Get Involved Mission Statement Calendar of Events Just For Fun           Associates   Projects   Spotlight
Green Futures Letter DEP letter Nat. Marine Fisheries Letter SE Reg.Planning & Econ. Dev. Letter	Letter to FERC Re: Weaver's Cove National Marine Fisheries Service Magalie R. Salas, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE, Room 1A Washington, DC 20426 Re: Weavers Cove Energy L.L.C. and Mill River Pipeline L.L.C., Fall River, Massachusetts - Docket No. CP04-36-000 and CP04-41-000 Dear Secretary Salas: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Weavers Cove Energy L.L.C. and Mill River Pipeline L.L.C. (Docket Nos. CP04-36-000 and CP04-41-000) for the construction of a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) import facility along the Taunton River in Fall River, Massachusetts. This DEIS also serves as the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) required pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. The US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) has issued a Public Notice (NAE-2004-2355) for this project and is currently under review. NOAA Fisheries has served as a cooperating federal agency in the development of the DEIS. According to the DEIS and the ACOE Public Notice, the proposed project will conduct dredging within an existing federal navigation channel, install structures, and discharge fill material in wetlands and waterways for the construction of the LNG import terminal and natural gas pipeline facilities. Specifically, the applicant has proposed to dredge approximately 2.5 million cubic yards of material from within a footprint of approximately 200 acres; replace a pier with jetty structure; install sheet pilings to stabilize and straighten approximately 2,650 ft of shoreline; and permanently fill approximately .04 acres of salt marsh habitat, .94 acres of intertidal habitat, and .17 acres of subtidal habitat. A primary concern to NOAA Fisheries is the proposed dredging. This activity will remove a minimum of approximately 2.5 million cubic yards of material from the channel and turning basin with upland, on-site placement of material. The applicant has proposed the dredging of the Taunton River to occur continuously for a period of 36 months. At this time, NOAA Fisheries believes that the proposed project will result in substantial and unacceptable impacts on aquatic resources of national importance (ARNI). Within the ACOE review process, NOAA Fisheries is invoking the 404(q) elevation process pursuant to the Clean Water Act and our mutually agreed upon Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act require federal agencies to consult with one another on projects such as this. Insofar as a project involves essential fish habitat (EFH), as this project does, this process is guided by the requirements of our EFH regulation at 50 CFR 600.905, which mandates the preparation of EFH assessments and generally outlines each agency's obligations in the relevant consultation procedure. We offer the following comments and recommendations on this DEIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). General Comments The Taunton River/Mount Hope Bay Complex has been designated as EFH for 14 federally managed species, including the commercially and recreationally important winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus). The New England Fishery Management Council currently manages winter flounder under the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery Management Plan. As noted within the DEIS, Marine Research, Inc. (MRI) has been conducting annual surveys in Mount Hope Bay and the lower Taunton River in order to determine finfish species and lifestage occurrence associated with the Brayton Point Power Station permit stipulations. These surveys, which include both trawls and seine stations, show that winter flounder have been present within the project footprint during previous surveys in Mount Hope Bay (NEPCo and MRI, 1994, NEPCo and MRI, 1999). MRI's 1992 icthyoplankton sampling in upper Mount Hope Bay found that winter flounder larvae accounted for 94% of the larvae collected between January and April (NEPCo and MRI, 1994). MRI's 1998 sampling indicated that winter flounder represented 67% of the larvae collected from February through mid-may (NEPCo and MRI, 1999). Furthermore, the EFH assessment within the DEIS and the ACOE Joint Section 10/404 Individual Permit Application (permit application) notes that there is presence of winter flounder within the project area, and the species has been identified specifically within the Taunton River (Chris Powell, personal communication, 9/2/04). The proposed project area serves as an important winter flounder spawning and juvenile development habitat. According to the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-138 (EFH Source Document), winter flounder spawning has been known to occur on substrates of sand, silt, and mud at varying depths of less than 5 meters to depths of 45 meters on Georges Bank (Pereira et al. 1999). Furthermore, winter flounder spawning is temperature dependent and eggs