of
the entire complex.
301 C.M.R. 20.05 (3).
Although no part of the Boston Harbor Islands is presently
classified as an APR or ACEC, such a proposal for designation has
been made in past years and could be made again on a limited,
island-specific or harbor-wide basis. The policy specifically
-39-
-------
provides that direct discharges from new sewage treatment facil-
ities are prohibited within the water bodies comprising an APR/ACEC
(once the water segments are classified anti-degradation), and
that the siting of new municipal sewage treatment plants are
prohibited within APRs. The presence of scenic quality, historic
significance, recreation value and the presence of or habitat for
rare, threatened or endangered species make areas likely candidates
for designation as an APR/ACEC. All of these characteristics are
thought to exist on Long Island.
Regulator .Policy number 12: Review proposed
developments in or near designated or registered his-
toric districts or sites to ensure that federal, state
and private actions requiring a state permit respect
their preservation intent and minimize potential adverse
impacts.
30]. C.M.R. 20.05 (3).
This policy is intended to protect significant historic and
cultural features in the coastal area. It should be noted that
the word “near” includes activities within 300 feet of the historic
site or district. Implementation of this policy will be achieved
through MEPA determinations that all practical means and measures
have been taken to minimize damage to the environment, including
destruction, damages or impairment, actual or probable, to historic
districts or sites. Further, implementation of the Massachusetts
Historic District Act, M.G.L. c.40C, and the National Historic
Preservation Act, both discussed above, are intended to support
administration of this policy. At the present time, however, no
part of Long Island contains a designated or registered historic
site or district.
-40-
-------
Regulatory Policy number 13: Review developments
proposed near existing public recreation sites in order
to minimize their adverse impacts.
301 C.M.R. 20.05(3).
Although it is known that DEM has proposed inclusion of
parts of Long Island in its revised Boston Harbor Islands State
Park Plan, no area of the island is presently used as a public
recreation site entitled to protection under this policy. However,
in the event the DEM plan is implemented prior to the MDC actions,
this policy may raise problems in consistency review. One may
argue that the development of Long Island would affect the recre-
ational use of the Boston Harbor Islands State Park in general,
as enjoyment of the State Park may be considered to involve not
only the land areas (islands) of the park, but the water areas as
well. However, it could also be argued that without any new
treatment facility in the harbor, the environmental conditions in
the Park will deteriorate.
Considering the anticipated positions of the various EOEA
agencies expected to be involved in the selection and development
of a site for a new sewage treatment facility, it is possible for
a conflict to arise between EOEA agencies. While the MDC may
desire to select Long Island for the proposed facility, the DEM
and DEQE may oppose this action on a number of environmental
quality or other state policy reasons (including recreation and
historic/archaeologic resource protection). Further, the Office
of Coastal Zone Management may independently raise the issue of
consistency of the MDC action, creating a need for resolution of
-41-
-------
conflict between the EOEA agencies. When and if inconsistency
between agency positions arises, the CZMP regulations provide a
means of dispute resolution, described at 301 C.M.R. 20.06 (2)
through (12). The Secretary of EOEA has the power and duty to
resolve administrative or jurisdictional conflicts between two or
more EOEA agencies under M.G.L. c.21A §4, in a process intended
to accomodate and foster political compromises. As noted earlier,
however, it is not clear whether the Secretary could override a
decision of the DEM made under chapter 742 of the Acts of 1970.
The State program regulations also contain provisions for
continuing consultation with local, regional and other state
agencies. See 301 C.M.R. 20.06 (27) through (34). Specific
public notice, comment and consultation procedures are required
for EOEA actions that conflict with any local zoning ordinance,
decisions or other local actions. The state actions subject to
this requirement specifically include a taking by eminent domain
or purchase of land in the coastal zone. 301 C.M.R. 20.06 (31)(d).
A procedure for conflict resolution in these instances is also
provided in 301 C.M.R. 20.06 (34).
(c) Federal Consistency issues
Federal consistency procedures are addressed in 301 C.M.R.
21.00. These procedures track the requirements for federal con-
sistency determinations set forth in Section 307 of the federal
Coastal Zone Management Act and regulations promulgated thereunder
at 15 C.F.R. 930.00 et q.
-42-
-------
The substantive issues which might be raised in federal
consistency review are the same as those discussed above with
respect to state consistency review and the applicability of the
identified CZMP policies. Many of the environmental policies
discussed above have a relationship to federal permitting and
licensing requirements, and to Executive Orders, such as the
Executive Orders on Wetlands and Floodplains.
Because the triggering mechanism for federal consistency
review is federal financial assistance to state and local govern-
ment, relatively abbreviated procedures may be followed, described
at 301 C.M.R. 21.23 through 21.25, and at 15 C.F.R. 930.90. In
the event that a state agency objects to the federal assistance
on the grounds that it would be inconsistent with a CZMP policy,
the Secretary of Commerce may resolve the dispute by determining
that the activity is consistent with the objective or purposes of
the Coastal Zone Management Act, or is necessary in the interest
of national security. 15 C.F.R. 930 subpart H. This procedure
may require public notice, comment and hearings.
4. Executive Orders on Wetlands and Floodplains
Federal funding of this project will be subject to Executive
Orders 11988, Floodplain Management, and 11990, Protection of
Wetlands. These Orders direct federal agencies to examine the
impact of major federal actions on floodplains and wetlands, and
to seek practical alternatives. Both Orders adopt NEPA policies
and procedures and authorize regulations by affected agencies.
-43-
-------
EPA has promulgated regulations on both Floodplains and
Wetlands Executive Orders at 40 C.F.R. 6.302(a), (b). These
regulations incorporate the EPA ’s Statement of Procedures on
Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection (Jan. 5, 1979)
(Appendix A to 40 C.F.R. 6). Under the statement of procedures,
no substantive distinction is made between floodplains and wetlands.
The stated policies are to avoid destruction of wetlands, to min-
imize occupancy and alterations of floodplains and wetlands, and
to withhold support from development of floodplains and wetlands
whenever there is a practicable alternative. 40 C.F.R. 6, app. A,
sec. 3(a). An EIS for a project proposed near a floodplain or
wetland must address compliance with both Wetlands and Floodplains
Executive Orders, and the subsequent agency decision must satisfy
the Orders’ concerns. Specifically, the agency must provide:
(1) a determination that the proposed action is located on or
will likely effect floodplains or wetlands; if no adverse effects
are identified, the action may proceed without meeting further
requirements; (2) public notice at an early stage; (3) an assess-
inent consisting of the proposed action, its effects on floodplains
and wetlands, and a discussion of alternatives; (4) public review
of the assessment pursuant to the requirements of NEPA; (5) if no
practicable alternative exists, a statement of action by the
agency to minimize the potential harm to floodplains and wetlands;
and (6) a public decision by the agency, accompanied by a state-
ment of findings, which shall include: (a) reasons why the
proposed action must be located in or affect the area; (b) the
-44-
-------
facts considered in making the decision on location; (c) a state-
ment indicating whether the action conforms to local standards;
(d) a description of the steps taken to minimize the harmful
effects; and (e) an indication of how the action affects the
floodplains and wetlands. 40 C.F.R. 6, app. A, sec. 6. To the
extent possible, these requirements are to be satisfied in the
existing NEPA process.
The heart of these requirements is the investigation of
alternatives. If a “practicable” alternative exists, the agency
is barred from proceeding with the original proposal. Notably,
the statement of procedures includes a definition of practicabil-
ity: “‘Practicable’ means capable of being done within existing
constraints. The test of what is practicable depends upon the
situation and includes consideration of the pertinent factors
such as environment, community welfare, cost, or technology.”
40 C.F.R. 6, app. A, sec. 4(g). Thus, EPA will have to make a
finding that Long Island is the most “practicable” option for
siting the facility, considering all factors identified above.
Failure to make and adequately support this finding will create a
risk of litigation on this basis.
-45-
-------
LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS
TO THE SELECTION OF THE DEER ISLAND ALTERNATIVE
VI. Introducti
In the course of preparation of the Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the development of sewage
treatment facilities in Boston Harbor, several questions have
been raised regarding legal issues affecting use of Deer Island.
These questions have been posed to us for our research and
review, with the expectation that our analysis will be considered
in the selection of a site or sites for treatment facilities. A
similar memorandum has been prepared by this office to discuss
issues affecting the development of Long Island; that memorandum
is entitled “Legal and Institutional Constraints to the Selection
of the Long Island Alternative”, dated August 28, 1984.
The Long Island memorandum presented a considerable
discussion of the application of the Massachusetts “Prior Public
Use” Doctrine and Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution,
as well as several other provisions of state and federal law.
Available time and resources preclude a similar complete
assessment of all of these laws as they affect Deer Island.
However, we have been requested to discuss the applicability of
the Prior Public Use Doctrine and Article 97 to Deer Island, and
to conduct a preliminary assessment of the relationship between
proposed sewage facility expansion and the existing House of
corrections on Deer Island.
—43—
-------
In reviewing these issues, we were provided with the draft
archaeological report entitled “An Intensive Level Archaeological
Survey on Deer and Long Islands, Boston Harbor, Massachusetts”,
by Duncan Ritchie and Joan Gallagher, dated September 1984. We
were also given several plans of Deer Island, obtained by C.E.
Maguire. From these documents and materials we have drawn
certain conclusions regarding the applicability of various laws.
We did not attempt, however, to verify the information presented
in these materials independently. Similarly, much information
regarding present land ownership on Deer Island was obtained
through interviews with various persons identified in the
memorandum. Because of our resource limitations, no confirmation
of their statements was obtained, except where noted.
Vu. Summary
The presence of public lands on Deer Island have raised the
possibility that the siting decision would be subject to the
applicability of Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution or
the Prior Public Use Doctrine. Although all municipal lands on
the island are charged to the authority of the Boston Penal
Institutions Department, current case law suggests that in this
instance legislative approval may not be required because there
is no active use of the land outside of the prison fence.
Article 97 is not applicable because no lands were acquired for
any of the purposes protected by that constitutional provision.
The existing cemetery on Deer Island is protected by the state
statute governing acquisition of burial grounds, but at this time
development plans would not require the acquisition of the
cemetery.
—44-.
-------
Developmental constraints include the possible discovery of
unmarked skeletal remains, which could be discovered on the
island. Historic and archaeological resources on Deer Island are
very limited, and do not appear to be a significant limitation on
development. Natural resources, such as wetlands, are not as
predominant on Deer Island as they are on other harbor islands.
While facility development will still be subject to the
provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act (for coastal
structures), Coastal Zone Management and Department of
Environmental Management review, the substantive issues and
concerns appear to be manageable.
VIII. Public Pr t tjQn f_Peer_ j rope ties
A. toryQj.P er Island
The historic/archaeologic report prepared as part of the
Environmental Impact Statement indicates that the land now known
as Deer Island was granted to the City of Boston in 1634 by the
Crown. During the King Phillip’s war, in 1676, a prison was
constructed to hold captured Indians. This prison was apparently
constructed of stone and mortar, and a portion of the original
wall is reportedly still observable near the present prison
facility.
In the eighteenth century parts of Deer Island were used for
agricultural use, including wood gathering and grazing. Records
indicate that profits from leases of the land from the city were
used to support the Boston School, but that no land was sold by
the city during this time. One history reports that a hotel was
located on Deer Island in the early 1800’s (William Tewksbury
—45—
-------
Hotel, reported in Snow, be ls1ari ofBos JL rbor. 1630 -
1971.) The Registry of Deeds, however, contains no deeds or
leases from the City of Boston from 1800 to 1850 which would
provide evidence of that use or structure.
In 1847, a smallpox hospital was established on Deer Island,
primarily to quarantine large numbers of Irish immigrants with
that disease. The history notes that many hundreds of unmarked
graves could be found in the grounds surrounding the hospital.
Construction of a city almshouse began in 1849, and was
completed in 1852. The poorhouse was used only until 1858, when
the structure was used as a reformatory, run by the city.
Reformatory use continued until 1896, when penal department
reorganization designated the structure as the Deer Island House
of Correction. Maps of the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA),
useful in reconstructing building locations on Deer Island,
indicate that the present correctional facility is located in the
same area as the reformatory, and before that, the hospital.
Sewer facilities serving the City of Boston were originally
constructed on Deer Island in 1879 near the present sewage
facility location. The southeastern point of Deer Island
contains Fort Dawes, constructed by the U.S. Department of
Defense. in 1941. This property, however, is now classified as
surplus property, and is controlled by the General Services
Administration (GSA). All records reviewed for this memorandum
indicate that the City of Boston has owned all of Deer Island,
except for Fort Dawes and the Metropolitan District Commission
(MDC) parcels, since the seventeenth century.
