[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 145 (Thursday, July 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46146-46152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19028]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 000630200-0200-01; I.D. 060800F]
RIN 0648-XA55
New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed restoration ideas for implementation in New
Bedford Harbor; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On behalf of the New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council (Council),
NMFS, serving as the Administrative Trustee, announces that the Council
is proposing 17 restoration ideas for possible implementation through
[[Page 46147]]
funding from the AVX Natural Resource Damages Trust Account (Trust
Account). Thirty-five natural resource restoration ideas were submitted
for consideration by the Council. The Council now seeks comment on its
proposed funding of the 17 ideas including proposed funding levels for
each of those ideas. The Council had requested ideas, and proposed
funding levels for those ideas, to restore natural resources that were
injured by the release of hazardous substances and materials, including
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), in the New Bedford Harbor Environment
(Harbor Environment) and in the Federal Register published on August
16, 1999).
DATES: The Council will accept comments on the proposed restoration
projects through August 28, 2000.
ADDRESSES: The Council will accept written comments at the following
locations: New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council, c/o National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, Attn.: Jack
Terrill, or New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council, 37 N. Second Street,
New Bedford, MA 02740. Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to
978-281-9301. Comments cannot be accepted if submitted via email or
Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Terrill, Coordinator, 978-281-
9136, fax 978-281-9301, or e-mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
New Bedford Harbor is located in Southeastern Massachusetts at the
mouth of the Acushnet River on Buzzards Bay. The Harbor and River are
contaminated with high levels of hazardous substances and materials,
including PCBs, and as a consequence are on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund National Priorities List. This site
is also listed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection as a priority Tier 1 disposal site.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA or ``Superfund,'' 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.)
designates as possible natural resource trustees Federal, state, or
tribal authorities who represent the public interest in natural
resources. The trustees are responsible for recovering funds through
litigation or settlement for damages for natural resource injuries.
CERCLA requires that any recovered monies be used to ``restore,
replace, or acquire the equivalent of'' the natural resources that have
been injured by a release of a hazardous substance.
For the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, there are three natural
resource trustees on the Council representing the public interest in
the affected natural resources. They are the Department of Commerce
(DOC), the Department of the Interior, and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. The Secretary of Commerce has delegated DOC trustee
responsibility to NOAA; within NOAA, NMFS has responsibility for
natural resource restoration. The Secretary of the Interior has
delegated trustee responsibility to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Governor of Massachusetts has delegated trustee responsibility to
the Secretary of Environmental Affairs.
The Council issued an initial ``Request for Restoration Ideas'' in
October 1995 (60 FR 52164, October 5, 1995)(Round I). Fifty-six ideas
were received from the local communities, members of the public,
academia and state and federal agencies. The ideas were the basis for
the alternatives listed in the Council's ``Restoration Plan for the New
Bedford Harbor Environment'' (Restoration Plan) that was developed to
guide the Council's restoration efforts. An environmental impact
statement was prepared in conjunction with the Restoration Plan to
fulfill requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. A record
of decision was issued on September 22, 1998, for both the Restoration
Plan and the environmental impact statement. The record of decision
provided for implementation of 11 preferred restoration projects
through funding provided by the Trust Account.
A second request for proposed restoration ideas was issued in
August 1999 (64 FR 44505, August 16, 1999) (Round II). Thirty-five
restoration ideas were submitted to the Council with total requested
funding of approximately $35.0 million from the Trust Account. The
Council held a meeting on October 26, 1999, to provide an opportunity
for oral presentations of the submitted ideas. The Council also
solicited public comments on the ideas and held a hearing on November
23, 1999, to give the public further opportunity to comment on the
ideas. The project ideas were reviewed by the Council's legal advisors
who provided comments regarding whether or not particular ideas
satisfied the legal criteria for funding. In addition the ideas were
evaluated by technical advisors who developed recommendations with
respect to the technical feasibility and restoration benefits of each
of the ideas.
The Council carefully considered all public comment received and
the comments from its technical and legal advisors and staff. The
Council discussed each idea, and following this review process, the
Council identified preferred project ideas for potential funding.
The Council is now seeking public review of the preferred project
ideas and the proposed level of funding for each project.
At the conclusion of the comment period, the Council will consider
the comments from the public and its advisors before making any final
decisions as to the projects eligible for potential funding through the
Trust Account.