have been collected in water temperatures of 10 degrees Celsius or less (Pereira et al. 1999). According to measurements associated with the Brayton Point Power Station NPDES permit renewal application, intake water temperatures in the Taunton River from 1981­2001 have been variable and the minimum monthly averages range from 0.7 to 1.3 degrees C (US Gen, 2001). As indicated within the EFH assessment within the DEIS, egg and juvenile life stages are expected to be present within the project footprint at these temperatures throughout the winter and spring. Throughout our involvement as a cooperating federal agency, NOAA Fisheries has expressed concerns that suspended sediments resulting from the construction of the proposed project will have substantial and unacceptable impacts on winter flounder spawning habitat. We have maintained that time of year work restrictions should be implemented and utilized as a method to avoid adverse impacts on winter flounder eggs. The applicant has utilized the SSFATE modeling program to predict approximately 12 acres of adverse impact on winter flounder EFH resulting from dredging-induced suspended sediment. Moreover, inputs to the SSFATE model have underestimated the habitat parameters of winter flounder spawning conditions and dredge operational requirements, and, therefore, the impacts on EFH are substantially underestimated. Without an adequate characterization of potential adverse effects, we feel the DEIS does not meet the goals and objectives under NEPA. Anticipated impacts on winter flounder Weaver's Cove, LLC has proposed dredging within the Taunton River and Mount Hope Bay continuously for approximately 36 months. While the applicant contends impacts will be temporary, elevated suspended sediment conditions within the area will preclude the use of the area for successful winter flounder spawning through potentially four spawning seasons. Due to the importance of this area as a winter flounder spawning area, NOAA Fisheries views these impacts, while "temporary," to be substantial and unacceptable. At this time, we maintain that adverse impacts on winter flounder spawning habitat have not been fully accounted for due to insufficient inputs into the SSFATE model. Based on comments provided by NOAA Fisheries, the applicant appears to have utilized sufficient inputs to the SSFATE model for winter flounder spawning depth and winter flounder egg burial depth. However, NOAA Fisheries maintains that the rate of winter flounder embryo development as well as assumed sediment loss from dredging operations (bucket loss) have not yet been accounted for adequately within the model. Winter flounder spawning depth In earlier versions of the dredging modeling report, NOAA Fisheries noted that the depth of winter flounder spawning areas had been underestimated. We had previously recommended that the applicant utilize a depth of eight meters for inputs into the SSFATE model in order to account for variability in depth of winter flounder spawning areas. While spawning occurs within deeper waters, winter flounder spawning is most common in waters of eight meters or less. The EFH Source document indicates variability in the depth of winter flounder spawning habitats, and that winter flounder "spawning can occur at depths of less than five meters to more than 45 meters on Georges Bank" (Pereira et al. 1999). While winter flounder spawning occurs at these shallower depths, a review of the EFH Source Document describes evidence of spawning activity in deeper environments. Due to the wide variability of this spawning activity, NOAA Fisheries maintains that utilizing a <5 meter depth for winter flounder spawning as an input to the SSFATE modeling program does not adequately assess the potential impacts on the resource. By utilizing greater depths that account for this variability of winter flounder spawning depths, the aerial extent of EFH impacts will increase and thus indicate greater impacts on EFH. While the ACOE permit application identifies a number of model runs with a variety of depths, it currently appears that the applicant has utilized the 8-meter depth as recommended. Should additional SSFATE model runs be generated for this project, the applicant should continue to assume an 8-meter depth rather than areas less than 5 meters to account for variability in winter flounder spawning. Winter flounder egg burial depth Within the ACOE permit application, the applicant discusses the use of a 0.5-mm threshold depth of sediment deposition for impacts on winter flounder eggs in the SSFATE model, per earlier recommendations by NOAA Fisheries. Throughout the ACOE permit application, however, there are a number of references indicating the use of a 1.0-mm burial threshold. As stated within the EFH Source Document, winter flounder eggs range in size from 0.74-0.85 mm in diameter (Pereira et al. 1999). At sediment deposition depths greater than 0.5-mm, winter flounder eggs can be adversely affected due to suffocation. Based on our review of the anticipated effects, it appears that the applicant has assumed the 0.5-mm threshold depth for