—46—
-------
B. Appi i c _ Qfjçj j
Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution (amending
Article 49 of the Constitution) provides that public land taken
or acquired for conservation, scenic, historic or recreation
purposes may not be used for other purposes or otherwise disposed
of without a two—thirds vote of the legislature. Op. Atty Gen.
April 12, 1976, 157. Mere use by the public of public lands for
these enumerated uses is not sufficient to invoke the protection
of Article 97, nor is governmental “dedication” of public land
for those uses adequate. 1gwbux.yp r.t Redevelopinent Aut rity v.
Commonwealth , 9 Mass. App. Ct. 206 (1980).
Reviewing the uses of Deer Island, only the hotel and
recreation uses reported in the early 1800’s raise the
possibility of Article 97 application. However, because the City
of Boston received the Deer Island property for purposes
unrelated to the hotel uses, and in fact appears to have acquired
all of Deer Island by royal grant, there is nothing to support
the application of Article 97 to any portion of Deer Island owned
by the City of Boston.
C. Applicability of the Priox 1jcJi Poctrine
The Prior Public Use Doctrine, a long—standing Massachusetts
common law doctrine, states that public lands devoted to one
public use cannot be diverted to another inconsistent public use
without a majority vote of approval by the legislature. Robbins
v. Departijient-of-PubliC Works , 335 Mass 328, 330 (1969). As the
MDC considers a substantial expansion of sewage treatment
facilities on Deer Island, it is important to identify which
—47—
-------
properties, if any, are subject to the jurisdiction of this
Doctrine, possibly requiring legislative actions for facility
expansion.
There are two questions to be answered in determining the
Doctrine’s applicability. First, what portions of Deer Island
have been devoted to a prior public use? And second, is the
construction of expanded sewage treatment facilities an
“inconsistent” public use? We are asked to look at the
applicability of the Doctrine to Parcels A, B and C, as shown on
a plan entitled Deer Island, Boston Harbor”, City of Boston,
Public Works Department, dated May 26, 1977.
Parcel A contains the Deer Island House of Correction, a 40
acre facility separated from the rest of the parcel by security
fencing. Parcel B, an 18 acre parcel, is located along the
southwest boundary of Parcel A, between the House of Corrections
and the Mean Low Water line of Boston Harbor. Parcel C, a 6 acre
parcel near the southerly end of Deer Island, is surrounded by
the land now controlled by the General Services Administration.
Our analysis looks at the subject property in two parts: the land
contained within the Deer Island House of Correction,
approximately 40 acres, and the balance of land in Parcels A ,B,
and C outside the prison fence.
1. Deer Island Correctional Facility
The Deer Island Correctional Facility, also known as the
Suffolk County House of Correction, is run by and is under the
jurisdiction and control of the City of Boston Penal Institutions
Department. The facility is contained within a fenced area, and
consists of several buildings and related structures.
—48—
-------
The first question posed is whether the 40 acre area within
the prison fence is land subject to the jurisdiction of the Prior
Public Use Doctrine, dedicated or devoted to a particular public
use. In this instance, the land within the fence is used
exclusively for prison purposes, and is apparently devoted to
prison use. Further, according to Peter Scarpignato, Director of
Planning and Development for the Boston Public Facilities
Department, the land within the fence has been administratively
charged to the care, custody and control of the Boston Penal
Institutions Department, and is thus administratively dedicated
to a particular public use. From these facts, it is not
difficult to conclude that the area within the fence is subject
to and entitled to the protection provided by the Prior Public
Use Doctrine.
After determining that the land is subject to the
jurisdiction of the Doctrine, however, one must still decide
whether the proposed use would constitute an inconsistent public
use, prohibited without the consent of the legislature. The
question of inconsistency is one of fact, to be determined in
consideration of the existing and proposed uses. Not all public
uses may be considered to be inconsistent with each other.
Further, the initial responsibility for the determination lies
with the agency proposing the new use.
Because the integrity of the prison facility would be
affected by any physical intrusion into the prison yard,
diverting part or all of the prison facility inside the prison
fence for sewage treatment expansion would fairly clearly
—49—
-------
constitute an inconsistent public use. The nature of secure
correctional facilities would seem to support the conclusion that
the present prison use would be adversely affected by the loss of
prison space for another public use. Consequently, a proposal to
construct additional treatment facilities involving physical
encroachment into the active prison facility would require
legislative approval. It is noted that none of the proposals for
the construction of primary or secondary treatment facilities on
Deer Island would involve the land inside the prison fence.
2. Land Outside
Information on the current ownership and administrative
status of the balance of Parcels A, B and C has been provided by
Peter Scarpignato and Paul Roche, counsel for the Boston Public
Facilities Department. According to the Boston Public Facilities
Department, the rest of Parcels A, B and C is under the care,
custody and control of the Boston Penal Institutions Department,
although the property outside the correctional facility is not
actively used for any municipal purposes.
As described by Peter Scarpignato, land held by the City of
Boston is often transferred to the care, custody and control of
various municipal agencies and departments for particular public
purposes, and is considered to be “devote& to those purposes.
These lands, however, can be cleared of such dedication by the
controlling agency declaring the property to be surplus land.
When such a declaration is made, the Boston Public Facilities
Commission must approve that determination, whereupon the matter
—50- -
-------
is referred to the City Council. The City Council may then
approve the transfer of the parcel from the original agency to
the Public Facilities Department, which holds the land as surplus
property, and may dispose of the property by sale.
If we assume that all of Parcels A, B and C are under the
care, custody and control of the Penal Institutions Department,
an argument can be made that such land has been administratively
dedicated or devoted to a public use (in this case, correctional
use), and that the lands are subject to the protection of the
Prior Public Use Doctrine. However, one might also argue that,
notwithstanding the administrative jurisdiction into which public
land has been placed, the Doctrine would not apply unless the
land was actually used or developed for a particular public
purpose. Some support may be found for this argument in Muir v.
.jt ,f-Leominstet , Mass.App. - , 317 N.E.2d 212 (1974), in
which active use was required to invoke the Doctrine.
An application of the Doctrine as interpreted in Muir , supra,
may discount the fact that the Penal Institutions Department has
administrative charge of the open areas of Deer Island, and
restrict the Doctrine’s applicability to the active prison area.
With respect to the issue of administrative jurisdiction, we note
that the administrative assignment of the Deer Island property
appears to bear no relationship to either the present use or
future plans for the Penal Institutions Department. As described
by Mr. Scarpignato, there are no present plans to use any of the
land outside the prison fence for prison use, and there are no
institutional or administrative purposes served by continuing to
—51—
-------
extend the Penal Institutions Department’s authority beyond the
prison fence. In Muir , the court required some existing
functional use of property to invoke the applicability of the
Prior Public Use Doctrine, and was not persuaded by the past
public use of the parcel. Because the land outside the prison
serves no function to the correctional facility, the MDC may
determine that the Doctrine does not apply.
Even assuming the land is subject to the jurisdiction of the
Doctrine, the Doctrine’s protection would continue to apply
unless or until (i) the land was transferred to the Public
Facilities Department as surplus property, or (ii) it was
determined that another proposed use (such as expanded sewage
treatment facilities) was not inconsistent with the present
public use. In Inhabitant _ _ sthainpt n v. County
154 Mass. 424 (1891), the court
determined that the taking of a portion of a schoolyard for a
town way was not so inconsistent as to require legislative
approval, notwithstanding its finding that the taking would
“injure the lot considerably.” In a recent opinion of the
Attorney General, 79 Op. Atty. Gen. 141 (Mass) January 11, 1979,
the Attorney General concluded that the Massachusetts Port
Authority’s present use of Belle Isle Marsh as a “runway clear
zone” (a passive use) was not inconsistent with the Metropolitan
District Commission’s (MDC’s) proposed use of the same land for
conservation and passive recreation uses, notwithstanding the
fact that the Port Authority might have used the land in the
future for runway expansion. (The Attorney General noted,
—52—
-------
however, that state environmental regulations would have
effectively prohibited such development of the property involving
the alteration of the wetlands). The opinion referred to an 1898
Massachusetts decision, stating:
The question whether such interference
or inconsistency would arise is not to
be settled with reference to every
possible manner in which the land might
be used for the purpose for which it had
been acquired, but with a reasonable
regard to the way in which it would
naturally and reasonably be used in
putting it to that purpose. gston v.
Inhabit nt f jc1j , 156 Mass, at
176 (1898).
Id .
From these opinions, one may reasonably conclude that no
inconsistency would arise between the present use of the city’s
property (outside the prison fence) and the proposed treatment
facility. Even assuming that the Prior Public Use Doctrine
applies, a new treatment facility would not affect the existing
passive “use”, and would only limit speculative future uses of
the land.
D. Prote tjQn j Qrded by th QQctrine
If the protection of the Prior Public Use Doctrine is
triggered, the Doctrine requires approval by a majority vote of
the legislature. Op. Atty. Gen. April 12, 1976, 159. The
legislation authorizing the diversion in use must explicitly
identify the land to be taken, the existing public useand the
new use. Brookline v. Metropolitan District Coininis jg , 357
Mass. 435, 440—41 (1970)
—53—
-------
E. §17E
The historical survey indicates that Deer Island contains one
known cemetery, which was connected with the prison, and may date
back to the smallpox quarantine hospital. A second cemetery,
located near Fort Dawes, was relocated to an area off Deer Island
during construction of the military facilities. The existence of
this cemetery raises the potential applicability of M.G.L. c.114.
that statute provides as follows:
A town shall not alienate or appropriate
to any other use than that of a burial
ground, any tract of land which has been
for more than one hundred years used as
a burial place; n.pQrtiQjL.Qf such
bn& kal L be tak en fQ . . ,pj bli c
iQut. i 1 agthQxi y - f r Q L th
general court . “Burial place”, as
referred to in this section, shall
include unmarked burial grounds known or
suspected to contain the remains of one
or more American Indian. (emphasis
added).
Thus, legislative approval would be required for the MDC’s
taking of any portion of Deer Island which constitutes a “burial
ground.” Although the exact location of all graves are not
known, preliminary research has placed the graves in an area near
the prison. The cemetery is more than 100 years old and would
thus be subject to the legislative approval requirement. The
14.G.L. c.114 S17 requirement is considered to be a legislative
confirmation of the Prior Public Use Doctrine, requiring a
majority vote of approval by the legislature. Op. Atty Gen. June
6, 1973, p. 139. However, should the MDC determine that it can
avoid use of any “burial ground,” no legislative approval would
be necessary. Based upon the proposed plans for sewage facility
—54--
-------
construction, it appears that no burial grounds would be used for
project development.
Although no evidence of other human remains has been found
during past work on Deer Island, there is some possibility that
other human remains may be discovered in the course of
construction. Random burials of persons may constitute “burial
grounds” within the above statute, and bring other areas of Deer
Island within the scope of the statute. In interpreting the
definition of “burial ground” under the statute, the case of Town
of Sudj ury v. Dept. fub jç _ Utj j jg , 351 Mass. 214 (1966),
should be noted. In ijdbury the Department of Public Utilities
(DPU) concluded after a hearing that the remains of one human
being (in this case, an American Indian) and the possibility of
others scattered throughout the area were not, in its opinion, a
basis for designating the land as a burial ground with the
statute. at 226. The Sudbury court affirmed the DPU’s
finding on the basis that the statute, at the time consisting of
only the first sentence of the present version, “plainly refers
to a tract of land definable and readily identifiable as a
burying ground.” Thus, the existence of randomly buried American
Indians was held to fall outside the coverage of the statute.
The Sudbury case apparently was the impetus for the 1983
amendment to the statute, which added the definition of “burial
place.” Read literally, that definition states only that areas
containing the remains of one or more American Indians shall fall
within the ambit of the statute. The amended statute therefore
serves only to alter the narrow dbury holding, since neither
—55—
-------
the amended statute nor case law defines whether the remains of
one or more randomly buried —American Indians, constitute a
burial ground under the statute. Consequently, it is not clear
whether the statute as amended would create any stronger
presumption that any random burial sites which may be found on
Deer Island are entitled to the protection afforded by the law.
The effect of M.G.L. c.114 §17 on plans for facility
development appear to be limited because the known cemetery
location does not conflict with the proposed facility site.
However, should several skeletal remains be discovered,
presenting evidence of a burial ground, further legislative
action may be required.
