SEARS ISLAND MEMO

Part Two Pages 6-11) of the National Marine Fisheries Service September 29, 1995 comments on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Sears Island cargo terminal project.
Read Part 1 HERE

====================================

Page 6

proposed project to specify the mitigation measures it considers necessary to allow the project to proceed. NMFS believes that mitigation to compensate for the adverse effects of the proposed Sears Island project must replace the habitat functions and values for fish and shellfish that would be lost due to the project, and must not cause additional loss of productive marine habitat. However, technical problems and uncertainties in marine habitat restoration and creation (discussed below) may make adequate compensatory mitigation impracticable for the applicant. Therefore, the best mitigation option for this project is avoidance and minimization of adverse impacts through the selection of an alternative site.

As discussed above, the existing created clam flats have not provided functional compensation for intertidal habitat loss due to causeway construction, and the exact technical reason is unknown. This experience calls into question the applicant's ability to create additional intertidal habitat to compensate for the intertidal impacts of the rest of the project.

Seagrass restoration or creation has never been accomplished in New England on the scale that would be necessary to compensate for the Sears Island project. The only existing eelgrass mitigation project in New England is the work currently underway in Portsmouth, New Hampshire to offset the indirect loss of up to three acres of potential eelgrass habitat. That project has experienced mixed results, with some sites doing reasonably well after an initial period of extensive maintenance, and some sites failing completely. However, that project may represent a best-case scenario since it involved an experienced seagrass ecologist with extensive knowledge of the local environment, good data on historic distribution of eelgrass to help select candidate sites, and assistance from an existing laboratory and graduate students who were able to devote substantial field time to the project.

Seagrass mitigation has been accomplished at many other sites around the country (mostly in the mid-Atlantic region), but based on NMFS' experience nationally, such projects have never successfully offset a net loss in seagrass habitat. There are many technical problems and uncertainties associated with seagrass habrtfat creation, and even if suitable sites are identified, the work is very expensive due to the use of divers and boats. Functional compensation, if attainable, typically requires planting 3 acres of eelgrass for every 1 acre lost, since the median success rate for transplants tends to be less than 50%. For the Sears Island project, this would mean planting on the order of at least 40 acres of eelgrass, assuming that suitable sites could be identified. The proposed creation of subtidal eelgrass terraces to facilitate eelgrass creation would trade existing deep water habitat for shallow habitat, and would not provide new aquatic habitat to compensate for proposed losses. Finally, given the inherent technical uncertainties, we

===================

Page 7 would recommend that the applicant perform such mitigation and demonstrate initial success in advance of project construction to ensure the long-term viability of the new seagrass habitat.

5. The Final SEIS should reflect the views of the cooperating agencies regarding the environmental impacts of the project. The DSEIS alludes to the federal resource agencies' views regarding the significant impacts of the proposed project, but it does not explicitly state that NMFS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency have raised very serious concerns about environmental impacts. We recommend that the Final SEIS clearly explain the views of the cooperating federal agencies regarding this project, so that the public and decision makers have easy access to this information. Specific Comments, Corrections, etc.

p.S-4 - The last paragraph on the page discusses the D-3 series alternatives for the project, and states that after the Corps of Engineers prepared a sketch concept of this option, "feasible alternatives were developed which the federal review agencies considered acceptable, based on environmental impacts." The D-3 series of alternatives was proposed by the Corps as a potential way of developing a minimum impact project located on Sears Island, because significant environmental impacts associated with the D-l and D-2 series alternatives suggested that none of those alternatives would receive a Corps permit. NMFS agreed that it was important to pursue a less damaging Sears Island alternative like the D-3 concept, but we have never concluded that such an alternative has "acceptable" environmental impacts. p.S-9 - Footnote 6 defines the Earlier Action to include construction completed through 1989 under previously issued permits. This note should acknowledge that approximately 10 acres of freshwater wetlands were filled during the Earlier Action without the required permits.

Table S-1 - This "Summary of Primary Impacts" table should include a note to clarify that primary impacts are not all (or even most) of^J&he total environmental impacts of the project, since secondary impacts would affect a much larger area.

p.S-12 - The first paragraph summarizes the controversy surrounding the significance of the project's impacts, and states that this issue "primarily involves the amount of freshwater wetland and eelgrass losses from the proposed terminal."