the model as recommended. Should additional SSFATE model runs be generated for this project, the applicant should continue to utilize the 0.5-mm threshold rather than the 1.0-mm threshold. Winter flounder egg incubation period The SSFATE modeling program describes the maximum duration of exposure of winter flounder eggs to suspended sediment that would have adverse effects. This maximum duration of exposure is related to impacts on embryonic development in winter flounder. The SSFATE modeling program employed a maximum duration of exposure of winter flounder eggs to suspended sediment as being 21 days. This 21-day rate of embryo development for winter flounder eggs presented within the SSFATE model assumes normal winter conditions. The EFH Source document describes protracted embryo developments taking upwards of 31 days (Pereira et al. 1999). NOAA Fisheries provided earlier comments that the rate of embryo development for winter flounder eggs is temperature dependent and embryo hatching can be protracted for up to 40 days in a laboratory setting (Nelson, Personal communication, 2003). NOAA Fisheries maintains that the 21 day development period value does not allow for temperature variability and delayed incubation periods and, therefore, underestimates the potential dredging impacts on winter flounder embryos. Based on our review of the SSFATE modeling results, the applicant continues to optimize the embryo incubation period through the use of the 21-day input. FERC concludes on page 4-77 of the DEIS that, had the applicant changed the model to include 40 days as requested by NOAA Fisheries, impacts on winter flounder spawning habitat would have been greater. Percent loss of material from dredging operations NOAA Fisheries has previously recommended that the applicant utilize an estimate of 2 percent bucket loss for inputs into the SSFATE model. As presented within the ACOE permit application, Weaver's Cove has used a .66 percent input for modeling purposes. The applicant contends that a .66 percent bucket loss rate can be assumed for the proposed project based on studies performed for a recent Boston Harbor dredging project that included a significant portion of "improvement" dredging. NOAA Fisheries maintains that a .66 percent bucket loss rate is not appropriate for the proposed dredging project. As a considerable portion of the proposed dredging is "maintenance," it is anticipated that material will be silty and have higher water content than firm, consolidated "improvement" materials. As indicated in the ACOE permit application, 85 percent of materials are expected to be silty. Consolidated materials are expected to contain less water and, therefore, contribute less to suspended sediment loading of the waterway. In our opinion, the use of a .66 percent value for bucket loss underestimates the amount of suspended sediment that will result from this dredging project. Scow/barge overflow Scow/barge overflow has been utilized primarily in cases where suspended sediments are a concern during transit to, and at, the proposed dredged material disposal site. As the barge is filled beyond capacity, existing water displaced by the dredged material is expelled into the waterway. In the case of Weaver's Cove, the use of barge/scow overflow will require less dewatering of material and more efficient handling of material when placed on site. While this technique may be acceptable in certain situations, it represents an introduction and elevation of suspended sediment at the dredge site. To date, this additional source of suspended sediment has not been included within the SSFATE modeling calculations. While the applicant is not proposing barge/scow overflow for dredging within the turning basin during the winter flounder spawning season, the applicant does propose the use of this technique within the remainder of the Taunton River during the winter flounder spawning season. While this additional source of suspended sediment has not been addressed in the SSFATE modeling calculations, NOAA Fisheries assumes that potential impacts on winter flounder spawning habitat would be increased. Results of the SSFATE modeling program According to the DEIS, the applicant has attempted to utilize a dredging methodology to minimize adverse impacts on winter flounder. This dredging methodology is used in conjunction with the SSFATE modeling program to identify and characterize approximately 12 acres of impacts on winter flounder habitat. As stated above, NOAA Fisheries believes that the anticipated impacts from this dredging methodology is based on insufficient inputs into the SSFATE model. Upon review of the SSFATE modeling results within the ACOE permit application, NOAA Fisheries has determined the following: - According to the DEIS, the dredging of native sediments within the turning basin will impact 6.18 acres of winter flounder spawning habitat. Dredging techniques include the use of a maximum 26-yard open bucket with barge overflow allowed from May through December, and a maximum 15-yard open bucket with no barge overflow allowed from January through April. However, inputs