F. Comparison to I ijg _ 1. .. D&I sues
In the research memorandum covering the potential development
of Long Island, the analysis was separated into a discussion of
those issues applicable to site acquisition, and those issues
which may affect subsequent facility development. This
memorandum has addressed only the legal and institutional issues
raised in site acquisition. However, in providing some
comparative analysis of the legal and administrative hurdles
affecting the implementability of each site, it is necessary to
briefly mention non—acquisition issues as they relate to Deer
Island.
Many issues and potential problems discussed in this
memorandum are also relevant to the consideration of sewage
treatment facility expansion on Long Island. Although neither
island appears to contain parcels which have been taken or
—56—
-------
acquired for purposes triggering the applicability of Article 97,
both islands contain land dedicated or devoted to a prior public
use. In the case of Long Island, the entire island has been
administratively placed under the care, custody and control of
the city Department of Public Health and Hospitals. Since
hospital relocation is a pre—requisite to siting the secondary
waste water treatment facilities currently under consideration on
Long island, legislative approval will probably be required. On
Deer Island, all city—owned land is under the care, custody and
control of the Penal Institutions Department. However, it should
be noted that the current prison use on Deer Island may provide
support for an argument that sewage treatment use of land outside
the prison fence is not inconsistent with prison use. As such,
legislative approval may not be required.
Both islands are known to contain cemeteries more than one
hundred years old, which are subject to the protection of M.G.L.
c.114 §17. On Deer Island, the only known cemetery has been
generally located, and does not appear to interfere with the
proposed location of sewage treatment facilities. On Long
Island, however, there is both a known Civil War cemetery
occupying land affected by the facility proposal, and also large
areas near the hospital buildings and elsewhere on the island
which may contain a significant number of unmarked graves and may
constitute a “burial ground” as that term is defined by the law.
In addition to the factors affecting the acquisition of
development sites, there are several implementation—related
issues to consider. Historic and archaeologic resources may be
—57—
-------
found on both islands. Because of Long Islandws significant
archaeologic value and the possible eligibility of the Long
Island Hospital, including grounds, for Historic Register
listing, the Long Island site may be subject to administrative
delays under the state and federal Historic Preservation Acts.
Assuming that these resources justify eligibility under the
National Historic Preservation Act, section 106 of that Act would
require consideration of alternative sites to avoid impacts. In
contrast, the Deer Island site contains only one structure, an
abandoned pump station, which may be eligible as a historic
structure, although its historic integrity is limited. Deer
Island is also less likely to present significant administrative
delay because of its limited historic or archaeologic values.
Massachusetts General Law chapter 9 section 27C, the Unmarked
Skeletal Remains statute, has potential applicability to both
proposed sites. The law requires that all excavation and earth
moving cease once skeletal remains greater than 100 years old are
found to allow the State archaeologist to conduct a site
evaluation, and to determine whether prudent and feasible
alternatives exist to avoid, minimize or mitigate harm to the
burial site. The Ritchie study indicates that almost all of Deer
Island has been disturbed by major construction there in the past
one hundred years, and that discovery of additional remains is
unlikely. Long Island, however, contains several areas which may
not have been disturbed by construction activity, and which may
contain significant American Indian remains. Based on this
information, it is more likely major construction on Long Island
will encounter delays caused by M.G.L. c.9 S27C.
—58—
-------
The location of environmental resources, such as inland and
coastal wetlands, and barrier beaches, will affect the specific
siting proposals on both islands. To avoid administrative
requirements imposed by state and federal regulations protecting
wetlands and land subject to flooding, the facility siting
proposals should minimize effects on these wetland areas.
IV. PXi QflIBigbt1iflp t
We have also been requested to determine whether the proposed
expansion of sewage treatment facilities would be affected by any
outstanding court orders regarding the Deer Island House of
Correction. Specifically a question has been raised with respect
to the possible existence of a judicial order which would
prohibit any reduction of the size of the Deer Island House of
Corrections, or otherwise prohibit the expansion of a sewage
treatment facility on Deer Island.
In researching this matter, we have interviewed Diane
McLaughlin, of the Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services
Office, Mary Prosser, Director of the Deer Island Legal Services
Office, and John Larivee, of the Crime and Justice Foundation,
who served as Special Court Appointed Master in the recent
Massachusetts case concerning prison conditions at Deer Island.
We have also reviewed the Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering (DEQE) inspection reports for Deer Island, provided
to us by Ms. McLaughlin.
We are informed that over the past several years the
operations of the existing sewage treatment facility on Deer
Island have caused a number of environmental problems at the
—59—
-------
House of Correction, including smoke, odor, and other air
pollution problems. Because of the proximity of the diesel
powered pumps at the sewage facility, smoke and oil—laden diesel
exhaust reaches the prison, reportedly causing respiratory
problems. It was reported, but has not been confirmed, that
perhaps one—third of all prisoners at the facility experience
respiratory problems possibly related to the sewage facility
emissions. In addition, there has been at least one incident of
a significant chlorine gas leak at the sewage facility which
required the evacuation of portions of the prison.
John Larivee stated that the Massachusetts Superior Court
proceeding, Department of Corrections v. Penal Institutions
Department .oL City of Boston -and Public Facilj y Department, its
C.A. 474—63 (Fine, 3.) (April 30, 1981,
June, 1984) was completed in July 1984, and that none of the
orders issued by the Court addressed or affected the sewage
treatment facility or related environmental conditions at Deer
Island. He noted, however, that the judge in the case often
commented during numerous on—site inspections that the existing
operations of the sewage facility exacerbated the poor conditions
in the House of Corrections.
Because the objectionable environmental impacts of the
existing sewage treatment facility are related not to its size,
but to its age and malfunction, it is generally believed by those
we interviewed that an enlarged but modern sewage treatment
facility would improve environmental conditions by eliminating
the diesel smoke problems. None of those interviewed anticipated
—60—
-------
any adverse impacts caused by a large treatment facility, unless
the expansion would affect prison crowding or conditions inside
the fenced area. Neither of these are proposed by the present
plans; further, both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the MDC view relocation of prison as desirable.
V. ConclusIQD
Unlike Long Island, only restricted portions of Deer Island
appear to be subject to the jurisdiction and protection of the
Massachusetts Prior Public Use Doctrine, and the provisions of
M.G.L. c.114 §17. A strong argument may be made that legislative
approval will be required only if the active prison facility and
nearby cemetery must be acquired for sewage treatment facility
construction. This memorandum has suggested that,
notwithstanding Boston Penal Institutions Department control over
all municipal lands on Deer Island, the land outside the prison
has no function requiring protection, or, alternatively, the
proposed development would not be inconsistent with the land’s
current use. Administrative transfer of the property has also
been suggested as a means for avoiding the necessity of
legislative action.
Available information suggests that there is little
possibility that sewage facility expansion would be affected by
prisoner rights” claims, provided that non—construction
environmental conditions (smoke, noise, odor) are made better,
and that prison facilities are not made smaller. It is expected
that short term impacts from construction activities will occur.
—61—
-------
12.12 SDEIS
Screening Report
-------
BOSTON HARBOR
SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REPORT OF FINAL SCREENING RESULTS
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
Environmental Evaluation Section
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
May 16, 1984
Prepared by:
CE MAGUlRE INC.
ArchitectS En eerS . Planners
One Davol Square, Providence, Rhode Island 02903
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1-1
2.0 BACKGROUND 2-1
2.1 Previous Wastewater Studies 2-1
2.2 Previous Sludge Studies 2-5
2.3 Legal and Institutional Background 2-6
3.0 REPORT OBJECTIVES 3-1
4.o SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS 4-1
5.0 FORMULATION OF INITIAL OPTIONS 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Secondary Treatment Alternatives 5-2
5.2.1 Deer Island-Nut Island Treatment Facilities 5-2
5.2.2 Nut Island-Deer Island-Long Island
Treatment Facilities 5-3
5.2.3 New Island Option 5-4
5.3 Primary Treatment Alternatives 5-4
5.3.1 Deer Island-Nut Island Treatment Facilities 5-4
5.3.2 Deer Island-Nut Island-Long Island
Treatment Facilities 5-4
6.0 EVALUATION OF TIlE OPTIONS 6-1
6.1 The Matrix of Findings 61
6.2 Screening Criteria 61
6.3 Findings of the Screening Process 6-7
6.3.1 Options Recommended for Further Study 6-8
6.3.2 Alternatives Eliminated 6-10
1
-------
7.0 DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF FINDINGS 7-I
7.1 Summary of Analysis Results 7-1
7.2 Options Recommended for Further Study 7-2
7.2.1 Secondary Options 7-2
7.2.2 Primary Options 7-12
7.3 Options Not to be Studied Further 7-19
7.3.1 Secondary Options 7-19
7.3.2 Primary Options 7-26
8.0 REFERENCES 8-i
APPENDIX
A. Public Participation Summary A-i
B. Feasibility of Sub-Regional “Satellite”
Treatment Facilities (under separate cover)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Matrix of Findings 4-4
2. STEEPLI Impact Categories 6-2
3. Summary of Options and Their Impacts 7-2
4. Summary of Options and Costs 7-3
4a. Revised Cost Summary 7-4
5. Summary of Screening Results 7-6
11
-------
1.0 SUNMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
This report defines the process followed in the first phase of the
Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) analysis by which eighteen siting
options for wastewater treatment facilities to serve the Boston
metropolitan area were screened to select the eight most feasible
for further detailed study.
These eight alternatives include four primary treatment and four
secondary treatment options. Siting of major treatment facilities
are proposed either at Deer Island (DI), Nut Island (NI) or Long
Island (LI) in varying combinations as follows:
Secondary Treatment (with harbor outfalls )
Option No .
la.2
lb .2
2b. 1.
2b .3.
Secondary Treatment at DI, Headworks at NI.
Secondary Treatment at DI, Primary Treatment at NI.
Secondary Treatment at LI, Headworks at DI and NI.
Secondary Treatment at LI, Primary Treatment at DI,
Headworks at NI.
1—1
-------
Primary Treatment (with extended outfall)*
Option No .
4a .2.
4b .2.
5a .2.
5b.2.
Primary Treatment at DI,
Primary Treatment at DI,
Primary Treatment at DI,
Headworks at NI.
Primary Treatment at LI,
Headworks at NI.
Primary Treatment at NI.
Primary Treatment at LI,
Headworks at DI and NI.
These alternatives were selected on the basis of an analysis of
social, technical, economic, environmental, political, legal, and
institutional impacts with input from those involved in the public
participation process and coimnent by federal, state and local
agencies.
The most important criteria used in determining the feasibility and
suitability of options were:
1. Engineering feasibility and economic cost.
2. Environmental impacts as they affect the people living and
working in the connnunities impacted by the construction and
operation of the proposed facilities.
*Extended outfall with primary treatment is the stated preference of the
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and is the
alternative submitted by the MDC under the federal review of a waiver
from secondary treatment.
1—2
-------
3. Site suitability, including size and accessibility, and the
availability of buffer areas.
4. Potential for consolidation of treatment facilities to limit
impacts, provide centralized construction and operations, and
facilitate sludge disposal.
5. Opportunities for mitigation of adverse impacts.
The following sections address the background studies leading to this
SDEIS analysis, the objectives and scope of the analysis, formulation of
the initial set of options, evaluation of the options, and detailed
descriptions of the findings under each option.
1-3
-------
2.0 BACKGR0UNI
2.1 Previous Wastewater Studies
The SDEIS study now underway will supplement a prior EPA Draft EIS
(DEIS) completed in 1978 and titled Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on the Upgrading of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage
System . The DEIS examined a variety of wastewater management
proposals presented by the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) in
the report, Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for
Boston Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area (EMMA Study)
completed in 1976.
The principal recommendations of the EMMA Study report were:
1. To upgrade the existing Deer Island and Nut Island treatment
plants from primary to secondary treatment.
2. To dispose of sludge by means of incineration, as recommended
in a separate report prepared for the MDC in 1973 entitled
A Plan for Sludge Management .
3. To alleviate combined sewer overflows (CSO).
4. Construction of two advanced waste treatment plants on the
Charles and Neponset Rivers.
2-1
-------
5. Extension and improvement of the NDC’s interceptor system.
After analysis and assessment of the impacts of the MDC s proposals,
the Draft EIS (1978) concluded that some elements of the EMMA Study
(1976) were not suitable. The Recommended Draft EIS (1978) Plan
included:
1. Centralized secondary treatment of all wastewater flows at a
new facility on Deer Island with discharge to Boston Harbor.
2. Sludge disposal of primary sludge by incineration and ash land-
filling at Deer Island (as recommended by EPA in a separate
Final EIS on primary sludge disposal completed in 1979).