Actually, this issue involves the total impacts of the project to all waters and wetlands, including living resources such as fish and wildlife, and valuable environments such as the intertidal habitat at the proposed terminal site. Page 8 p.S-13 - We disagree with the statement that the three clam flats created adjacent to the Sears Island causeway "are functioning as moderately coarse-grained intertidal habitat that compensate for the losses of intertidal habitat that would be caused by the proposed project." The three created clam flats have not successfully replaced the intertidal habitat lost due to construction of the causeway, and have shown a steady decline in soft shell clam populations every year since 1990. Moreover, 3.5 acres of ineffective mitigation does not offset the loss of between 16.0 and 16.2 acres of intertidal habitat due to the full project.

p.1-2 - The text here indicates that a new port facility at Mack Point would require the displacement of all or part of the federal fuel facility or Sprague Energy property at the site, and suggests that neither are available. However, Kimball Chase Company, Inc. (KCCI) has analyzed port operations at Mack Point and concluded that opportunities are available to reconfigure existing operations to accommodate a new facility. Even if such an arrangement is not successful, KCCI believes that a new port facility could be built at Mack Point using existing vacant space and offshore construction. These options should be discussed in detail in the Final SEIS.

p.1-3 - The first sentence on this page states that a marginal wharf could not be constructed at Mack Point because of the need for extensive dredging to develop a navigation channel. However, to our knowledge the applicant has not shown that this dredging would be environmentally or economically infeasible.

p.2-17 - We disagree with the treatment of mitigation costs in the DSEIS. Evaluating various alternatives for the project based on construction costs alone ignores the fact that some alternatives would require extremely expensive mitigation measures to offset environmental impacts. In contrast, other alternatives that have been screened out in the DSEIS (at least in part due to their construction cost) would warrant much more modest expenditures for mitigation. We recommend that the Final SEIS incorporate estimated mitigation costs into the total cost analysis between various alternatives.

p.2-18 - There^appears to be no strong basis for the cost feasibility figures developed by MDOT for the DSEIS. MDOT concluded that construction costs of $50 million to $60 million would be reasonable, and costs up to $75 million might be reasonable, but that costs above $75 million would not be feasible. However, these cost estimates reflect construction costs only, and do not include mitigation, which would cost more for some alternatives than for others. Using these figures, MDOT has excluded alternatives that would involve much less intertidal fill yet would cost only marginally more than $75 million (e.g., alternative D-3.5(B) would cost $76.2 million to build).

===================

Page 9

Table 2.7-1 - The discussion of Mack Point in this table of sites included in the 1987 FEIS contains misleading information. The text should indicate that there is vacant and underutilized land at Mack Point and that the necessary acreage could be attained through wharf construction and/or reconfiguration of existing uses. The discussion of natural resources should note that the marine habitat at Mack Point has relatively low habitat value, and should not characterize the subtidal area as "potential eelgrass habitat."

p.2-28 - Although MDOT's consultants have raised potential concerns about cargo compatibility between coal and wood chips on Mack Point, they have not clearly demonstrated that potential conflicts between cargoes cannot be overcome through readily available technology (cargo enclosures, dust suppression systems, etc.) and reasonable site management. We understand that MDOT is evaluating new information that suggests that wood chips may no longer be a major cargo handled by the proposed port. If wood chips remain a target cargo for the facility, we recommend that the Final SEIS evaluate in detail a Mack Point alternative that employs "clean cargo" technology. We also recommend that the Final SEIS evaluate in detail a Mack Point alternative that does not service wood chips.

p.2-33 - This section discusses the status of the existing federal fuel facility at Mack Point, which has been cited as a possible option for securing sufficient land on Mack Point to build a new port facility. Based on recent discussions between EPA and the Defense Logistics Agency, the availability of a portion of this site for redevelopment may not be as remote a possibility as the DSEIS suggests. We recommend the Final SEIS include an updated discussion of this issue, including information from the Defense Logistics Agency indicating whether a portion of their land might be available in the foreseeable future.

