Popular Boston Restaurant Seeks To Expand Outdoor Seating With Floating Barge

Proposed Environmental Impact Report
Submitted Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
Barking Crab
Submitted to:
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Submitted by: Prepared by:
Poseidon Enterprises Epsilon Associates, Inc.
88 Sleeper Street 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250
Boston, MA 02210 Maynard, MA 01754
In Association with:
Childs Engineering
Ekland & Blando LLP
Howard Stein Hudson
May 1, 2023
Proposed Environmental Impact Report
Submitted Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
Barking Crab
Submitted to:
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Submitted by:
Poseidon Enterprises
88 Sleeper Street
Boston, MA 02210
Prepared by:
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250
Maynard, MA 01754
In Association with:
Childs Engineering
Eckland & Blando LLP
Howard Stein Hudson
May 1, 2023
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 Project Site 1-1
1.3 Project Description 1-1
1.4 Schedule 1-4
1.5 Permitting Requirements 1-4
1.5.1 State Permits 1-4
1.5.2 Local Permits 1-4
2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 2-1

2.1 No-Build Alternative 2-1
2.2 Alternative 1 2-1
2.3 Preferred Alternative 2-1
3.0 TRANSPORTATION 3-1

3.2 Trip Generation Methodology 3-1
3.3 Mode Share 3-1
3.3.1 Pass-By Trips 3-1
3.3.2 Project Trip Generation 3-2
4.0 CLIMATE CHANGE 4-1

4.1 Climate Change 4-1
4.1.1 Extreme Heat Events 4-1
4.1.2 Increased Precipitation 4-1
4.1.3 Sea Level Rise and Coastal Storm Events 4-2
5.0 WETLAND RESOURCES 5-1

5.2 Wetland Resources 5-1
5.2.1 Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 5-1
5.2.2 Land Under the Ocean 5-1
6.0 TIDELANDS 6-1

6.1 Massachusetts Public Waterfront Act (Chapter 91) 6-1
6.1.1 Chapter 91 Regulatory Review Standards 6-1
6.1.1.1 Public Purpose 6-1
6.1.1.2 Determination of Water Dependency 6-2
6.1.1.3 Categorical Restrictions on Fill and Structures 6-2
6.1.1.4 Environmental Protection Standards 6-2
6.1.1.5 Conformance with Municipal Zoning and Harbor Plans 6-3
6.1.1.6 Standards to Preserve Water-Related Public Rights 6-3
6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR i Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
6.1.1.7 Standards to Protect Water-Dependent Uses 6-3
6.1.1.8 Engineering Construction Standards 6-3
6.1.1.9 Conservation of Capacity for Water-Dependent Use 6-4
6.1.1.10 Utilization of Shoreline for Water-Dependent Purposes – 310 CMR
9.52 6-5
6.1.1.11 Activation of Commonwealth Tidelands for Public Use – 310 CMR
9.53 6-5
6.1.1.12 Consistency with Coastal Zone Management Policies – 310 CMR
9.54 6-6
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 7-1

7.1 Existing EJ Population 7-1
7.2 Outreach Performed To-Date 7-3
7.3 Enhanced Environmental Justice Analysis 7-4
7.3.1 Assessment of Existing Environmental Burden 7-4
7.3.2 Vulnerable Health Criteria 7-5
7.3.2.1 Heart Attack Hospitalizations 7-6
7.3.2.2 Childhood Blood Lead Levels 7-7
7.3.2.3 Low Birth Weight 7-8
7.3.2.4 Childhood Asthma 7-8
7.3.2.5 Vulnerable Health Criteria Summary 7-9
7.3.3 Potential Sources of Pollution 7-9
7.4 Project Impacts to Environmental Justice Population 7-12
7.4.1 Impacts to EJ and Non-EJ Populations 7-12
7.4.2 Transportation Impacts to EJ Population 7-12
7.4.3 Air Quality Impacts to EJ Population 7-12
7.4.4 Climate Impacts to EJ Population 7-12
7.4.5 Stormwater and Flooding Impacts to EJ Population 7-13
8.0 PUBLIC HEALTH 8-1
9.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 9-1