Upon the Council's final decisions, certain projects may require a
competitive solicitation in order for the Council to provide funding.
If necessary, the solicitation will be a formal request following the
appropriate contract or grant procedures. Construction or
implementation of the projects ultimately selected could be awarded to
private entities, commercial firms, educational institutions or local,
state or Federal agencies. All projects will ultimately be funded
through contract or grant procedures that will provide conditions to
ensure that the funds are expended prudently and as proposed.
Prior to final approval for funding, all selected projects require
environmental review under applicable law and the submission of
detailed scopes of work for Council review and approval. In addition,
implementation of the projects may be conditioned or delayed, and the
funds therefore held in reserve, until more information becomes
available or specific conditions are met. Funds held in reserve will
continue to be held in the interest bearing Trust Account, administered
by the Court Registry Investment System of the United States District
Courts.
II. The Preferred Project Ideas Recommended by the Trustee Council
Following is a description of the preferred project ideas proposed
by the Council for potential implementation and funding. The Trustee
Council has also make available an environmental assessment which will
provide further information on the preferred project ideas and a
discussion on those ideas which are not considered preferred projects,
including a brief discussion of some of the reasons why the project is
not preferred. This information will be made available at the Council
offices (see ADDRESSES):
[[Page 46148]]
1. Acushnet River Valley Conservation Project (Council suggested
amount: $964,000)
This idea involves the purchase of either a fee interest in, or
conservation restriction for, approximately 245 acres of land along the
Acushnet River. The land is characterized by 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers)
of non-tidal riverfront containing hardwood and pine forests, open farm
land, red maple and shrub swamps and freshwater meadows. Accordingly,
this project acquires and protects against development, the equivalent
of river lands lost or injured due to contamination along the Acushnet
River estuary. In addition, the acquisition and/or conservation of this
land will help to restore downstream natural resources which were
injured through PCB contamination. Among the primary benefits resulting
from implementation of this idea would be protection of water quality
downstream and the protection of passive recreation lands and/or fish
and wildlife habitats. These tracts of land appear to have high habitat
value and would greatly contribute to protection of the Acushnet River
watershed. The cost of the land purchase or imposition of a
conservation restriction at $3,900/acre appears to provide good
environmental benefits for the cost. While this site is not contiguous
to the area of contamination, it is expected to provide much needed
protection to the injured natural resources, particularly anadromous
fish injured by the contamination.
All Council-funded land purchases require a habitat value analysis,
a fair market appraisal, title exam, an environmental site assessment,
property boundary surveys and a conservation restriction to be held by
a grantee acceptable to the Trustee Council before the project can be
implemented (collectively referred to hereinafter as the ``standard
pre-acquisition tasks'').
2. Buzzards BayKeeper (Council suggested amount: $150,000)
The BayKeeper would be an on-the-water initiative to primarily
monitor whether trustee funded projects are being properly implemented
and to identify any activities that may be adversely affecting
successful implementation. Accordingly, the BayKeeper will be assisting
the Council's efforts to restore natural resources by monitoring the
Trust Account funded projects and by providing information to assist in
the effective implementation of such current and future projects. The
BayKeeper is also envisioned as supporting education projects and
wetland restoration activities associated with the harbor cleanup and
restoration. The Council currently believes that the BayKeeper can
provide additional monitoring and assistance to both existing and
future Council funded projects such as eelgrass, saltmarsh and tern
restoration projects as well as providing overall monitoring of
activities that may adversely affect restoration projects. The funding
request would support these BayKeeper activities for a 5-year period.
3. Community Rowing Boathouse (Council suggested amount: $25,000 for a
study on lost recreational use, $250,000 for new boat(s) and a
boathouse if the results of the study indicate a sufficient loss of
access to the Harbor through recreational boating due to PCB related
injury to natural resources to justify the expense of the proposed
idea.)
This idea involves the purchase or construction of additional boats
and the planning and construction of a boathouse to be used for an
existing whaleboat rowing program for youth and adults. The boathouse
facility would include space for storage, repair, maintenance, and
construction of boats. If the project were funded, participation in the
boating programs would be offered free of charge to all New Bedford
schoolchildren.
Any funding for this idea is contingent upon obtaining the results
of the study and analysis, described here, that demonstrate a loss of
access to the Harbor for recreational boating due to PCB-related injury
to natural resources to justify the expense of the proposal.