p.2-86 - The implication in this section that substrate on the south side of Mack Point provides suitable habitat for eelgrass is highly misleading. Based on our field work at Mack Point, the only substrate suitable for eelgrass there is very small patches (<20ft2) in the lee of remnant pier structures. In general, that subtidal habrfat south of Mack Point is not suitable eelgrass habitat.

p.2-104 - Again, the statement that "potential eelgrass habitat exists [at the southern end of Mack Point], but was not evaluated at this level of analysis" is very misleading. We recommend deleting such references from the document. p.2-128 - As with our comments on page 2-18, we question the basis for MDOT's decision to rule out potentially less damaging

================================

Page 10

alternatives that slightly exceed the $75 million cost ceiling.

p.2-139 - Table 2.27-1 should clarify that the natural resource impacts listed are only a portion of the project's complete direct, indirect, and secondary impacts.

p.3-47 - The DSEIS states that the "causeway added clean granular fill material" to the intertidal bar that connected Sears Island to the mainland. This statement is misleading and should be corrected in the Final SEIS to indicate that this fill material-destroyed 3.7 acres of intertidal habitat and eliminated tidal exchange between Long Cove and Stockton Harbor.

p.3-49 - This section should indicate that additional testing must be completed before the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency determine whether the material to be dredged is suitable for open water disposal.

p. 3-55 - Section 3.8.2.1 should reference the extremely high densities of soft shell clams found at the proposed project site in the 1970s and 1980s and documented in the FEIS. The text should also clarify that the substrate conditions have not changed substantially, so the area presumably still provides highly productive clam habitat even if standing stocks currently are low.

p.3-56 - The reference to studies of Sears Island intertidal habitat conditions in the 1970s by Central Maine Power should also mention the 1979 CMP study that found much higher densities of soft shell clams in the proposed port location than other sections of the shoreline.

p. 3-58 - The text here should indicate that lobster gear is also set directly in the proposed dredge and fill area.

p.4-39 - The discussion of vessel impacts should also discuss extreme events, such as the occasional instances when a tug or cargo vessel exceeds normal operating conditions. These rare, unpredictable -events could cause extensive eelgrass bed erosion and even whoLagale reshaping of the bottom.

p.4-40 - The water quality section should discuss non-point source runoff from the proposed port facility.

p.4-47 - Table 4.7-2b should clarify that turbidity in back eddies would not simply be created from storm events. Instead, storm effects would be exacerbated by the presence of a large marine structure that would disrupt normal hydrography, littoral transport, etc.

p.4-48 - As with our comment on p.3-49, this section should indicate that additional testing must be completed before the

=====================

Page 11

Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency determine whether the material to be dredged is suitable for open water disposal.

p.4-52 - The DSEIS states that the clam flats created adjacent to the Sears Island causeway have "provided opportunity to replace those functions physically displaced by the causeway and terminal site proposed in the Final EIS." This statement is vague and does not reflect the fact that the created clam flats have not successfully offset the loss of the diverse intertidal habitat that existed prior to the construction of the causeway.

p.4-53 - The discussion of the created clam flats should reflect the obvious physical problems with the site, such.as course shifting substrate.

p.4-59 - The text here and in Table 4.8-2 on p.4-61 should be revised to indicate that increased turbidity in back eddies, and associated reductions in eelgrass productivity, would be attributable to the creation of a large wharf structure along the shore, and not simply to "storm events."

p.5-1 - Many speakers at the recent public hearing for the proposed project expressed concern about the potential export of wood chips and the resulting adverse effects on forests in the project's hinterlands. This is potentially a serious secondary effect of the project, and we recommend that the Final SEIS address this issue in the section on secondary and cumulative impacts to terrestrial resources.

p.5-5 - The discussion of cumulative impacts to marine resources mentions the already permitted marina planned for Stockton Harbor, but lists the size of the marina incorrectly (80 slips). The Corps of Engineers permit for the project authorized a marina, boat yard, yacht club, and municipal landing with 268 boat slips and 150 moorings.

p.6-17 - We strongly disagree with the statement that the "created clam flats compensate for the losses of intertidal habitat that-would be caused by the proposed project."

Pg 11