to the SSFATE model include a low estimate of .66% dredged material loss rate and assume 21 days incubation for winter flounder eggs. NOAA Fisheries believes that impacts on EFH have been underestimated. - According to the DEIS, the dredging of surficial sediments within the turning basin will impact 5.87 acres of winter flounder spawning habitat. Dredging techniques include the use of a maximum 26-yard open bucket with barge overflow allowed from May through December, and no barge overflow allowed from January through April. However, inputs to the SSFATE model include a low estimate of .66% dredged material loss rate and assume 21 days incubation for winter flounder eggs. NOAA Fisheries believes that impacts on EFH have been underestimated. - According to the DEIS, the dredging upstream of the Braga Bridge will impact .002 acres of winter flounder spawning habitat. Dredging techniques include the use of a maximum 26-yard open bucket year round with barge overflow allowed year round. However, inputs to the - SSFATE model assume a 21-day incubation period for winter flounder eggs. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing barge/scow overflow to occur during the winter flounder spawning season, yet has failed to account for this additional source of sediment in the model. NOAA Fisheries believes that impacts on EFH have been underestimated. - According to the DEIS, the dredging of the Taunton River within Rhode Island waters includes the use of a maximum 15 cubic yard open bucket year round with barge overflow allowed year round. However, this combination of dredging techniques has not been analyzed for impacts within the ACOE permit application. NOAA Fisheries believes that impacts on EFH have been underestimated. At this time, NOAA Fisheries has concluded that insufficient inputs have been used in the SSFATE model and that the use of barge/scow overflow as a dredging technique has not been included in the calculations. We feel that the 12 acres of anticipated impact on winter flounder spawning habitat is not an accurate depiction of foreseeable impacts and that the applicant has not yet analyzed the full impact on winter flounder. Therefore, we believe that there will be greater than 12 acres of impact on EFH. Juvenile development of winter flounder Upon hatching, winter flounder larvae are expected to remain in close proximity to hatching site, and young-of-year flounder are expected to remain in shallow inshore waters (Pereira et al., 1999). As indicated within the EFH assessment, winter flounder larvae are expected to be present within the project area from February-May, and young-of-year, juveniles, and adults are expected to be present throughout the year. The EFH assessment notes that larval stages of winter flounder may be adversely affected by sediment deposition resulting from dredging operations, yet concluded that the minimum effects threshold has not been exceeded for this life stage. NOAA Fisheries does not agree with this determination. Moreover, based on insufficient inputs to the SSFATE model as stated above, NOAA Fisheries maintains that adverse impacts on juvenile life stages of winter flounder have not been adequately characterized. Activities that have an impact on EFH that are more than minimal should be avoided. Permanent loss of winter flounder habitat According to the DEIS, there will be approximately 11 acres of permanent loss of winter flounder spawning and juvenile development habitat resulting from the deepening and widening of the turning basin. While the expansion of this area may be necessary to fulfill the project purpose, there will be substantial impacts on winter flounder EFH within the Taunton River. Loss of this habitat will contribute to the cumulative adverse impact on winter flounder habitat within the Mount Hope Bay/Taunton River complex. It is important to note that winter flounder EFH in this area is currently affected by a number of anthropogenic impacts, most notably the Brayton Point Power Station in Somerset, Massachusetts. Site Development According to the DEIS and the ACOE Public Notice, there will be a permanent loss of approximately 1.15 acres of aquatic habitat, including approximately .04 acres of salt marsh habitat, .94 acres of intertidal habitat, and .17 acres of subtidal habitat. Salt marsh and intertidal mudflats have been designated by the US Environmental Protection Agency as "Special Aquatic Sites" pursuant to Section 404 (b)(1) of the Federal Clean Water Act (40 CFR section 230.41; 40 CFR section 230.42), due to their importance to the aquatic ecosystem. Shallow subtidal areas serve as feeding habitat and shelter for a number of juvenile fish species. Permanent loss of these habitats will contribute to the overall degradation of habitat within the Mount Hope Bay/Taunton River complex. Cumulative Impacts Section 4.13 of the DEIS provides a description of past, present, and future actions within the Taunton River and Mount Hope Bay that could cumulatively impact aquatic resources and habitats. FERC concludes that while the construction and operation of the Weaver's Cove LNG