Accordingly, if the study demonstrates a loss of access to the Harbor
to recreational boating due to PCB-related injury to natural resources,
the overall goal of this project is to compensate for that lost access
and natural resource service by providing the equivalent of such lost
access and natural resource service, by providing people with a means
of direct access to the Harbor through an on-the-water activity within
the Harbor. The provision of additional boats or construction of new
boat(s) and/or a boathouse would address this goal by allowing an
expansion of an existing harbor-oriented boating program with an
emphasis on youth rowing. In addition the boathouse could possibly be
used for similar programs offered by other groups. The Trustees will
consider this project, and/or alternative projects to enhance boating
uses, subject to further legal review.
Several of the restoration ideas received in both Round I and Round
II have involved projects to restore lost recreational uses. It has
become apparent that the Council requires more information on certain
injuries to recreational uses of natural resources resulting from PCB
contamination, before the Council can evaluate the merits of additional
projects which address specific impacts to recreational use of natural
resources in the Acushnet River and New Bedford Harbor. The Harbor has
been closed to fishing since 1979 and swimming since 1982. The 1986
damage assessment considered lost use values associated with impacts to
the commercial lobster fishery, recreational fishing, beach use and
coastal property value decreases associated with public awareness of
the PCB contamination. The damage assessment did not study any impacts
to other recreational uses, including boating. It is not known whether
these other uses were considered at the time that the prior studies
were performed.
The Council recommends commissioning a study to evaluate whether
there has been other lost recreational use(s) of the New Bedford Harbor
Environment associated with PCB-related injuries to natural resources.
The information resulting from the study would then be available to
determine which access and recreation projects are legally fundable
and, possibly, the level of funding the Trustees should consider
relative to other recreational projects and restoration priorities.
4. Marsh Island Salt Marsh Restoration (Council suggested amount:
$750,000)
The original idea (Harbor Open Space/Public Access Study) contained
many aspects including the study of Marsh Island for passive recreation
and environmental aspects. In reviewing this idea, the technical
advisors favored the restoration of the salt marsh on Marsh Island. Of
the eight sites proposed for study, the Marsh Island site appears to
show the greatest potential for restoration and public access. This
site could have both a salt marsh through the restoration of former
tidal and/or non-tidal wetlands and re-establishment of the upland
maritime plant community, and a passive recreation park. There is a
bedrock outcrop at the shoreline which would make an excellent focal
point for the park with the restored salt marsh and tidal gut
immediately south of this outcrop.
As discussed here, this project represents the restoration of a
saltmarsh, a natural resource which was injured by PCB contamination.
Some salt marshes within the New Bedford Harbor Environment are
[[Page 46149]]
contaminated by PCBs. Species are exposed to PCBs each time they use
the marsh resulting in harmful health effects. Restoration of marsh
habitat that is in the vicinity of the Harbor but is not impacted by
contaminants will help support resources dependent on marshes that have
been injured within the Harbor Environment. Habitat for resident fish
species could be restored, as well as intertidal habitat for avifauna
and other marine biota. Public access via foot trails would allow
direct access to the harbor.
More information is needed on the ownership of the property. In
addition the standard pre-acquisition tasks would need to be satisfied
before any purchase could occur. (See preliminary decision #1.)
New Bedford Aquarium
Several project ideas were submitted in association with the
proposed New Bedford Aquarium. The Council reviewed the various ideas
and has identified the following (#5--8) as among the preferred
projects:
5. Artificial reef (Council suggested amount: up to $500,000)
The idea would be to construct a reef three to four times the size
of an existing artificial reef off Salter's Point, Dartmouth, MA,
constructed in 1998 using reef balls. Because bottom habitat has been
adversely impacted by the release of PCBs which settled into the bottom
sediments, this project should help to restore those natural resources
injured by PCB sediments in the Harbor bottom. Living resources using
or coming in contact with the bottom risk contamination from the PCBs.
Properly constructed and appropriately located artificial reefs can:
(1) enhance or replace injured fish habitat; (2) facilitate access to
areas with fish species and utilization by recreational and commercial
fishermen; and (3) increase total fish biomass within a given area.
The Council would provide funding for a preliminary identification
of appropriate locations, and the materials and/or structures to be
utilized at such locations. If a suitable location is found, a reef
would be constructed with Trust funds. Funding would also include a
monitoring component to determine if the goals of the project are being
achieved, to identify any necessary modifications, and to ensure that
intended benefits are being realized by the injured natural resources.
