City of Bos. v. Quincy Conservation Comm'n
| Decision Date | 30 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Docket: SUCV2018 03440 |
| Parties | CITY OF BOSTON v. QUINCY CONSERVATION COMMISSION & OTHERS |
| Court | Massachusetts Superior Court |
Present: /s/Gregg J. Pasquale, Justice of the Superior Court
County: SUFFOLK, ss.
The City of Boston ("Boston") filed this action seeking judicial review of the September 25, 2018 decision of the Quincy Conservation Commission denying Boston's application for an order of conditions to rebuild the Long Island Bridge. For the reasons discussed below, the City of Boston's Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is ALLOWED and the Defendants' Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.
The Project involves no temporary or permanent impact to land under ocean because the original bridge piers were left in place in Boston Harbor/Quincy Bay and the Project will utilize those existing piers. The Project will involve a temporary impact to 80 square feet of coastal beach at Moon Island and 512 square feet of coastal bank where the Bridge will meet land on Moon Island. This temporary impact consists of noise, turbidity, and impact to fish and shellfish and fisheries habitat on the ocean bottom and intertidal areas. There will be 592 square feet of temporary alteration of land subject to coastal storm flowage to install four temporary pipe piles during the installation of the Bridge.
The NOI included a May 2018 Stormwater Management Report prepared for Boston by STV, Inc. The proposed surface area of the Bridge is 2.6 acres. The original bridge had scuppers that drained runoff directly into the harbor below. The Project involves collecting runoff in scuppers but routing it through a closed drainage system back to each island to be treated and then released into Boston Harbor/Quincy Bay. The Report states that DEP Stormwater Management Standards are applicable to the Project only to the maximum extent practicable because the Project is a redevelopment project. With respect to Standard 3 for Stormwater Recharge, because of the steep slope of Moon Island, there cannot be stormwater recharge in the vicinity of the Project. Standards 1 (no new untreated discharge), 2 (peak rate attenuation), 9 (operation and maintenance plan) and 10 (prohibition of illicit discharges) are fully met. With respect to Standard 4, Water Quality, the Report attached a long-term pollution prevention plan, and calculations-showing that the system meets the 80% TSS removal requirement. With respect to Standard 8, the Report states that a Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan is not included but will be submitted before land disturbance begins. The Report included an April 30, 2018 Custom Soil Resource Report for Norfolk and Suffolk Counties.
Included in the record are the meeting minutes from the May 16, 2018 public hearing on the Project conducted by the Boston Conservation Commission, which ultimately issued an Order of Conditions for the Project. At this hearing, Special Environmental Counsel for the City of Quincy, John Shea, raised concerns about the Project, including the structural integrity of the piers, and the lack of presentation and evaluation of alternatives to the Project. A representative of Tighe & Bond, the engineering consultant hired by the City of Quincy, recommended that an alternatives analysis be included addressing ferry service, questioned the structural integrity of the piers, and characterized as inadequate the information provided about stormwater management compliance.
By letter dated June 1, 2018, the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife notified Boston that it had determined that the Project will not adversely affect the resource area habitat of state-protected rare wildlife species and will not result in a prohibited "take" under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act.
The Commission held a public hearing on Boston's NOI on June 6, 2018. STV's design lead for the Project, Mark Ennis, and Sam Moffett from TRC Engineering gave a presentation on the Project, explaining that the pier structures will be reinforced after which the bridge spans will be floated into place by barge with zero wetlands impact on land under the ocean. Reinforcement of the pier involves removing the granite cap pieces, drilling posts down through the concrete, and then pouring a concrete cap. Moffett explained that Boston would use the existing foundation of Pier 1 to stage equipment and construct a temporary trestle structure, which requires dragging four steel pipe piles, impacting 80 square feet in the buffer zone of the coastal beach area and 512 square feet of costal bank.
Special Environmental Counsel for Quincy, John Shea, stated that this was a big project for Quincy and "the Mayor and neighbors are opposed to the access through Quincy for the drug treatment program." Shea stated that water access is a more cost effective alternative with fewer environmental impacts. He noted that Mayor Menino had studied and endorsed water access to Long Island, but Mayor Walsh "apparently, has a different agenda." Shea then stated that he was not asking the Commission to make a political decision about access but rather, to demand sufficient information to evaluate the Project under the WPA and Ordinance. Shea noted that although alternatives analysis and hazardous materials fall under the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act ("MEPA"), that is not a permitting scheme that can impose substantive requirements on projects.
Tracy Adamski, a wetlands specialist with Tighe & Bond, expressed concern that the NOI did not adequately identify the potential impact of the Project. He noted that the NOI only discusses above-water repairs to the piers but the Commission should consider the impacts if underwater repairs need to be made due to structural deterioration. He specifically raised the possibility of alkali-silica reaction reactivity ("ASR") of the concrete. The use of cofferdams to repair or replace the piers would impact an additional 900 square feet of land under water for each of the six piers in Quincy, for a total of 5,400 square feet of impact unaccounted for in the NOI. Adamski also expressed concern about improvements that might need to be made to Moon Island Road, which provides access to the Bridge.
City of Quincy engineer Paul Costello reviewed the NOI and concurred with Tighe & Bond that there was an issue with the structural integrity of the piers and the estimated impact on wetlands resources. He noted that there was lead on the ocean floor from the piers and there were voids that needed repair, necessitating the use of cofferdams and an additional 5,000 square foot impact. David Murphy, an engineer from Tighe & Bond, stated that their dive team inspected the underwater piers and found significant deterioration of the concrete, settlement of the granite blocks, and pointing of the granite blocks, as well as lead around the piers, correction of which would have associated environmental impacts.
A Ward Councilor from Moon Island opposed the Project and stated that water access was less expensive and would have less impact on the environment. A State Representative spoke and strongly opposed the Project. Several members of the community spoke and complained that the community was not being consulted in connection with the Project.
Ennis then stated that STV has extensive experience in evaluating the structural integrity of bridges and the reuse of piles or piers, and has completed numerous bridge projects throughout the state. STV reconstructed the Longfellow Bridge and Boston University Bridge re-using the original timber piles without the use of cofferdams. He stated that STV will remove all lead when it re-grouts the masonry joints of the piers and could clean up the lead lying on the seabed from the demolition. Sammy Nabulsi of the City of Boston Law Department noted that MEPA compliance is mandatory and that numerous other agencies, including the Coast Guard and the Mass. Division of Fisheries, will evaluate the Project. He noted that the WPA does not require an alternatives analysis for projects other than those affecting riverfronts. At the recommendation of Quincy Conservation Agent Jay Duca, the Commission requested more information from Boston and continued the public hearing until August 1, 2018.
In a letter dated June 6, 2018, the Commission requested additional information from Boston that it deemed essential to its review of the NOI. The information related to structural concerns about the condition of the existing piers, permit requirements,...
To continue reading
Request your trial