Project could contribute cumulatively to impacts on aquatic resources, the impacts will be relatively short-term and/or minor in comparison to those from non-point sources of pollution or from operation of facilities such as the Brayton Point Power Plant. Based on our comments above, NOAA Fisheries maintains that this conclusion is based on a level of impact that has not yet been adequately characterized. Furthermore, the fact that there are greater impacts within the area does not negate the fact that the proposed project will have a substantial impact on aquatic resources. NOAA Fisheries has determined that the proposed project will contribute to the cumulative impact on aquatic resources within the Taunton River and Mount Hope Bay, and adverse effects should be avoided. Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations As noted within the DEIS, the proposed project will potentially impact EFH designated under the MSA for the following species: haddock (larvae), red hake (larvae, juveniles, and adults), winter flounder (all life stages), windowpane flounder (all life stages), Atlantic sea herring (larvae, juveniles, and adults), bluefish (juveniles and adults), summer flounder (larvae, juveniles, and adults), scup (all life stages), black sea bass (juveniles and adults), King mackerel (all life stages), Spanish mackerel (all life stages), Little skate (eggs, juveniles, and adults), and Winter skate (eggs, juveniles, and adults). The applicant has based its analysis of impacts on EFH on the SSFATE model and determined that adverse effects on EFH are minimal. As substantiated above, the adverse impacts on EFH have been underestimated. NOAA Fisheries believes that the SSFATE model, and, therefore, the EFH assessment, underestimates the impacts on winter flounder spawning and juvenile development habitat. In order to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects on EFH, NOAA Fisheries recommends pursuant to Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the MSA that FERC adopt the following EFH conservation recommendations: 1) No in water silt-producing activity should occur between January 15-May 31 of any year to protect winter flounder spawning and juvenile development from increased sedimentation due to dredging. Impacts on winter flounder egg and juvenile life stages may be avoided through the implementation of this work restriction. 2) Mitigation should be required to offset the permanent loss of 11 acres of winter flounder spawning and juvenile development habitat resulting from the expansion of the turning basin. The applicant should develop a mitigation plan that replaces lost functional values of winter flounder EFH. Mitigation ratios should be specific to the specific type of work proposed. 3) Mitigation should be required to offset the 1.15 acres of permanent fill within intertidal, salt marsh, and subtidal areas resulting from site development. At this time, a draft salt marsh mitigation plan has been developed for this project. NOAA Fisheries recommends that mitigation include intertidal and subtidal areas, in addition to salt marsh. Mitigation ratios should be specific to the specific type of work proposed. Please note that Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA requires FERC to provide NOAA Fisheries with a detailed written response to these EFH conservation recommendations, including a description of measures adopted by FERC for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the project on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with NOAA Fisheries' recommendations, Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA also indicates that FERC must explain its reasons for not following the recommendations. Included in such reasoning would be the scientific justification for any disagreements with NOAA Fisheries over the anticipated effects of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(k). Please also note that a distinct and further EFH consultation must be reinitiated pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(l) if new information becomes available or the project is revised in such a manner that affects the basis for the above EFH conservation recommendations. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Recommendations The Taunton River serves as an important migratory pathway for a number of anadromous fishery resources such as Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), rainbow Smelt (Osmerus mordax), and American shad (Alosa sapidissima). These resources serve as prey for a number of federally managed fishery resources, and direct or indirect impacts on them should be considered adverse effects on EFH. Furthermore, Mount Hope Bay and the Taunton River serve as habitat for the commercially and recreationally important Northern quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria), American (eastern) oyster (Crassostrea virginica), and soft-shelled clam (Mya arenaria). These and other shellfish species serve as forage for fishery resources in the area and serve as important linkages within the marine ecosystem. Anadromous fishery