6. Educational exhibit on PCB impacts to natural resources and examples
of how to change everyday behavior to have a positive impact on the
Harbor Environment (Council suggested amount: $150,000)
The exhibit would contain essentially two components or goals. The
first purpose of the exhibit would be to explain what PCBs are, what
they were used for in industry, their disposal into the Harbor, and
then examine the effects of PCB contamination on the six major
taxonomic groups of organisms (fish, crustaceans, mollusks, plankton,
annelids, birds) located in the New Bedford Harbor Environment. The
exhibit would be expected to educate the public on the harmful effects
of the PCB discharges and efforts being made to clean up the harbor and
restore its natural resources. With this education should come a
greater appreciation of the Harbor and a concern that further pollution
should be prevented.
The second, and perhaps more significant, purpose of the exhibit is
to educate people to change their routine or everyday behavior to have
a positive impact on the New Bedford Harbor Environment and its natural
resources that have been adversely affected by past PCB disposals and
releases into the Harbor Environment. Examples might include the kinds
of materials which should not be poured down the house-hold drain, or
discarded from a boat, or otherwise disposed of into the Harbor
Environment. By emphasizing simple preventative measures to a large
audience, such preventive measures may ultimately produce a significant
cumulative benefit. Because the Aquarium exhibit should reach a large
audience, including a very significant portion of the greater New
Bedford area population, it is believed that this educational exhibit
should have a direct and positive impact on natural resource
restoration in the harbor.
7. Marine fish stock enhancement (Council suggested amount: up to
$1,950,000)
The New Bedford Aquarium proposal would construct a fish hatchery
co-located at the Aquarium site. This facility will raise species that
have been injured by PCB contamination for two possible purposes:
First, stocking of hatchery raised fish could be one of the means of
replacing some fish species, natural resources that were injured by
PCBs (winter flounder, scup tautog), if a methodology can be found
which is protective of the wild stocks and assists in their survival.
Second, hatchery raised fish may be found to provide other ecosystem
services, such as supporting the food chain in an environmentally
protective way. In other words, because certain fish species were
injured by PCB contamination, supplying hatchery raised fish may assist
restoration efforts by reducing PCB contamination in the food chain. In
order to determine if such potential restoration efforts will benefit
the injured marine fish species, the Trustees need to obtain
information on the feasibility and efficacy of using a hatchery
facility to provide for either or both of these purposes.
While the Trustees cannot ascertain, at this point, the scope and
scale of the facility that will be needed to answer these questions or
to supply these needs, or the breadth and duration of the studies that
will be necessary, the Trustees have earmarked up to $1,950,000 with
the hope of accomplishing these goals: (A)design and implementation of
a feasibility study to evaluate the potential for a hatchery facility
to aid the Trustees' in restoring, replacing or acquiring the
equivalent of injured fish species by satisfying either or both of the
objectives described here; (B)if justified by the feasibility study,
design and construct an appropriate portion of the Aquarium to house a
hatchery facility to facilitate accomplishment of either or both of the
objectives described above. The funding would support construction and
operations of the facility for over 5 years, following which the
Aquarium would be expected to continue operating the facility. It would
also provide a facility which promotes a collaborative approach between
Federal, state, academic and private interests that would further
research capabilities on aquaculture. In addition, this facility would
serve as a working exhibit of the Aquarium and would provide training,
research and education capabilities which should promote aquaculture
within the region. The Trustees believe that this funding amount is
appropriate for a project that can provide this level of information
and services for future use in restoring injured natural resources in
the harbor.
The Trustees will first evaluate the outcome of the feasibility
study against the current needs for restoration. Assuming that the
feasibility study supports this hatchery approach, then the Trustees
will need to work with the Aquarium as the design of the facility moves
forward. Planning for hatchery facilities must provide for the
restoration needs, including a determination of what can feasibly be
built into the Aquarium to satisfy either of the dual purposes, and
whether or
[[Page 46150]]
not the studies and construction could be completed within the
timeframe that would provide information to the Trustees and
restoration in a timely manner.
The Aquarium proposal specified that fish produced in such a
facility may also be used for human consumption. Council funding may
not be used for this purpose and the proposed funding level reflects
this restriction.