3. Sludge disposal of secondary sludge by a combination of incin-
eration at Deer Island, landfilling at an unspecified MDC
landfill, and composting at Squantum in Quincy.
4. Upgrade of the existing interceptor sewer systems for the
northern and southern Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) areas
to provide for expansion of the MDC system.
5. No construction of satellite advanced waste treatment plants
discharging to tributary rivers at inland sites.
2—2
-------
6. No specific proposals for alieQiating CSO problems; separate
CSO plans beyond the scope of the Draft EIS (1978) were being
formulated and reviewed by the State and EPA.
The reconunendations of the Draft EIS (1978) were controversial and
drew considerable public coninent. Also, changes to the federal
Clean Water Act occurred at that time which included provisions for
waivers from secondary treatment levels ( 301(h) waiver).
As a result of these events, EPA and the MDC reached agreement that
detailed facilities planning should proceed on the upgrading of the
wastewater treatment facilities in a flexible segmented fashion in
order to accelerate actions needed to remedy the chronic problems
and inmiediate upgrade needs of the MDC wastewater treatment plants
and still provide for sequential decision making on an overall
program for Harbor cleanup.
Meanwhile, the MDC began work on a 301(h) waiver application for its
proposed harbor treatment plant(s). This entailed an extensive
analysis of water quality in Boston Harbor and designation of an
extended effluent discharge location approximately seven miles into
the ocean. An assessment of further wastewater treatment
alternatives was also undertaken by the MDC in development of their
facilities plans.
First-phase reconinendations were presented in the Nut Island
Wastevater Treatment Plant Facilities Planning Project, Phase I
2-3
-------
Site Options Study , June 1982. This plan, referred to hereafter as
the Site Options Study (1982), was prepared by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
consultants to the MDC. It concluded that upgrading to primary
treatment at both Deer Island and Nut Island with discharge via
harbor outfalls was both environmentally sound and economically
preferable.
2.2 Previous Sludge Studies
EPA undertook a separate Draft and Final Sludge Management EIS which
was concluded in 1979. This document provided an environmental
evaluation of the NBC ’s proposals for sludge disposal and concluded
that incineration at Deer Island was the most cost-effective and
environmentally acceptable sludge disposal method. EPA issued a
Record of Decision on sludge management in 1980. The Record of
Decision directed the MDC to continue environmental evaluation of
incineration, as well as to examine further the feasibility of
composting for the MDC system. This included EPA’s funding of a
pilot composting facility located at Deer Island. MDC then issued a
Sludge Management Update (1982) report to address these issues.
Study of sludge management options continued by MDC and the State,
focusing primarily on alternate disposal methods of composting,
incineration, and ocean disposal.
A state policy on sludge management has recently been formulated.
It states that the preferred disposal method is composting, with
ocean disposal and inciqeration as possible back-up methods. The
2-4
-------
SDEIS will review the three options under study to determine their
influence on siting of harbor treatment facilities and any
associated impacts resulting from sludge disposal facilities. EPA
has not, as yet, reached a final decision on those issues remaining
following the Record of Decision on sludge disposal and expects to
conclude this review jointly with the State following development of
sludge disposal facility plans.
2.3 Legal and Institutional Background
While these studies were under way, a series of legal actions and
State initiatives were instituted to improve water quality and
coordinate State, Federal, and local facility planning efforts. The
City of Quincy instituted a lawsuit against the 1IDC because of
pollution of Quincy Bay by the Nut Island treatment plant. The
Conservation Law Foundation instituted a separate lawsuit, also
aimed at addressing the problems of pollution in Boston Harbor,
against EPA, MDC and the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution
Control (DWPC) for alleged deficiencies in administrative and regu-
latory reviews required of these agencies. This legal suit is still
pending.
The State court under the Quincy lawsuit appointed a Special Master
to establish the facts in this suit. Following submission of his
Findings of Fact in the case, the Court issued a ruling outlining a
10-year plan to clean up the harbor. The schedule for completion of
the SDEIS conforms with this plan.
2-5
-------
Also, an independent advisory committee, known as the Eoston Harbor
Water Quality Committee (or Sargent Committee), was appointed by
Governor Dukakis to examine programs and plans to improve water
quality in Boston Harbor and to make recommendations to the Governor
on the overall clean-up of the harbor.
In further actions, on June 8, 1983, EPA issued a tentative decision
denying the MDC’s application for a waiver from secondary treatment
requirements. This tentative finding was issued because of expected
water quality and marine life impacts at the proposed outfall
locations. The MDC has formally stated to EPA that it will
reexamine those water quality impacts which led to a denial, and
resubmit the application to EPA within one year. A final decision
by EPA on the MDC Waiver Application will be made by March 1985.
Concurrent with these events, the preparation of a SDEIS and Final
EIS conforms with the overall schedule established by the Court.
This schedule coordinates the various facilities planning elements
which are being developed by federal, state and local parties. The
SDEIS will be prepared and a draft copy reviewed during August of
1984. A final copy of the SDEIS will be distributed in October and
a Public Hearing scheduled sometime that month or the next. Once
all coments have been received following the close of the comment
period, a Final EIS will be prepared and distributed in January of
1985. A Record of Decision by EPA on siting of wastewater treatment
plants will consolidate the question of level of treatment and
siting preference and is expected to be issued in March of 1985.
2-6
-------
3.0 REPORT OBJECTIVES
The SDEIS being prepared will enable EPA to provide funds for
facilities proposed for the MDC System in Boston Harbor. The
objectives of this report are to clearly define the first-phase
screening process of the SDEIS by which the numerous siting options
for wastewater treatment facilities to serve the Boston metropolitan
area were narrowed to those judged to be most feasible. The report
describes the steps followed in the analytical process leading to a
determination of the most feasible options which will be subject to
further detailed study. Supporting criteria and data utilized to
reach these conclusions are presented.
The results of this screening process are a final set of eight
siting alternatives for further study, whose impacts will be
analyzed in greater detail in the second phase of the SDEIS
analysis. This set of eight options was derived from an initial
listing of eighteen siting alternatives which were proposed at both
coastal and inland sites.
3-1
-------
4.0 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS
Data from existing studies was used to perform the preliminary
screening of all reasonable alternatives for the SDEIS. The
principal sources used were:
- EPA Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Upgrading of
the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System (August 1978).
- MDC Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Planning
Project, Phase 1, Site Options Study (Metcalf & Eddy, June,
1982) [ Site Options Study].
- MDC Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for Boston
Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area (Metcalf &
Eddy, 1976 ) [ EMMA Study].
- MDC Application for Modification of Secondary Treatment
Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island Effluent
Discharges into Marine Waters (Metcalf & Eddy, 1979 and 1983)
[ reapplication due in June 19841.
- MDC Wastewater Sludge Management Update (Havens & Emerson,
1982).
- MDC Deer Island Facilities Plan, Vol. I, Fast-Track
Improvements (Havens & Emerson/Parson Brinckerhoff, January
1984).
4-1
-------
Most of the data came from the MDC Site Options Study (1982). This
data was updated and refined where applicable, and all previous cost
figures were updated to an ENIR of 4200. Meetings and discussions
were also held with representatives of a variety of governmental and
private organizations to obtain current information and copies of
work in progress. These additional sources included:
• Metropolitan District Commission
• Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Division of Water Pollution Control
Department of Environmental Management
• Coastal Zone Management Office
• Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (Consultants to the MDC for Nut Island
Facility Plan and 301(h) waiver application)
Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff (Consultants to the MDC
for Deer Island Facility Plan)
In addition to the above named sources, further analysis, data
manipulation, and collection of new data was carried out during this
first phase of the SDEIS. This was done because in some cases
existing information was out of date or inapplicable to the current
evaluation of options; in other cases, new options not previously
examined, such as man-made islands in Boston Harbor, satellite
treatment facilities discharging to wetlands, and primary treatment
on Long Island, were identifed for evaluation. The process was
structured to use existing data where available and new data where
4-2
-------
necessary to select an optimal set of alternatives for further
detailed study based on the application of defined screening
criteria.
The assessment undertaken was comparative in nature. The screening
process enabled EPA to determine an optimal set of alternatives for
further detailed study. The wastewater treatment facility options
were examined for a determination of which options warranted further
detailed study in the SDEIS. This was based on the application of
the defined screening criteria, as noted above, and through the
conduct of an evaluation of each option across several impact
categories.
The information that was compiled in this screening process has been
summarized and presented in a condensed matrix shown in this report
(Attachment 1). The matrix summarizes the options and their impacts
with data reported in the matrix referenced by its source. Where
data gaps or inconsistencies exist, this is noted in the matrix. A
copy of the full matrix is available upon request from EPA.
4-3
-------
5.0 FORIIIILATION OF INITIAL OPTIONS
5.1 Introduction
This Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) in large part constitutes an
environmental impact analysis of the facilities proposed in the
i 1DC’s Site Options Study (1982). This facility plan evaluated
eleven options for siting primary or secondary wastewater treatment
facilities in Boston Harbor. The siting options evaluated in this
facilities plan provided the initial definition and basis for
options to be examined in the SDEIS.
At the outset of the SDEIS analysis, a series of public scoping
meetings was conducted to solicit input from citizens groups and the
public at large, plus federal, state and local agencies. Comments
were received on the various site options proposed and on the
critical issues which should constitute the primary basis for an
evaluation of impacts. As a result of those scoping meetings, the
following additional options were considered for evaluation:
1. Primary or secondary wastewater treatment facilities con-
structed on a new man-made island in Broad Sound (near the
Brewsters or Lovells Island).
2. Consolidated primary and/or secondary wastewater treatment
facilities sited on Long Island.
5 -1
-------
3. Separate primary wastewater treatment facilities sited on Long
Island and Deer Island.
4. Sub-regional tfsatellite facilities based upon recommendations
previously presented in the MDC EMMA Study (1976) and the EPA
Draft EIS (1978).
5. A proposal for satellite facilities, recently developed by the
Quincy Shores Association Inc., with discharge into wetlands
for effluent polishing and groundwater recharge.
The complete list of prior and new alternatives determined to be
most appropriate for analysis in this first phase screening process
are described in the following section.
5.2 Secondary Treatment Alternatives
5.2.1 Deer Island - Nut Island Treatment Facilities
a. Convert Nut Island to a headworks and construct secondary
treatment facilities (either separate or combined system
flows) at Deer Island; inter-island transport of effluent
via tunnel.
b. Construct upgraded primary treatment at Nut Island and
construct secondary treatment facilities (either separate
5-2
-------
or combined system flows) at Deer Island; inter-island
transport of effluent via tunnel.
c. Separate secondary treatment facilities at Nut Island and
Deer Island.
d. Satellite AWT treatment facilities on the Neponset River,
Charles River, or other locations in association with one
of the above options.
5.2.2 Nut Island - Deer Island - Long Island Treatment Facilities
a. Construct secondary treatment facilities (for north system
flows) on Deer Island and secondary treatment facilities
(for south system flows) on Long Island with preliminary
treatment (either headworks or primary) facilities on Nut
Island; inter-island transport of effluent via tunnel.
b. Construct secondary treatment facilities on Long Island
for combined system flows with preliminary treatment
facilities (either headworks or primary) on Deer Island
and Nut Island; inter-island transport of effluent via
tunnels.
c. Satellite AWT treatment facilities as noted above.
5-3
-------
5.2.3 New Island Option
a. Construct a new island site for secondary treatment
facilities in an appropriate outer harbor location.
5.3 Primary Treatment Alternatives
5.3.1 Deer Island - Nut Island Treatment Facilities
a. Construct combined primary treatment facilities at Deer
Island with a headworks at Nut Island (and either a harbor
or extended outfall); inter-island transport of effluent
via tunnel.
b. Construct separate primary treatment facilities on Deer
Island and Nut Island (and either separate harbor outfall
or combined extended outfall).
5.3.2 Deer Island - Nut Island - Long Island Treatment Facilities
a. Construct separate primary treatment facilities at Deer
Island (for north system flows) and Long Island (for south
system flows) with headworks on Nut Island.
b. Construct combined primary treatment facilities on Long
Island (with extended outfall) with pump station on Deer
5-4
-------
Island and Headworks on Nut Island; inter-island transport
of effluent via tunnels.
5—5
-------
6.0 EVALUATION OF THE OPTIONS
6.1 The Matrix of Findings
A matrix was developed to compare all options on the basis of a
specified list of impacts*. The impacts were defined in seven cate-
gories--social, technical, environmental, economic, political,
legal, and institutional (‘ t STEEPLI’ t ). These formed the matrix rows
while the options formed the columns. Within each impact category,
several sub-categories were defined (see Attachment 2). The
expected impact of each alternative was then noted in the appro-
priate cell of the matrix. For each impact and option, data was
displayed either numerically or entered as a written description.
