FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 5 , 2005
CONTACT: Ria Convery, (617) 788-1105 or ria.convery@mwra.state.ma.us
FACTS1 ABOUT MWRA'S BLUE HILLS COVERED STORAGE PROJECT
 |
Background
DEP safe drinking water regulations require that distribution storage facilities be covered to protect the quality of treated drinking water. MWRA has embarked on a system-wide program to eliminate open distribution storage reservoirs from active service and replace them with secure covered tanks.
Two 10 million-gallon buried drinking water storage tanks are proposed to be constructed in the east end of the existing Blue Hills reservoir. These tanks are critical to the MWRA's Southern High water service area, which would be served by the proposed covered tanks. It is one of the only remaining areas in the MWRA system that has no significant distribution storage to ensure a safe and reliable public water supply.
The Project
The new water storage tanks will be filled with MWRA drinking water and will serve Quincy, Milton, Brookline, Roxbury, West Roxbury, Jamaica Plain, Roslindale, Mattapan and Hyde Park.2 The water tanks will store safe drinking water for consumption and fire protection3 in the event of a pipeline break or other water supply emergency.
Since the events of September 11, 2001, MWRA has become more security conscious4 and has increased the priority of constructing this and other covered storage projects. In November 2001, legislation was filed to accelerate the project by allowing MWRA to use the design/build process to construct this facility. It was enacted in September 2002.
The existing reservoir was constructed in 1950s and was removed from active service in 1981 due to contamination from birds and animals.5 The reservoir is currently used as a non-potable emergency supply.
The project cost is estimated to be $31 million including $8 million for site enhancements and wetlands mitigation.6 Bids are expected in Spring 2006 and construction should take approximately 2 years.
The Blue Hills Working Group was formed in 1997 to review alternatives
and met periodically for 3-1/2 years7
to provide input to MWRA. The Working Group includes included
representatives from the Department of Conservation and Recreation,
Quincy, Milton, Braintree, Trailside Museum, Friends of Blue Hills,
Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee, MWRA Advisory Board, and St.
Moritz Stables.
The proposed alternative was selected because the site:
- Is all wetlands and there is no responsibilty
to protect them8
- Is at the proper elevation to supply adequate water pressure
- Minimizes impacts to upland endangered species habitat and park land9
- Limits most of the impacts to previously disturbed land within the man-made drinking water reservoir
- Continues the use of the site as water supply, and it provides the opportunity to repair and improve the deteriorating dam, diversify wetland habitat, and expand parks and recreation use into an area that is currently closed to public use10
Environmental Mitigation
MWRA has worked closely with various interested parties to include features that will mitigate environmental impacts and improve the look of the finished site:11
- The tanks will be buried and meadow will be planted on top
- Much of the existing deteriorating dam will be removed and replaced with a new dam with grassed slopes
- The remaining half of the reservoir will be restored and wetlands will be created and enhanced to support wildlife habitat12
- Hiking trails will be constructed around and through the site
- Public access will be expanded to areas that are presently restricted
Taken all together, MWRA's proposed mitigation has increased the project cost by 30% making this project the most costly covered storage project13 per gallon of water undertaken by the MWRA.
This project is part of MWRA's Integrated Water Improvement Program.
###
1Facts concerning
the Blue Hills Reservation, historic parklands, and the commonwealth's
no-net-loss of wetlands policy are inconvenient from a project perspective
and should not be expected here.
2The project has usually been described as serving 100,000
people, mostly in Quincy (which has a population of 80,000). At $30
million, it will cost approx. $300 per person.
3The existing reservoir already
provides much more emergency water for fire protection than the tanks
will. However, the water is non-potable and if it was ever used, a 'boil
order' would have to be issued.
4MWRA has not explained how
the tanks will make us safer from terrorists.
5Some will remember the huge
rafts of seagulls that used to float on the Reservoir after dining at
the Quincy landfill. They disappeared when the landfill closed in the
mid 1980's. Today the Reservoir is one of the cleanest and clearest
water bodies in eastern MA.
6Wetlands mitigation traditionally
means replacing lost wetlands. MWRA will replace none of the 8.7 acres
that will be filled for the tanks. Nearly all of the $8 million in "mitigation"
will go toward burying the tanks and building a dam. These actions simply
fill more wetlands.
7Monthly
meetings of the Working Group ended abruptly following a session on
December 4,1997 at which MDC Reservations & Historic Sites director
Brian Broderick refused to support placing tanks in the Reservoir, citing
"significant disruption and long-term impact" to the Blue
Hills Reservation. Two years later MWRA called the group back to announce
it had selected the Reservoir site as its preferred alternative.
8This
bullet added by FBH. Since 1990, every public agency proposing to fill
wetlands has been required to replace them.
9The project is the largest construction proposed anywhere
in the Reservation in 50 yrs.
10The Reservoir is 'currently
closed to public use' because of the 'No Trespassing'
signs MWRA put up two weeks ago. For decades no attempt was made
to limit access to the Reservoir, which has been public parkland since
1893. DCR's official trail map recommends
it to fishermen.
11Here
is what a similar but much smaller tank in the Middlesex Fells looks
like. The Reservation was acquired with public money over a century
ago to preserve natural scenery.
12The ratio of lost wetlands
to created wetlands will be 37:1.
13Costly is right. It costs
a lot to bring a million tons of concrete, steel, and fill into the
middle of Boston's finest natural park. It costs more to lose 8 acres
of clean open water. MWRA's refusal to replace lost wetlands will cost
it its image as an environmentally responsible agency, and set a ruinous
precedent for other public projects. The costs just keep on coming.