resources As stated above, the Taunton River serves as habitat for a number of anadromous fishery resources. These anadromous fishery resources serve as prey for a number of federally managed species, and are considered a component of an EFH assessment pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as well as a concern as non-EFH trust resources that are covered under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. American Shad, blueback herring, alewife, and rainbow smelt have been designated as aquatic resources of national importance pursuant to section 906(e)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. While the DEIS states that anadromous fishery resources migrating through the area will not be adversely affected by dredging operations, NOAA Fisheries remains concerned that construction activities and associated sediment plumes have the potential to impair migration of anadromous species. Chiasson (1993) found an increase in swimming activity of rainbow smelt when suspended sediments were present. In a laboratory study, Wildish and Power (1985) found that rainbow smelt avoided suspended sediment when concentrations were in excess of 20 Mg/L. The ACOE permit application does not analyze rainbow smelt for adverse impacts, however, anticipates that peak concentrations within the Taunton River will exceed this threshold during dredging operations. Furthermore, sublethal effects to estuarine fishes can include decreased feeding, impacts from lowered oxygen levels, as well as impacts on gills and associated respiratory impacts (Wilber and Clarke, 2001). The dredge-modeling program assumes a suspended sediment minimum effect threshold of 600ml/L for juvenile and adult blueback herring, alewife, and American shad. While the applicant maintains that suspended sediment in the river will be below this minimum effects threshold, NOAA Fisheries maintains that the assumed suspended sediment in the water column has been underestimated within the project footprint. Therefore, potential impacts on anadromous fishery resources within the Taunton River have not been fully accounted for. In order to take a risk averse approach for the conservation of anadromous fishery resources within the Taunton River, NOAA Fisheries recommends that no work should be conducted between March 1-July 31 of any year to avoid adverse impacts on upstream spawning migrations of Alewife, Blueback Herring, Rainbow Smelt, and American Shad. Downstream migrations of anadromous fishery resources in the Taunton River generally occur and need protection between June 15 and October 31 of any year. Alternatives should be developed and analyzed that avoid adverse impacts on downstream migrations of these aquatic resources of national importance. Shellfish resources The DEIS and ACOE permit application note that the project area serves as habitat for shellfish species including the Northern quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria), American (eastern) oyster (Crassostrea virginica), and soft-shelled clams (Mya arenaria). Shellfish from portions of this area, once depurated, are a viable food source and are suitable for human consumption. Furthermore, shellfish resources serve as prey for a number of federally managed fish species and adverse impacts are considered indirect adverse effects on EFH. The proposed dredging project has potential impacts on shellfish resources through both direct losses from dredging operations as well as sediment-related impacts prior to and during spawning periods. The DEIS states that the proposed project will permanently affect 84 acres of quahog habitat due to dredging of the federal navigation channel and turning basin. Once removed, reestablishment of shellfish within the project area would be problematic due to consistent turbidity resulting from increased vessel traffic. The DEIS describes a mitigation plan for shellfish resources within the project site, including a shellfish harvesting program and a shellfish seeding program. While this may serve to offset permanent loss of shellfish habitat, NOAA Fisheries recommends that this mitigation proposal be developed, reviewed, and approved by federal and state resource agencies prior to the issuance of license or permit. Dredge material volumes The DEIS and the ACOE public notice describe the assumption of a one-foot overdredge allowance for the dredging portion of this project. In our opinion, the allowance of a one-foot overdredge underestimates the amount of material to be removed from the project footprint. In other projects with similar depths within federal navigation channels, the ACOE has argued for industry standards that utilize allowances of a two-foot overdredge to account for the imprecise nature of dredging operations. In order for a presentation of a more realistic picture of dredge volumes that will need disposal, we have recommended that a two-foot overdredge be anticipated in the calculation of dredging volumes. In this case, the overdredge volume should be estimated at approximately 922,000 cubic yards and a total volume of dredged material in excess of 3 million