8. Saltmarsh creation (Council suggested amount: up to $750,000)
This idea proposes to construct a saltmarsh on the Aquarium site to
be colonized with both low and high marsh plant species and animals.
The saltmarsh would: (1) replace injured saltmarsh habitat, a natural
resource; (2) serve as a living exhibit of the aquarium and be part of
a public park; (3) remove nitrogen from the seawater effluent from the
Aquarium's tanks and Harbor waters which may be used to supplement tank
flows; and (4) produce marsh plants for use at the Aquarium site and
throughout the Inner Harbor. Funding would be for the design,
construction and planting. A boardwalk and signage would be erected to
allow significant access with minimal impact to the marsh while
explaining the functions of a saltmarsh to a large audience. The
saltmarsh and exhibit would educate the public on the importance of
preserving, restoring or creating salt marshes and, hopefully,
influence a change in behavior to protect salt marshes from future
development and its resultant destruction of this essential habitat.
The Council intends to reserve funding for projects 5 through 8
until after a specific funding goal for the total Aquarium has been
met. The Council requests comment on this concept and suggestions
regarding the amount to be raised, or other distinguishing events
before release of funds should occur. Note: for certain projects it may
be appropriate to release funds at an earlier time than for others. The
Council is also seeking comment on its decision to have Council-funded
projects available for viewing without an admission fee. Aquarium
projects 6, 7, and possibly 8, would be part of the facility for which
an admission fee would be charged and the Council requests suggestions
on how access can be provided to these projects at no cost to the
visitor.
9. Nonquitt Salt Marsh Restoration (Council suggested amount: $150,000)
This idea was originally suggested in Round I. As discussed here,
this project represents the restoration of a saltmarsh, a natural
resource which was injured by PCB contamination. The idea involves
installing a new 100-foot (30.5-meter) culvert, remove a tidal slide
gate and replace a headwall to improve tidal flushing of the 60-acre
Nonquitt Marsh, Dartmouth. Some salt marshes within the New Bedford
Harbor Environment are contaminated by PCBs. Species are exposed to
PCBs each time they use the marsh resulting in harmful health effects.
Restoration of marsh habitat that is in the vicinity of the Harbor but
is not impacted by contaminants will help support resources dependent
on marshes that have been injured within the Harbor Environment.
Inadequate flushing has resulted in elevated salt levels in the
Nonquitt marsh. Occasionally, storms will block the culvert pipe with
sediment and vegetation. This problem was compounded when a large storm
in the late 1970's caused a complete blockage of the pipe which
resulted in the marsh vegetation dying off due to long periods of
flooding. The distressed vegetation has yet to recover and the peat
within the marsh is decomposing and eroding. By improving tidal
flushing of this marsh, normal salinity, vegetation and productivity of
the marsh will be restored. Included in the project idea was the
construction of a marsh observation platform to facilitate public
access to the site.
During Round I the Council decided to postpone the final decision
regarding funding of this project pending further evaluation of
comments received regarding: the costs of the project and the potential
for costsharing; whether other design and location alternatives are
under consideration; the possible impacts to the marsh from fecal
contamination and freshwater inputs; and public access to the marsh.
The Council has evaluated those comments and the responses received
from the applicant and determined that the project meets the criteria
for funding and will provide substantial increased benefits to injured
natural resources within the New Bedford Harbor Environment.
10. Popes Beach Land Purchase (North) (Council suggested amount:
$55,000)
This idea proposes to purchase and place a conservation restriction
on six parcels of land totaling 2.6 acres on the northwest portion of
Sconticut Neck, Fairhaven. This property consists of dunes, beach, sand
flats and salt marsh habitats. Just offshore are recreational shellfish
beds to which the public would also be provided access. The purchase
and conservation easement should contribute indirectly to the
protection and restoration of that shellfish resource, a natural
resource which was injured by PCB contamination. This property would
add to the growing inventory of undeveloped coastal wetlands along
Sconticut Neck and is contiguous to undeveloped lands in upper Priests
Cove. The shoreline, tidal flats, marshes and shellfish beds within the
Harbor were contaminated by the release of PCBs. The purchase of this
property will acquire equivalent property to that which was impacted
and will protect the habitat from future development providing a
benefit to natural resources. The technical advisors believe it
provides good environmental benefits at reasonable costs. The standard
pre-acquisition tasks would need to be satisfied before the purchase
could occur. (See preliminary decision number 1.)