The configurations of the various 1evels of treatment are displayed
graphically in the matrix to show either headworks, primary or
secondary treatment facilities.
6.2 Screening Criteria
The next step in the screening process was to develop a basis for
elimination and/or consolidation of the options. A set of screening
criteria was developed with input from both the CAC (Citizens
Advisory Committee) and the TAG (Technical Advisory Group) partici-
pating on the project.
*Satellite treatment facilities are an adjunct to harbor treatment sites
and are evaluated in a separate technical report (Appendix B) to this
report.
6—1
-------
ATTACIDIENT 2
Impact Categories and Sub-Categories (STEEPLI)
Social/Community
Construction impacts
Traffic and safety
Noise/air quality/odor
Property value
Land use
Social consequence
Technical
Level of treatment and acres required: Nut, Deer, Long, and
other islands
Average and peak daily flows and level of treatment in design
year: north, south and combined systems
Construction period
System operation during construction
Energy requirements
Long-term viability and opportunity for expansion/upgrade
Relationship to other facilities’ plans (including immediate
upgrade of system)
Sub-regional systems and their relationship to harbor treatment
facilities
Economic
Capital cost
Operation and maintenance costs
Present worth/annualized costs
Local share (by town)
User charges (per capita/family)
Affordability
Employment and wages
Secondary economic benefits
6—2
-------
Environmental
Water quality standards
Recreational resources and visual quality (regional)
Fisheries
Habitats
Air quality/health
Other natural resources
Political
Federal: EPA ETS
EPA 301(h)
Army Corps of Engineers
Other agencies
State: MEPA
MDC
DEQE/DWPC
CZM
Other agencies
Legislature
Governor
Boston Harbor Water Quality Committee (Sargent Comm.)
Local: City of Boston/Suffolk County
City of Winthrop
Town of Quincy
Other MDC member communities
Other: CACs
Houghs Neck and other Quincy residents
Point Shirley and other Winthrop residents
Quincy Shores Association
Legal
Permits required
Statutory requirements/limits
Compliance with court actions
Institutioiia 1
Institutions involved/affected
Policies
Management of facilities
Other planning elements
Site ownership and acquisition
6—3
-------
The CAC was asked to comment on the importance and relative weight
of each of the “STEEPLI” impacts. They ranked the categories in the
following order of importance: social, environmental, technical,
institutional, economic, political, and legal. Within each
category, the sub-categories considered significant to the siting
process were identified as follows:
• Social - construction activities, odor, property values, and
land use;
• Environmental - water quality, marine life, air quality,
fisheries, and wildlife;
• Technical - engineering feasibility, land availability, infil-
tration/inflow impacts; and
Institutional - future planning, and growth/expansion of
system.
A Public Workshop was also held to solicit comment from the general
public. The workshop audience placed a greater relative importance
on economic impacts (cost of alternatives) than did the CAC, but in
other areas expressed priorities and concerns comparable to those of
the CAC.
The TAG was also consulted for agency views on the alternatives. A
questionnaire was used to identify TAG preferences for final
6-4
-------
alternatives. The majority of responses indicated a clear
preference of TAG members for use of the Deer and Nut Island sites
with various combinations of wastewater treatment. A minority of
responses indicated that Long Island options should be studied
further. No support was received for the outer harbor options. The
factors most cited in support of these conclusions were costs,
continuation of established land uses, environmental impacts, and
management advantages of consolidating facilities.
Upon review of the data developed, as arrayed in the matrix, and
with consideration of comments from those participating in the EIS
process, EPA and its consultants then determined which of the impact
categories in the tfs I EpLItt matrix were most critical to the
screening process. These impacts, along with three other factors
mentioned below, became the basis for the final screening. The
principal impact categories that were applied to the screening
process which distinguished the more feasible options were:
1. Technical : site suitability, including adequate land area and
appropriate buffer; access; and engineering feasibility.
2. Engineerin g : consolidation of major treatment facilities in
the harbor to take advantage of centralized construction and
operation activiti s; reduced operation and maintenance
requirements; and consolidation of sludge handling and
disposal.
6-5
-------
3. Social : reducing construction and operations impacts on
abutting residential neighborhoods, primarily as a result of
increased traffic, duration of construction, and associated
disruption; opportunities to apply mitigation measures to
reduce adverse impacts.
4. Environmental : environmental effects of large-scale dredge and
fill activities; recreational resources and visual quality
impacts.
Economic impacts are also an important criteria in selection of a
final reconinended plan, but were shown during the screening process
to be secondary to the above criteria. This was based on estimated
annualized costs for all of the various site options within their
respective treatment levels which were within 10% of each other
(with the exception of the new island alternatives)*. Thus cost
could not be used to select between alternatives at this stage of
review.
In addition to the impact categories of the “STEEPLI t ’ matrix, three
other elements were factored into the screening criteria. These
included:
*This narrow cost range is reflected in a comparison of the acceptable
primary and secondary options, respectively. The range for primary
treatment options with a harbor outfall (no longer considered
acceptable) reflect a 25% cost range.
6-6
-------
1. MDC’s preferred primary and secondary options, as identified in
the Site Options Study (1982), and the proposed option in the
301( b) waiver application included to address the recommenda-
tions of the grantee.
2. State policy regarding the location of the primary treatment
outfalls which led to exclusion from further study of alter-
natives involving primary treatment with harbor outfalls.
3. Public comment on the preliminary screening recommendations
circulated for review at meetings in Quincy and Winthrop.
Analysis of these options during this phase of the SDEIS was based
on a comparison of the screening criteria, preliminary analysis of
impacts, outfall policy considerations, and public comment to
develop a discreet set of options for further study in the following
phase of the SDEIS analysis.
6.3 Findin8s of the Screening Process
In screening the numerous options being considered for wastewater
treatment facilities in Boston Harbor, several important elements
associated with review of siting alternatives became clear. First,
it was found that no alternative siting or treatment option is
without potentially significant adverse impacts. Such impacts are
associated with the effects of construction and operation activities
upon nearby residential areas and the adjacent community at large,
6-7
-------
the effects upon the natural environment, cost. of the proposed
actions, and the potential incompatibility of wastewater treatment
facilities with surrounding land uses.
It must be noted also that none of the options satisfied all of the
screening evaluation criteria. The combination of the size and
complexity of the proposed project, the difficulty of siting such
facilities in an urban area such as Boston, and the past poor
performance of existing facilities has limited the acceptability of
every option to one or another constituent group and neighboring
coiunity. Nonetheless, the alternatives selected best represent
viable and realistic choices for further study of the siting
feasibility of major wastewater treatment facilities in Boston
ilarbor.
6.3.1 Options Recoimnended for Further Study
Options reconinended for more detailed study were those which best
met the established criteria, when compared to other alternatives
recognizing that no alternatives could fully meet all the critieria.
Options lacked sufficient analysis at this stage to determine their
full impacts and were carried to allow such a more detailed analysis
to be conducted in the next phase.
Briefly suni arized, the eight alternatives to be studied will
examine both primary and secondary treatment options located at
either Deer Island, Nut Island, or Long Island. Under secondary
6—B
-------
treatment levels, two options (la and Ib) consider secondary
treatment at Deer Island with either headworks or primary treatment
at Nut Island; one option (2b.l)proposes either headworks or pumping
facilities at both Deer Island and Nut Island with consolidated
treatment at Long Island; and one option (2b.3) would site primary
treatment at Deer Island, secondary treatment at Long Island and
headworks at Nut Island For primary treatment levels, two options
(4a.2 and 4b.2) consider primary treatment at Deer Island with
either headworks or primary treatment at Nut Island; one option
(5a.2) would site primary treatment at both Deer Island and Long
Island and headworks at Nut Island, and one option (Sb.2) proposes
either headworks or pumping facilities at both Deer Island and Nut
Island with consolidated treatment at Long Island. Two of these
options noted above (lb and 4b.2) involving expansion at Nut Island
were also retained because they were the preferred plans of the MDC.
Section 7.0 discusses these options in detail.
In order to reach a final recommendation in the SDEIS, subsequent
detailed analysis in the second phase of the work plan will examine
in greater detail the benefits and adverse effects of facilities at
each of the three sites: Deer Island (DI), Nut Island (NI) and Long
Island (LI). Each siting option will also be evaluated with
analysis of mitigation measures to eliminate or limit potential
adverse impacts.
6-9
-------
6.3.2 Alternatives Eliminated
This section sets forth the options that have been dropped and the
major reasons for their elimination from further consideration (as
specified by Federal CEQ guidelines S1502.14(a)). The following
section of the report also discusses these options in detail.
Four options (4a.l, 4b.1, 5a.1 and 5b.1) which included primary
treatment and harbor outfalls were eliminated because of likely
adverse impacts on water quality and the stated policy of the
Con nonwealth of Nassachusetts that the harbor outfalls will not be
considered further under primary treatment levels.
Two options (3a and 3b) which provided for creation of man-made
islands seaward of Boston Harbor were eliminated because of
excessively high costs, and limited engineering and operational
feasibility.
Three options (ic, la.2 and 2b.2) which provided for expansion of
the Nut Island wastewater treatment facility to secondary level
were dropped because of lack of land availability and general
absence of buffer space between the site and nearby residential
neighborhoods. These plans would also require the greatest degree
of decentralized plant operations and maintenance and would have
resulted in adverse impacts across the broadest area of the harbor
and land based areas.
6-10
-------
One option (2a.l) involving separate secondary treatment facilities
on Deer Island and Long Island was also eliminated because it too
resulted in scattered, multiple impacts and decentralized plant
operations and maintenance.
Subregional treatment or “satellite” facilities have been dropped
from further study at this stage of analysis, because the
anticipated benefits of such facilities are insufficient to offset
their significant costs, questionable benefits and uncertain
environmental impacts. Negligible system flow reduction would
result from such plants. This conclusion is further documented in
Appendix B issued as a separate volume to this screening report.
6-11
-------
7.0 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF OPTIONS
7.1 Summary of Analysis Results
The following tables (Attachments 3 and 4) summarize the key impact
findings and costs for the options considered. The impact
categories listed reflect those identified as having the greatest
significance, based on analysis and public comment, for the
comparative screening phase. These results show those impact
categories by option which are projected to have the greatest
impacts and, in some cases, unacceptable impacts in comparison to
other options available. The final eight options selected for
further study cover a range of possible alternatives for treatment
plant siting among those alternatives which appear must suitable
based on the established criteria and impact comparisons.
In addition, Attachment 4a presents a summary of recently revised
costs for the eight preferred options to be studied in detail.
These revisions reflect more recent reviews of the facility costs
and 08cM costs for the preferred options carried out as part of the
impact assessment analysis. This was carried out following
selection of the preferred options and was based in part on further
analysis and verification of the data developed in both the tIDC Site
Options Study (1982) and EPA Draft E1S (1978). As a result of these
further reviews, the costs shown in Table 4a update those in Table
4. It should be noted, however, that these updated costs do not
alter the prior screening conclusions since the relationship of
7—1
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
ATTACHMENT 4
BC6 HARBOR S [ EIS: SU*IARY OF (P1’I( S I4ND ThEIR INITIP L ODSTS 1
Bit.., Level of Treatment, and Costs in
( Acr.ag. Required) $Mhl lions Annualized
Other Costs***
option No. Nut Island Deer Island Long Island I eland Capital 0111 ( SMillions )
SECOND 1 R 11 2 ) • ( 3) S 1S) 952.6 43 7 131.3
+ ,. (i z s 5 ( 19) • (115 -- U? 4 45.2 1364
Ic (36) (104) 884.4 43.4 134.3
2a.1 $ ( 2) • (104) 5 ( 36) 897.9 46.0 138.3
2a.2 • (18) 5 (104) ( 21) 915.5 46.1 laO.2
2b 1 1(2) • 1 2) 5 (11%) 9 1S 42.? 145.4
2b.2 • (18) • ( 52) ( 68) 1001.0
3a/b ’ • ( 2) • ( 2) •(154) 1515.9/2037.6 42.9+ 198.7/252.3
PRI) • ( 2) • ( 62) 390.5 22.7 62.9
+ 4 .3 I (2) 5(U) ? 9.6D 31.1 992
4b.1 • (18) 5 ( 52) 374.0 22.6 61.1
+1b2* 5 (1$) 5 (52) 7748 D 220 101.7
5a.1 • ( 2) • ( 52) • ( 18) 136.2 22.3 67.2
51.3 1( 2) 5 (5*) • (1$) 7925 D 21.? 1032
Sb.1 • ( 2) U ( 2) 5 ( 62) 536.5 22.1 77.3
+ Sb .2 1 (1) • (2) •( 2) S614 205 109 1
KETi — headwork. only 5 — primary treatment — secondary treatment
0 — deep ocean outfall * — W,C’s preferred options CIa — alongside Lovells Island b — alongside Brewster Islands
— Assumes 8-1/8% interest rate over 20 year .. preferred options for detailed study
‘Assumes all costs updated only from those developed in the MDC Site Options Study (1982);
these costs for the eight options have been revised based on the detailed analysis done
subsequent to this preliminary screening. Revised costs are discussed in Section 12.4
of the SDEIS.