cubic yards. This additional volume of material should be accounted for in the overall volume of material that needs to be disposed. Accurate volumes of dredged material need to be accounted for in order to identify reasonable disposal options. Offshore disposal of material Based on recommendations by NOAA Fisheries and other resource agencies, a dredging plan should be developed which adequately protects aquatic resources of national importance as identified above. This plan should include time of year work restrictions for winter flounder, as well as for anadromous fishery resources, as referenced in above comments and recommendations. In order to utilize recommendations for the protection of living marine resources, it is foreseeable that offshore disposal of dredged material may be proposed for this project. NOAA Fisheries supports the Tier III analysis currently being pursued by the ACOE. Based on the results of this analysis, the use of an offshore disposal area should be evaluated for this project. This evaluation should include foreseeable impacts on living marine resources at the dredge site, as well as at the offshore disposal area. NOAA Fisheries recommends that this alternative be analyzed within the Final Environmental Impact Statement and prior to the issuance of an ACOE authorization. Conclusions Based upon the above rationale, we conclude that this project will have substantial and unacceptable direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on aquatic resources of national importance. While the SSFATE model has determined that there will be approximately 12 acres of temporary impact on winter flounder EFH, NOAA Fisheries believes that this level of impact has been underestimated and may be significantly greater. At this time, we believe that these adverse impacts on EFH may be avoided through the use of appropriate time of year work restrictions. Furthermore, this project will result in approximately 12.15 acres of permanent alteration of habitats. In order to avoid substantial and unacceptable impacts on winter flounder EFH, NOAA Fisheries recommends that no work occur between January 15­May 31 of any year. In order to provide protection for upstream spawning migrations of anadromous fishery resources within the Taunton River, we recommend that in-water silt producing activity be avoided between March 1­July 31 of any year. In order to protect downstream migrations of anadromous fishery resources, which need protection between June 15-October 31, we recommend that alternatives be proposed and analyzed within the EIS. In order to offset the permanent loss of 11 acres of winter flounder spawning habitat and the permanent loss of intertidal, subtidal, and salt marsh habitats, we recommend that mitigation be required. In order to offset the permanent loss of 84 acres of shellfish habitat, a mitigation plan should be developed and presented to state and federal agencies for approval. We look forward to your response to our EFH conservation recommendations as well as all other recommendations pursuant to both Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA and 50 CFR 600.920(k). Should you have any questions about this matter, please contact Christopher Boelke at 978-281-9131. Sincerely, Patricia A. Kurkul Regional Administrator CC: USACE ­ Christine Godfrey USEPA ­ Robert Varney USFWS- Michael Bartlett MADMF- Paul Diodati MACZM ­ Susan Snow-Cotter MADEP- John Felix RI CRMC- Grover Fugate RI DFW ­ Michael Lapinsky References Chiasson, A.G. 1993. The effects of suspended sediment on Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax): a laboratory investigation. Can. J. Zool. 71:2419-2424. Pereira, Jose J., Ronald Goldberg, John J. Ziskowski, Peter L. Berrien, Wallace W. Morse, and Donna L. Johnson. 1999. Essential Fish habitat Source Document: Winter Flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus, Life History and Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-138. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. Nelson, David. 2003. Personal Communication. NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Milford, CT. NEPCo and MRI. (New England Power Co. and Marine Research Inc.) 1994. Brayton Point Station annual biological and hydrological report, January ­ December 1992. NEPCo and MRI. 1999. New England Power Co. Brayton Point Station 1998 annual report. September 1999. Powell, Chris. 9/2/04. Personal Communication. Rhode Island Departmewnt of Environmetnal Management. Wakefield, RI. USGen New England, Inc. 2001. Brayton Point Station Permit Renewal Application, NPDES Permit No. MA0003654: Appendix D. Wilbur, Dara H., and Douglas G. Clarke, 2001. Biological Effects of suspended sediments: A review of suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in estuaries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 21:855-875. Wildish, D.J., and J. Power. 1985. Avoidance of suspended sediment by smelt as determined by a new "single fish" behavioral bioassay. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 34: 770-774 back to top

[an error occurred while processing this directive]