11. Popes Beach Land Purchase (South) (Council suggested amount:
$145,000)
This idea proposes to purchase and place a conservation restriction
on approximately 3.5 acres of land on the northwest portion of
Sconticut Neck, Fairhaven. The shoreline edge is characterized by a
dune-like plant community. The intertidal sandflat and nearby subtidal
waters provide feeding and cover habitat for estuarine finfish species.
The remaining property is characterized by shrub, sapling and common
reed-dominated plant community cover. The purchase and placement of a
conservation restriction on this property will acquire equivalent
property to that which was impacted by PCB contamination within the
Harbor and will protect the habitat from future development providing a
benefit to natural resources. The goal is to preserve this estuarine
habitat from future development. This land is not contiguous with the
other land proposed for purchase but is in the same general area. It is
believed to have good habitat value which a habitat value analysis
could confirm. The standard pre-acquisition tasks would need to be
satisfied before the purchase could occur. (See preliminary decision
#1.)
12. Regional Shellfish Grow Out Up-Well System (Council suggested
amount: $500,000)
PCBs discharged into the New Bedford Harbor Environment have
resulted in elevated levels of PCBs in a variety of fish and shellfish
species requiring the enactment of fishing closures.
The goal of this project is to restore shellfish injured by PCB
contamination through the construction of a shellfish grow out up-well
system. The system is a tank-based system using recirculated
[[Page 46151]]
sea water, and if selected, it would involve locating an appropriate
site for the facility, and the design, construction and startup of the
facility. Once constructed, the facility would be used to raise
shellfish to a size that, after placement in the wild, would have a
high probability of surviving to spawning and harvest size. This system
would assist the Council's shellfish restoration efforts already
receiving restoration funding. The system would allow shellfish seed to
be purchased at a small size and then grown under controlled conditions
to a size that would survive predation. Smaller seed is less expensive
than larger seed, so this idea would allow more seed to be purchased.
More areas will be seeded and there will be quicker returns for the
effort. Although not included in the proposal, based on the technical
advisors' recommendation, the Trustees will require this project to
include a component to scientifically document the extent of success of
this stocking effort.
13. Restoration and Management of Tern Populations (Council suggested
amount: $1,232,000)
Roseate and common terns were injured while feeding on PCB
contaminated fish in the New Bedford Harbor Environment. The project
goal is to rebuild and restore the population of roseate terns(a
federally listed endangered species) and common terns through
management or enhancement of nesting locations. The management aspect
of this project involves moving other species, such as gulls, off the
nesting areas and the daily monitoring of the terns that locate at the
three islands.
This idea would extend the work being conducted under restoration
funding from Round I for an additional period of 6 years. Round I
provided funding ($266,400) to implement biological management and
monitoring of tern colonies at Bird Island, Marion, Massachusetts, and
Ram Island, Mattapoisett, Massachusetts to restore population of common
terns and roseate terns. At a third island, Penikese Island, Gosnold,
Massachusetts, the project focused on reclaiming the island as a
nesting site by managing gulls. Preliminary engineering work to
stabilize Bird island and toxicological analyses of tern eggs were also
funded.
14. Riverside Auto Wrecking Land Acquisition (Council suggested amount:
$675,000)
This idea proposes to purchase and place conservation restrictions
on four lots in Acushnet totaling approximately 14.3 acres of land in
the upper harbor portion of the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. The
purchase, and conservation restriction would preserve the land from
redevelopment and provide protection to the wetlands or wetland fringe
adjacent to the properties. The wetland fringe is one of the areas
determined to be contaminated by PCBs and will be remediated by
removing the contaminated portion followed by replanting. Accordingly
this project will provide an acquisition of equivalent natural
resources to those which were injured or lost due to PCB contamination.
One of the properties is the home of an auto wrecking yard and is
located across the river from the Aerovox facility, one of the past
sources of contamination of the harbor. The applicant hopes to use the
parcels for scientific study, environmental education and habitat
restoration. The purchase of these parcels (and cleanup through other
funding sources) would enhance the function of the adjacent wetlands
and the aesthetics of the upper harbor. The technical advisors
recommended, and the Council agreed, that any funding provided be
limited to purchase of, and placement of conservation restrictions on,
the properties and identified restoration activities but not for the
cleanup or staffing. The standard pre-acquisition tasks would need to
be satisfied before the purchase could occur. (See preliminary decision
number 1.)