48.9 151.9
-------
costs between options has not significantly changed, and, as stated
previously, costs were not a primary determinant in screening.
The following discussion describes in greater detail each of the
options considered and explains the basis for its inclusion or
exclusion in further SDEIS analysis. The preferred eight options
are listed first, followed by the remaining options considered. For
each option, the information is summarized by the major impact
categories analyzed - technical, social/community, engineering and
economic, and environmental - with specific data presented by
subcategories determined to be most significant. Attachment 5
further summarize these findings and conclusions for all options.
For the category of impacts dealing with traffic and construction
activities, no assumptions regarding barging of materials or workers
have been factored into the analysis at this stage. This will be
addressed in the detailed impact analysis for the SDEIS.
7.2 Options Recommended for Further Study
7.2.1. Secondary Alternatives
la.2. Secondary Treatment (Separate Waste Flows) at DI,
Headworks at NI.
Technical : This option would convert the 17-acre Nut Island (NI)
site owned by the MDC to a 2-acre headworks to screen and pump waste
flows of the southern MSD to a consolidated secondary treatment
7-5
-------
Attachment 5
SuMMARY OF COMPARATIVE SCREENING RESULTS
Facility Siting
Option NI DI LI Other Screening Conunents
SECONDARY
TREATMENT
la (1 & 2) II P/S Recoanuended for further study ;
1978 Draft EIS preferred option;
improvements at NI; community
benefits in Quincy; consolida-
tion of facilities; increased
impacts of DI; lowest cost.
lb (1 -& 2) P P/S Recommended for further study ;
preferred by MDC for secondary
treatment; increased impacts at
NI and in Quincy; higher costs;
greater impacts at DI and in
Winthrop.
ic P/S P/S Major construction and opera-
tions impacts at NI and DI;
legal and environmental impacts
to filling of Quincy Bay; higher
costs; major separate plants at
both sites; no apparent advan-
tages.
2a.l H P/S P/S Major construction and opera-
tions impacts at DI and LI;
possible preclusion of other
uses at both sites; conflict
with prison and hospital;
higher costs; dispersed facili-
ties at three sites; does im-
prove conditions at NI, but not
to any greater degree than
other less costly more advan-
tageous options such as la, Ib,
or 2b.
2a.2 P P/S S Increased construction and
operations impacts at NI with
no appreciable advantages at
DI or LI compared to prior
choice; higher cost; major
facilities at all sites; Op-
tions la, lb, and 2b appear
preferable.
7—6
-------
Facility Siting
Option NI DI LI Other Screening Comments
2b.1 H H P/S Recommended for further study ;
significant potential benefits
at NI and DI; consolidation
advantages; among the highest
cost; greatest impacts at LI
with possible preclusion of
other present and future uses;
adverse impacts likely to occur
in Squantum/Quincy with pos-
sible mitigation opportunities
to minimize traffic or other
effects.
2b.2 P P S Additional Impacts at DI; from
expanded facility size; in-
creased NI and LI impacts;
higher costs; no advantage over
Option 2b.3.
2b.3 H P P/S Recommended for further study ;
improved at NI; DI increase in
facility size and potential
impacts in nearby community;
major new impacts at LI with
possible preclusion of other
uses and likely conflict with
the hopsital; higher cost; most
removed from nearby residential
areas.
3 H H P/S Highest potential impacts;
highest costs; difficult and
long construction; greatest
operational difficulties; envi-
ronmental impacts high; im-
provements at NI and DI not suf-
ficient to offset impacts/costs;
other options afford better bal-
ance and likely acceptable cost
effectiveness.
7—7
-------
Facility Siting
Option NI DI LI Other Screening Comments
PRIMARY
TREATMENT
4a.1 H P (Harbor Out- Harbor outfalls not recommended
falls) based on State 301(h) reapplica-
tion preference; independence of
outfall from siting decision.
4a.2 H P (Extended Recommended for further study ;
Outfall) improved conditions at NI with
reduced impacts in Quincy; im-
pact at DI in Winthrop; consoli-
dated facilities; comparable
costs considering long outfall.
4b.1 P P (Harbor Out- Not considered as noted above;
falls) 1IDC’s Site Options Study pre-
ferred option.
4b.2 p p (Extended Recommended for further study ;
Outfall) l1DC s 301(h) preferred option;
increased impacts at NI; in-
creased impacts at DI; separate
facilities with associated con-
struction effects and staffing!
maintenance requirements;
higher costs; maintins present
facility siting; no consolida-
tion.
5a.1 H P P (Harbor Not considered as noted above.
Outfalls)
5a.2 IL P P (Extended Recommended for further study ;
Outfall) improved conditions at NI and
on Houghs Neck; community im-
pacts in Quincy and in Point
Shirley/Winthrop area; impacts
introduced to LI, however, mini-
inal (18 acre) area required;
possible conflict with recrea-
tional plans; higher costs;
separate treatment facilities
with potential for mitigation of
adverse impacts.
5b.1 H H P (Harbor Not considered as noted above.
Outfalls)
7—8
-------
Facility Siting
Option NI DI LI Other Screening Comments
5b.2 H H P (Extended Recommended for further study ;
Outfall) reduced impacts at NI and DI
with major facilities removed
from proximity to residential
areas; greatest impacts at LI
with preclusion of some land
uses, and possible conflict
with hospital; adverse impacts
likely in Squantum/Quincy with
possible mitigation opportuni-
ties for the optins; higher
costs potential benefits at NI
and DI.
7—9
-------
facility on Deer Island (D I). In this option, some buffer area
would be available on NI to better separate the proposed facility
from abutting residences. The headworks facility would be located
on the site of the present treatment plant in the vicinity of the
existing administration building.
On DI, the 210-acre site under multiple ownership could accommodate
a proposed secondary treatment plant encompassing about 115 acres.
The present primary treatment plant covers about 26 acres. Most of
the expanded facility construction on DI would occur towards the
southern portion of the site which is vacant. Additional buffer
areas on DI would be limited due to the short causeway leading to
the site from nearby residential areas, and the close proximity of
the Suffolk County/City of Boston prison just to the north of the
existing treatment plant. Some encroachment of an expanded treat-
ment plant on the prison could occur, although future consolidation
of the prison would make available additional land for siting of
treatment facilities.
Social/Community : During construction, impacts would occur at both
Deer and Nut Islands and in the adjoining communities of Winthrop
and Quincy. At NI, an average of about 13 workers and 35 trucks
daily would travel to the site. Construction activities would last
3 to 4 years, and impacts would be limited to the site, with
moderate additional traffic in Quincy and through Iloughs Neck.
During future operations of the headworks, a total staff of 20 would
be maintained over three daily shifts. This option would improve
7-10
-------
conditions on the site through a reduced facility use and minimize
impacts upon abutting residential uses in Hough’s Neck and in
Quincy.
At DI, the construction period would last about 7 years. Major
impacts would result from the daily transportation of an average of
415 construction workers, and up to a peak of 940 truck trips per
day through Winthrop (as well as through Boston and other
neighboring communities). This estimate and those for all options
assumes (at this stage of the preliminary analysis) that no barging
activity or other mitigation to reduce the truck or auto traffic is
employed. Operations staff at DI would increase to 230 persons from
the 160 presently employed at the plant.
Engineering and Economic : This option would consolidate treatment
at a single facility on DI, thereby affording benefits of
centralized operations and maintenance. Sludge disposal would
likewise be consolidated at a single site. Treatment facilities
proposed in this option would be located at the site of an existing
treatment plant, allowing possible reuse of certain components at
the site.
Preliminary cost estimates for this option are among the lowest of
the secondary treatment options. Construction costs are estimated
to be $852.6 million with operations and maintenance (0&M) costs at
$43.7 million. The annualized costs for debt service (20 years at
8—1/8%) and O&}t are $131.3 million.
7—11
-------
Environmental : This option would impose no additional adverse
impacts upon the use, water quality, or recreational resources of
the Harbor beyond the limited, controlled period of its construc-
tion. Visual quality at DI would be impacted due to the expansion
in the size and iiumber of treatment works there. Access to and use
of the site would remain limited by the security requirements of the
prison on the island. Buffer zones and screening could be
established at DI, however, the expanded size of the facility would
make it visible from numerous locations on land and from water. At
NI, a reduction in the size of the facility to a headworks would
allow the introduction of plantings or earthwork which may improve
present visual intrusion upon nearby residences. Noise and odor
problems emanating from the present plant would be lessened.
However, the small size of the island limits its potential as a site
for new recreational areas or other uses of benefit to the
coimnunity.
This option is reco mnended for further study based on its having
sufficient area on DI to accona odate expanded treatment facilities,
itsutilization of existing treatment sites and the advantages of
consolidation as noted above, and the improvements to the NI site.
lb.2. Secondary Treatment (Separate Waste Flows) at DI , Primary
atNI
Technical : This option expands the present treatment facilities at
both NI and DI. It is the preferred choice of the MDC for secondary
1-12
-------
treatment. The 17 acre NI site would be converted to a larger
primary treatment plant requiring a total of approximately 18 acres,
of which 1 to 3 acres would be filled land added to Quincy Bay.
Expansion at NI would necessitate utilizing the full extent of the
site for expanded facilities, reducing the already limited
separation between the treatment plant and abutting residences.
The 210-acre DI site could accommodate a secondary treatment plant
of 115 acres. While there is sufficient area on DI to accommodate
the expanded plant, there may be some encroachment onto the site of
the existing prison facility. Expansion on DI would utilize most of
the presently vacant land on the island.
Social/Community : During construction, major impacts would result
at both DI and NI and in the adjacent communities of Winthrop and
Quincy. At DI, construction would last 7 years with an average of
412 workers and up to 880 truck trips daily passing through Winthrop
during peak activity. Operational staff required at DI would be 215
persons. At NI, construction would last for 5 years and would be
significant with 36 workers and 40 truck trips daily at peak.
Operations staff at NI would be 83 persons.
Engineering and Economic : This option maintains separate primary
treatment facilities and consolidates secondary facilities at two
locations in the harbor. As such, it does not fully consolidate
operations or maintenance and sludge disposal requirements, although
savings are achieved at the secondary level from centralization at
7-13
-------
DI. Preliminary costs of this option are $887.4 million for
construction, $45.2 million for O&N, and $136.4 million annualized
cost.
Environmental : This option would pose added environmental and water
quality impacts as a result of harbor filling needed to expand the
present site at NI. Constraints would exist due to the state
prohibitions against harbor filling. Visual quality would be
altered significantly at NI from the enlarged and expanded
facilities and total utilization of the site with closer proximity
and greater scale of treatment works to abutting residences. No
buffer zones or screening would be possible. At DI, this option
would be comparable to option la.2.
As one of the MUC’s preferred facility plan options, this option is
reconinended for further study.
2b.1. Secondary Treatment at LI, fleadworks at DI and NI
Technical : This option would convert the existing 26-acre DI
treatment plant to a pump station (2-acre) and the 17-acre NI
treatment plant to a headvorks (2-acre) to respectively pump and
screen waste flows to a new consolidated secondary treatment plant
of 115 acres on Long Island (LI). The total area of LI, which is
owned by the City of Boston, is 213 acres.
7-14
-------
A treatment plant could be accommodated on LI; however not without
encroachment upon existing and proposed future uses there. The LI
Hospital currently occupies about 26 acres in the central portion of
the island, with the remaining areas of the island vacant. An
abandoned Nike missle base is also situated in the central part of
the site with a former U.S. defense installation, Fort Strong, and a
lighthouse located at the northern head of the island. There is a
causeway and bridge connecting LI to Moon Island and Quincy. The
condition of the bridge will have to be investigated relative to its
use by heavy construction traffic.
Social/Community : Impacts of this option during construction would
be significant, involving an estimated total peak level of 428
workers and 975 truck trips daily traveling through Quincy to both
LI and NI. The construction period at these sites would be 3 to 4
years at NI and 9 years at LI. These levels of construction
activity would impose major adverse impacts upon the Squantum
community and moderate impacts upon nearby residential areas of
Houghs Neck. Conditions on-site at NI would be improved with
improvements for abutting residences. During operations, total
daily staffing levels over these shifts would be 20 persons at NI
and 215 persons at LI.
At DI, construction activities would require 28 workers and 35 truck
trips per day over a 4 to 5-year period. This would impose moderate
traffic impacts on the community while it improved conditions
7—15
-------
on-site and for abutting residential areas. Operational staff at DI
would be 40 persons over three daily shifts.
Engineering and Economics : This option consolidates all treatment
at a new site on LI with smaller headworks and pumping facilities at
NI and DI, respectively. This would afford benefits of centralized
operations, maintenance and sludge disposal. Preliminary costs of
this option entail $998.5 million for construction, $42.7 O&M, and
$145.4 million annualized cost.
Environmental : Improvements and potential benefits would result on
both DI and NI from reduction to pump station and headworks
respectively of the present treatment facilities located there. On
NI, this would be most beneficial to abutting residences in Houghs
Neck (as noted in option la.2), while on DI the reduction of the
present treatment plant to a pump station would lessen the visual
impacts and odor and noise problems currently experienced by
residents of Point Shirley in Winthrop. However, the continued
operation of the prison on DI and size of the pump station would
limit access to and use of the site. Buffer areas and screening
could be established on both DI and NI.
On LI, there would be major impacts due to the potential conflict of
treatment facilities with the existing hospital and proposed
recreational use under the Boston Harbor Islands State Park plan.
In addition, known historical and archaeological resources,
including a cemetary, would be impacted by siting of a treatment
7-16
-------
facility. Visual impacts on LI and of views from Boston Harbor
would be significant with a large facility as proposed.
This option is recommended for further study based on its potential
for benefits at DI and NI from reduction of treatment facilities and
the improvements to abutting residential areas in both communities.
It would site major treatment facilities furthest away from
residential areas. Impacts on LI involving the hospital use,
recreation plans and open space, visual quality, and preclusion of
other use potential on the island will be analyzed in greater
detail.
2b.3 Secondary Treatment at LI, Primary Treatment at DI, Headworks
at NI
Technical : This option would construct new primary treatment
facilities for southern MSD flows and consolidated secondary
treatment facilities at LI. The size of the treatment facilities at
LI would be about 80 acres of the 213-acre island. NI would be
converted to a headworks (2-acre). At DI, the present primary
treatment plant of 26 acres would be expanded to double its size (52
acres) to accommodate an upgraded primary treatment plant for
northern ?ISD flows as presently is treated.
Land area is available at all three sites to accommodate the
proposed facilities. At all three sites, also, sufficient area
7—17
-------
exists to allow for buffer zones with possible screening provided
although NI affords the least opportunity for buffer.
On DI, expanded facility construction would occur on the vacant
portion of the site to the south; on LI, construction would be in
the central portion of the island in the area of the abandoned Nike
installation.
Social/Community : During construction, the average number of
construction workers at peak would be 360 at LI, 13 at NI and 80 at
DI. Truck traffic would involve about 535 vehicle trips through
Quincy, mostly through the Squantum community, and 335 vehicle trips
through Winthrop. Construction would last about three to four years
on NI, four to five years at DI, and eight years at LI. Operational
staff for these facilities would number 130 persons at LI, 12
persons at NI and 41 persons at DI over the three daily shifts.
Impacts from traffic would be greatest in this option on LI and in
Squantum and through parts of Quincy leading to LI. Access over the
LI bridge would require further investigation. Impact on DI would
be significant from an expanded and larger sized primary treatment
facility with traffic impacts through the neighboring community. On
LI, there would also be potential for impacts on historical and
archaeological resources, like in option 2b.1, and encroachment upon
the hospital site is possible. At DI, the treatment plant would
require additional area which presently is unused open space
although encroachment on the prison grounds may occur. At NI,
7—18
-------
reduced facilities to a headworks would improve site conditions and
minimize impacts upon abutting residences.
Engineering and Economics : Separate primary treatment facilities on
LI and DI with consolidated secondary treatment on LI would afford
lessor consolidation advantages at the primary treatment level than
other options noted above. Some reuse advantages could result on DI
from siting at an existing facility. Preliminary costs for this
option are estimated at $983.5 million for construction and $48.5
million for O&M, with $149.6 million in annualized costs.
Environmental : This option’s environmental impacts are similar at
LI to those described for option 2b.1. The acreage requirements
would be slightly less; however, the extent of land area disturbed
to accommodate treatment facilities and a relocated roadway would
approach the disruption under the larger sized option. At NI, the
impacts would be comparable to those under option la.2. At DI,
impacts would result from the expansion of treatment works to double
the present size. Encroachment upon the prison may occur. Under
this option reuse potential of remaining open space areas to the
south would be limited by the continued security restrictions of the
prison. Visual intrusion of the treatment plant (and the prison)
would continue and be increased by the expanded facility size.
7-19
-------
7.2.2 Primary Alternatives
4a.2 Primary Treatment at DI, Ileadworks at NI (Extended Outfall)
Technical : This option would site an expanded consolidated primary
treatment plant (62 acres) on DI with a headworks (2 acres) on NI.
Present treatment facilities on DI encompass 26 acres of the total
210 acre site, while at NI they cover most of the 17-acre site.
Both sites can readily accommodate a facility of the type proposed.
Sufficient buffer area exists with screening possible to limit views
from nearby residential areas and improve views from points in
Boston Harbor.
Social/Community Impacts : Construction activities under this option
would last between three and four years at NI and five to six years
at DI. An estimated 414 workers and 480 truck trips per day would
travel through Winthrop. In Quincy, there would be 13 workers and
39 truck trips daily. At NI, construction impacts due to traffic
would be moderate with limited on-site disruption. Reduction of
facilities on-site would improve conditions relative to abutting
residences. At D I, site impacts would be significant from the
expansion of the present facility. Traffic impacts on local roads
are likely to cause disruption of normal traffic patterns and access
through Winthrop and neighboring communities. Point Shirley
residents would experience the greatest disruption from both
increased heavy vehicle traffic and on-site activities. Operations
7—20
-------
staff at DI would require 136 persons over three daily shifts, while
at NI the figure would 20 persons.
Engineering and Economics : This option maximizes consolidation
advantages associated with operations, maintenance and sludge
disposal at a single treatment plant on DI. Preliminary costs under
this option are $759.6 million for construction, $21.1 million O&M,
and $99.1 million annualized cost.
Environmental : Impacts under this option for DI and NI are
comparable to those in option 2b.3. The slightly larger
consolidated facility under this option (62 acres) would still be
readily accommodated at DI with open space areas remaining to the
south. However, the security requirements of the prison would
limit, if not preclude, new recreational or other uses on DI. There
would be construction impacts as noted on-site and in Winthrop. At
NI, the reduced facilities would improve conditions on-site and
lessen impacts to abutting residences, but the small ara of the site
limits its future reuse potential.
This option is recommended for further study based on its
consolidation advantages, the partial improvements expected at the
NI site and benefits to nearby residences at Houghs Neck.
7-21
-------
4b.2 Separate Primary Treatment at DI and NI (Extended Outfall)
Technical : This option would maintain and expand primary treatment
facilities at both DI and NI. It is the preferred primary treatment
choice of the MDC in their 301(h) waiver application. At DI, the
present 26-acre treatment facility would be expanded to a 52-acre
facility, while at NI the entire 17-acre site would be utilized for
treatment works, plus new landfill would be required of one to three
acres in Quincy Bay to accommodate an expanded treatment facility.
Sufficient area exists at DI to accommodate new facilities,
including buffer areas and screening opportunities. However, there
may be some encroachment on the nearby prison grounds. At NI the
present site is inadequate for expansion, and filling of the harbor
would pose additional constraints to construction (particularly in
light of the local and state legal prohibitions against such
action). Limited buffer area would be available at NI, and abutting
residences would be even closer to treatment facilities which would
be larger and more extensive than the presently in operation.
Social/Community Impacts : Construction activities at DI would
involve and average of 340 workers and 355 daily truck trips through
Winthrop. Impacts of traffic on local roads and of construction
activities on site and to adjacent residential areas would be
significant. The duration of construction activities would be six
years. At NI, the number of average daily construction workers and
trucks are 38 and 95, respectively, over the projected five-year
7-22
-------
construction period. Impacts on residents of Houghs Neck and in
Quincy during construction from traffic and on-site activities would
likewise be significant.
Operations staffing at DI would be 80 persons and at NI 55 persons
over three daily shifts.
Engineering and Economics : This option would expand and maintain
separate primary treatment facilities at two locations in Boston
Harbor. No advantages of consolidation would be achieved in this
option compared to other choices noted above. The preliminary costs
of this option are estimated to be $774.8 million for construction,
$22 million for O&M and $101.7 annualized cost.
Environmental : The impacts under this option are comparable for NI
with option lb.2 and for DI with option 2b.3. The impacts on the
environmental and water quality resources of Quincy Bay from filling
would be significant. On DI, the impacts of construction traffic on
local roads in Winthrop and the effects of construction activities
on the residents of Point Shirley would be significant.
This option is recommended for further study based on its recom-
mendation by the MDC in their 301(h) waiver application, and the
question of its possible operational advantages versus siting
impacts at the NI site.
7-23
-------
5a.2 Separate Primary Treatment at DI and LI, Headworks at NI
( Extended Outfall)
Technical : This option would build a new 18-acre treatment plant on
LI for southern NSD flows, a 52-acre treatment plant on DI for
northern NSD flows, and a headvorks at NI to screen flows prior to
conveyance to LI. Sufficient area exists at all three sites to
acconmiodate the proposed facilities. Buffer areas would be
available and screening could be provided to minimize or enhance
views of the facility. Some encroachment of proposed facilities
with other site uses could result at DI with the prison and at LI
with the hospital and recreational plans for the island.
Social/Conmiunity Impacts : Construction activities under this option
are dispersed over three separate sites over a period of three to
four years for the headworks at NI and six years each for treatment
facilities at DI and LI. Daily average construction workers would
number 77 at LI, 13 at NI, and 340 at DI. Truck trips during
construction would number a total of 117 vehicles in Quincy at both
NI and LI and 335 vehicles in Winthrop at DI. These impacts would
be significant, disrupting local traffic and access in both Quincy
and Winthrop and in their respective neighborhoods closest to the
sites. On-site impacts at NI would be moderate affecting Houghs
Neck in Quincy, while they would be greater at LI affecting Squantum
also in Quincy. At D I impacts would be greatest impacting most upon
Point Shiny in Winthrop and upon the on-site use of DI and the
prison.
7-24
-------
Engineering and Economics : Consolidation would not be achieved
under this option. Separate primary treatment plants at DI and LI
with further remote headworks at NI are proposed. Additional
operations, maintenance and sludge disposal requirements and higher
costs would result. Preliminary costs under this option are
estimated to be $792.5 million for construction and $21.7 million
0&M with $103.2 million annualized cost.
Environmental : Impacts at NI and DI under this option are
comparable to those described under option 2b.3. In addition, at LI
there would be significant impacts from siting of a 18-acre facility
adjacent to an existing hospital. Further significant impacts are
likely from on-site archaeological and historical resources on LI
and from possible incompatibility with the state’s plans for
recreational uses on the island.
This option is recommended for further study based on its potential
benefits at NI and limited expansion at DI. Its limited siting on
LI, although accommodated, requires further analysis to determine
the extent of potentially significant impacts there and in Quincy.
5b.2 Primary Treatment at LI, Headworks at DI and NI (Extended
Outfall)
Technical : This option would convert DI to a pumping facility and
NI to a headworks (2 acres each), and would consolidate all
treatment on LI (62 acres). All three sites can accommodate the
7-25
-------
proposed facilities with available buffer areas based on their
existing acreages of 210 acres at DI, 213 acres at LI, and 17 acres
at NI. Screening could further limit views of the facilities at all
three sites from nearby residential areas or from Boston Harbor.
Possible encroachment of proposed facilities may occur at LI with
the hospital use there or with recreation plans for the island.
Social/Coimnunity Impacts : Construction activities would be moderate
at DI and NI and greater at LI. At DI, an average of 28 construc-
tion workers and 39 truck trips occur over a five-year period. At
NI, an average of 13 workers and 35 truck trips would occur over a
three to four-year period. On LI, an average of 340 workers and 355
truck trips would last over a seven-year construction period.