15. Upper Harbor Confined Disposal Facility (CDF)Natural Resource
Habitat Enhancements (Council suggested amount: $25,000)
This idea is to enhance the three CDFs north of Coggeshall Street
being built to hold contaminated harbor sediments by incorporating
plantings for habitat enhancement which could not otherwise be funded
or implemented by EPA. The design of the CDFs would incorporate
plantings conducive to use by birds and other wildlife for similar
natural resource functions to those lost due to the contamination of
the CDFs as a result of PCB contamination in the Harbor: such lost or
injured natural resource functions include cover, foraging and/or
feeding. The Council would like to first determine, through a study,
the type of plantings that could be supported by these structures,
including the sides of the structures. Such plantings would further
benefit the injured natural resources present in the Harbor. If the
plantings are determined to be likely to restore or replace PCB-injured
natural resources in the area, the Council would consider a funding
level necessary to support the plantings.
16. Upper Sconticut Neck Shellfish/Sewer Installation (Council
suggested amount:$150,000 for study, $550,000 in reserve)
This restoration idea seeks to eliminate a potential source of
pollution which has closed shellfish beds and recreational areas in the
Outer New Bedford Harbor off Sconticut Neck, Fairhaven. Shellfish beds
in the Harbor were contaminated with PCBs resulting in fishery
closures. This project would replace those beds by opening up beds
closed by septic contamination. It is believed that at least one of the
sources of pollution into this area is individual septic systems that
release fecal contaminants which eventually migrate into the harbor.
Although the Town of Fairhaven has made great efforts to identify
individual sources and correct the problem, the contamination still
continues. To further address this problem, the idea proposes to
connect 450 Sconticut Neck residential dwellings to the municipal sewer
system, which may reduce fecal contamination in the Outer Harbor. This
idea, if feasible, will protect an existing shellfish bed from fecal
bacterial contamination.
The Council is concerned that there may be several contaminant
sources that are impacting these shellfish beds. Rather than commit a
significant amount of funding to correct what may be only one source of
contamination, the Council would like to undertake a study to determine
the sources impacting these shellfish beds and the best way to correct
the source of contamination. If the results conclusively determine that
the Sconticut Neck septic systems are responsible, and the idea is
feasible, the Council would then release additional funds to assist the
design and engineering for this project.
17. Winsegansett Field Station--New Bedford Harbor Environmental
Education and Coastal Resources Restoration Center (Council suggested
amount: $360,000)
This idea contains many different components which the Council
believes to be severable. The Council preliminarily supports the
following aspects of the idea: habitat restoration and environmental
education projects targeting specific human activities. In particular,
the Council believes at this time that there are discrete habitat
restoration projects on the property that should be identified and
implemented, including: restoring salt marsh degraded
[[Page 46152]]
by insufficient flow (salt marshes were injured by PCBs); restoring
water quality in Winsegansett Pond by investigating and correcting
pollutant inputs (salt pond habitat assists natural resources injured
by PCBs); and restoring living resources through eelgrass planting
(eelgrass plantings assist in the restoration of natural resources
injured by PCBs). These restoration activities would provide
replacement for similar lost or injured natural resources in the Harbor
Environment.
The Council also believes that there are opportunities to educate
people about restoration of PCB injured natural resources in the New
Bedford Harbor Environment through conducting activities at this site
and encouraging additional restoration efforts. For example, there are
eelgrass beds, saltmarsh and a salt pond located on the site. As those
areas are restored, or enhanced, it may be appropriate to provide
specific training programs to educate schoolchildren, the public, and
municipal officials regarding the functions of these resources, and the
appropriate methodologies to restore and monitor the resources in the
New Bedford Harbor Environment.
The Council also evaluated the need for a full-time staff person to
be funded from the New Bedford Harbor Trust Accounts. The Council chose
instead only to recommend sufficient funds to allow contracting for the
specific services needed. The Council also recommends some funding for
the trail and public access improvements and protective/interpretative
signage.
Classification
This notice does not contain a collection-of-information
requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. and 9601 et seq.
Dated: July 21, 2000.
Andrew J. Kemmerer,
Director, Office of Habitat Conservation, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 00-19028 Filed 7-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F