Disruption and impacts at DI and NI under this option would be
moderate due to a reduction of facilities and are comparable to
those under option 2b.1. At LI, traffic impacts in Quincy and to
residents of Squantum would be major. The greater distance of the
LI site from the nearest residences would minimize the influence of
on—site construction impacts such as noise and dust.
Engineering and Economics : Consolidation under this option would be
maximized with all treatment at LI, comparable to advantages under
option 2b.1. Preliminary costs would be $861.4 million for
construction, $20.9 million O&14 and $109.1 million annualized cost.
Environmental : Impacts of this option at DI and NI are comparable
to option 2b.1. AtLI, the proposed facility (62 acres) could be
7-26
-------
accommodated, but not without impacts on the hospital and potential
archaeological and historical resources in the vicinity of the site.
Recreational plans for LI would possibly also be in conflict with
the proposed treatment plant.
This option is recommended for further study in order to analyze
issues such as that of access to LI via the bridge and the extent of
improvements on-site at DI and NI, as well as to the neighboring
communities of Winthrop and Quincy adjoining the two sites.
7.3 OPTIONS NOT TO BE STUDIED FURTHER
7.3.1 Secondary Options
la.1 Secondary Treatment (Combined Waste Flows) at DI, Headworks
at NI
This option was similar to la.2 as described in the previous section
with only its internal piping of treatment flows configured
differently. It was dropped from further consideration, since it
was not appreciably different than Option la.2 and it did not appear
to offer any significant advantages.
7—27
-------
lb.1 Secondary Treatment (Combined Waste Flows) at DI, Primary
Treatment at NI
This option is not considered further, since it is essentially the
same as option lb.2 described in a previous section as noted above.
ic. Secondary Treatment at DI and NI
Technical : This option would expand both existing treatment plants
to separate secondary plants. At DI, this would entail a 104—acre
facility; at NI, the proposed facility would require 36 acres. At
NI, the existing 17-acre site would require about 20 acres of fill
to Quincy Bay in order to acconinodate the proposed larger facility.
Buffer zones or screening would be limited at the NI site under this
option. Proximity to nearby residential areas at NI would be
greater. At DI, land is available to acconm odate the larger
facilities; however, encroachment on the prison area would likely
occur. Other uses at DI would be limited under this option.
Social/Conmiunity : Impacts at DI would be comparable to those
described under option ib.2 as described in the previous section,
with the modification of a longer nine-year construction period.
There would be somewhat reduced traffic levels under this option
with an average of 225 workers and 690 truck trips daily. Impacts
on-site and in Winthrop would be significant. At NI, the impacts of
such an expanded and larger facility at the site would pose severe
adverse impacts and disruption to residents of Iloughs Neck and
7-28
-------
Quincy. Traffic during construction at NI would entail a daily
average of 110 workers and 230 truck trips. Construction duration
at NI would be for nine years also. Operating staff at DI would be
150 persons and at NI would be 80 persons over three daily shifts.
Engineering and Economics : This option offers no consolidation
advantages. Its preliminary costs are estimated at $884.4 million
for construction, $43.4 million O&M, and $134.3 million annualized
cost. These costs are comparable to other options due to the
elimination of a need for inter-island conduits to convey flows even
though separate major treatment facilities would be built.
Environmental : This option impacts environmental parameters and
particularly water quality in Quincy Bay, on-site land uses on DI
and NI, and adjoining residential areas and communities to a greater
degree than other options. It would preclude any on-site mixed uses
and limits establishment of buffer zones. It also advisely impacts
viSual quality in the harbor by establishing separate major
facilities of such large scale and visual intrusion.
This option is not recommended for further study based on its major
on-site and neighborhood impacts and its clear unsuitability of
siting a secondary treatment plant on NI.
7—29
-------
2a.1 Secondary Treatment at DI and LI, Headworks at NI
Technical : This option would place separate secondary treatment
plants at two harbor locations, while reducing one present site to a
headworks. DI would be the site of.a major 104-acre facility, while
LI would be the site of a major 36-acre facility. Both sites can
accommodate such facilities based on their 210 acre and 213 acres
respective areas; however, at DI encroachment on the prison would
result with limited buffer areas available, while at LI encroachment
on potential archaeological and historical resources, proposed
recreational plans and on the hospital are likely. NI would show
improved site accommodation from location of a proposed 2-acre
headworks.
Social/Community Impacts : Impacts at NI are moderate and comparable
to those described under option la.2; DI impacts are significant and
comparable to t.jiose described under option ic. At LI, there would
be an average of 150 construction workers and 340 truck trips daily.
The duration of construction activities would be three to four years
at NI and seven years at LI. At DI, construction is estimated to
last eight years. Construction traffic, involving an average 250
workers and 690 truck trips at DI, and 163 workers with 375 truck
trips at NI and LI, would pose significant impacts on the local
roads in Winthrop and Qu. cy and would result in major disruption to
the communities of Point Shirley and Squantum with lesser’impacts at
Houghs Neck. Operations staff at these sites would involve 12
7-30
-------
persons at NI, 75 persons at LI and 140 persons at DI over three
daily shifts.
Engineering and Economics : This option offers no consolidation
advantages with major facilities sited at two separate island
locations. Its preliminary costs are estimated at $897.9 million
for construction, $46 million for O&M, and $138.3 million annualized
cost.
Environmental : At DI and NI this option’s impacts are comparable to
those under option la. Under this option, some uses at LI would be
precluded with significant impacts resulting. There exists at LI a
potential for adverse impacts upon archaeological and historical
resources, and encroachment on the hospital site is possible.
Recreational uses may likewise be impacted under this plan. This
option does not meet sufficient criteria relative to other choices
to warrant its further study.
2a.2 Secondary Treatment at DI and LI, Primary at NI
Technical : This option would locate secondary treatment facilities
of 104 acres at DI and 21 acres at LI, while siting a primary
treatment plant of 18 acres at NI. There is adequate land area at
both DI and LI to site such uses, although at DI a facility would
encroach upon the adjoining prison site, while at LI encroachment
may occur with regard to historical or archeological resources.
Buffer areas are available at both locations with opportunities for
7-31
-------
screening of the facility from view. At NI, the resent 17-acre
site would require one to three acres of fill to Quincy Bay to
accommodate a primary treatment plant.
Social/Community : Impacts of this option are major and wide
ranging, given the distribution of traffic and construction impacts
over three sites and two adjoining communities. These impacts are
comparable for DI and LI to those described in option 2a.1 above.
At NI, impacts would be comparable to those described in option lb.2
described in the previous section.
Engineering and Economic : No consolidation advantages are attendant
with this option to site three major separate treatment facilities
at separate sites in Boston Harbor. Preliminary costs are estimated
at $915.5 million for construction, $46.1 million 0&fl, and $140.2
million annualized cost.
Environmental : This option would impose major impacts at all three
sites with-filling of Quincy Bay a principal concern. Land use
impacts and those on adjoining communities would be comparable at NI
to those described under option lb.2 and at DI and LI to those
described under option 2a.1. This option is not recommended for
further study based on the extent of impacts and lack of compliance
with the established criteria relative to other options.
7-32
-------
2b..2 Secondary Treatment at LI, Primary Treatment at DI and NI
Technical : This option would maintain and expand primary treatment
facilities at DI (52 acres) and NI (18 acres) with a new
consolidated secondary treatment facility on LI (68 acres). These
facilities can be accommodated at both DI and LI with unavoidable
encroachment on abutting land uses and resources at both sites. At
NI, the proposed facility could not be readily accommodated
requiring fill to Quincy Bay.
Social/Community : Construction impacts under this option from
workers and trucking activities would pose major disruption to both
adjoining communities and at each of the three sites. Impacts at NI
are comparable to those described under option lb.2 in the previous
section. At DI and LI, impacts would be comparable to those
described under option 2b.3, although the size of the LI facility is
slightly smaller.
Engineering and Economic : This option affords no consolidation
advantages with major treatment facilities at three separate
locations in Boston Harbor. Preliminary costs are estimated to be
among the highest at $1001.8 million for construction, $48.9 O&M,
and $151.9 annualized cost.
Environmental : Impacts under this option would be major and wide
ranging across all three sites and in both adjoining communities of
Winthrop and Quincy. Filling of Quincy Bay would pose environmental
7-33
-------
and water quality impacts. Impacts are comparable at NI to those
described under option lb.2 described in the previous section; DI
and LI impacts are comparable to those described under option 2b.3.
This option is not recoimnended for further study based on its
greater impacts and lack of compliance with the criteria.
3a/b. Man-Made Island Adjacent to Lovells Island or The Brewsters
Technical : This option introduces unique construction solutions in
order to locate treatment facilities in the outer harbor furthest
away from residential areas. DI and NI would be converted to
pumping and headworks facilities respectively. It would require
major dredging, filling and stabilizing of the island’s shallow
water areas; all-weather barging with no land backup would be the
sole access; construction of additional storm barriers and
protective jettys are needed; and the existing islands would be
physically altered. This option would create a filled area of 154
acres adjacent to the existing island sites.
Social/Coimnunity : Construction impacts, in addition to the unique
engineering and special construction practices necessary, would
involve 400 to 500 construction workers at the outer harbor
locations, plus another 13 workers at NI and 28 workers at DI. More
than 900 truck trips daily would be required and converted to barge
transport. These requirements alone make this option highly
speculative. Operations staff would be 140 persons over three daily
shifts to be barged to the treatment plant.
7-34
-------
The only advantage of such a plan would be the removal of major
treatment facilities furthest away from residential areas. However,
the limitations of such an approach appear to outweigh its
advantages.
Engineering and Economics : While this plan consolidates treatment
at a single site, this is not as feasible a solution to achieve that
goal as other options. Preliminary costs for this option are
significantly higher than all others at $1515.9 to $2037.6 million
for construction, $43 million plus for 08cM, and $198.7 to $252.3
million annualized costs.
Enviromental : The considerable consequences for marine habitat and
water quality during construction, plus the major additional costs
associated with transport of staff and materials to the site during
construction and operations are of such magnitude and uncertainty
that the potential for adverse impacts far outweighs any of the
possible benefits. In fact, other options offer far greater
benefits at lower costs and with fewer likely adverse impacts. This
option is therefore not recommended for further study.
7.3.2 Primary Options
41.2 Primary Treatment at DI, Headworks at NI (Harbor Outfall )
7 ...35
-------
4b.1 Separate Primary Treatment at DI and NI (Harbor Outfall)
5a.1 Separate Primary Treatment at DI and LI, Headworks at NI
( Harbor Outfall)
5b.1 Primary Treatment at LI, Headworks at DI and NI (Harbor
Outfall )
All of the above primary treatment options with harbor outfalls into
Boston Harbor are not consistent with the recently stated policy of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs and the MDC Commissioner, which favor an extended outfall
with primary treatment. These options are not, moreover, among
those proposed by the MDC under their 301(h) waiver application.
Therefore, primary treatment options with harbor outfalls are not
recommended for further study.
Since this conclusion only deals with the length and location of an
outfall conduit and does not affect the siting of treatment
facilities, any future change in policy regarding outfall locations
could readily be accommodated to the EIS process at a later date.
7-36
-------
8.0 REFERENCES
1. EPA Draft Enviroim ental Impact Statement on the Upgrading of
the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System (August 1978).
2. MDC Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities PLanning
Project, Phase 1, Site Options Study (Metcalf & Eddy, June, 1982)
[ Site Options Study].
3. MDC Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for Boston Harbor
- Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area (Metcalf & Eddy, 1976 )
[ EMMA Study].
4. MDC Application for Modification of Secondary Treatment
Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island Effluent
Discharges into Marine Waters (Metcalf & Eddy, 1979 and 1983)
[ reapplication due in June 1984].
5. MDC Wastewater Sludge Management Update (Havens & Emerson, 1982).
6. MDC Deer Island Facilities Plan, Vol. I, Fast-Track Improvements
(Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brickerhoff, January 1984).
7. MDC, Discharges from Moon Island . Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. -
Draft Report March 28, 1984.
8 -1
-------
8. MDC, Report on Combined Sewer Ove 9 flows in the Dorchester Bay Area .
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. - October 1980.
9. MDC, Combined Sewer Overflow Report, MDC, Inner Harbor Area
Facilities Plan . O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. - January 1981
* U. 5. GOVERNMENT PR NT1NG OFFICE: 1985--5EO—655-—61
8-2
-------
r’la&e Mait ie. ir s an4 1rDuh
‘oc,tDsi H w wr
‘eI e fr ie n)&1-
‘or
c rO 4
Vve* ’
mco r
w1I¼J :Py
ui y
3M1.
HiP1 k1t11
Ay ii i
t7e fr,1414
•
II
.1
N
2
0
------- |