9.2 Construction Methodology/Public Safety 9-1
9.3 Construction Schedule 9-1
9.4 Construction Staging/Access 9-1
9.5 Construction Truck Routes and Deliveries 9-1
9.6 Construction Air Quality 9-1
9.7 Construction Noise 9-2
9.8 Construction Waste Management 9-2
9.9 Protection of Utilities 9-3
6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR ii Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
9.10 Construction Soil Management 9-3
9.11 Construction Period Stormwater Management 9-3
10.0 MITIGATION AND DRAFT 61 FINDINGS 10-1

10.2 Anticipated State Permits and Approvals 10-1
10.3 Proposed Section 61 Finding 10-1
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Proposed Site Plan
Appendix B Transportation
Appendix C Waterways License No. 14105
Appendix D Environmental Justice Package
Appendix E Public Benefit Determination
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 USGS Locus Map 1-2
Figure 1-2 Aerial Locus Map 1-3
Figure 1-3 Project Site Environmental Constraints 1-5
Figure 7-1 EJ Communities in the DGA 7-2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Project Alternatives 1-2
Table 3-1 Mode Shares 3-1
Table 3-2 Project Trip Generation 3-2
Table 7-1 2020 EJ Block Groups within the DGA 7-3
Table 7-2 Vulnerable Health Criteria 7-9
Table 10-1 Agency Actions Required for the Project 10-1
Table 10-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures 10-2
6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR iii Table of Contents

Section 1.0
Project Description
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Introduction
Poseidon Enterprises, Inc. (the “Proponent”) proposes to install an approximately 1,900 square
foot (sf) floating barge at an existing dock facility to provide open-air dining for patrons of the
Proponent’s restaurant located at 88 Sleeper Street in Boston.
This Proposed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being submitted simultaneously with an
Expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act (MEPA) Regulations 301 CMR 11.05(9).
1.2 Project Site
The Project is located at 88 Sleeper Street in Boston (the “Project site”), which consists of a single
parcel of land totaling approximately 5,842 sf (0.14 acres), bordered by Sleeper Street to the east,
Northern Avenue to the north, Seaport Boulevard to the south, and the Fort Point Channel to the
west (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The Project site is currently occupied by a single-story building and
attached deck which support the Proponent’s restaurant operating at the site. For purposes of
MEPA review, the Project site also includes approximately 36,737 sf (0.84 acres) of the Fort Point
Channel, over which the Proponent operates a docking facility that offers long-term and transient
dockage for recreational and fishing vessels. The Proponent also provides free of charge “touch-
and-go” facilities for water taxi service and the general public and supports several community-
based boating organizations. All existing structures and uses are authorized by a Waterways
License (DEP No. 14105 [the “License”]) issued to the Proponent in 2016.
Land uses immediately surrounding the Project site are predominantly commercial and
institutional.
1.3 Project Description
The Project entails the installation of an approximately 1,900 sf floating barge at the existing dock
facility to provide open-air dining for patrons of the Proponent’s restaurant. The barge will be
constructed of steel and will be fabricated off-site. Once fabricated, the barge will be towed from
the manufacturing facility and floated into position by a tug/tow vessel. The barge is not self-
propelled. To accommodate the barge within the existing floating dock facility, a 5’ X 20’ finger
dock will be removed or relocated within the facility’s approved reconfiguration zone.
The barge will be held in place by six, 18-inch diameter steel pipe piles (spuds), which are
integrated into the barge’s hull, and which will be mechanically driven into the sediment below
the barge. The barge will be positioned so that it is accessible from the existing floating docks and
at mean low water it will remain approximately 9 to 12 feet above the bottom of the Fort Point
Channel.
6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 1-1 Project Description

G:\Projects2\MA\Boston\6538\2023\MXD\1-1_USGS_Locus_20221012.mxd Data Source: Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services
LEGEND
Project Site
Scale 1:24,000 0
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Basemap: USGS Quaderangles, MassGIS

1,000 2,000
Feet
°
Project Site
Poseidon Enterprises Boston, Massachusetts

Figure 1-1
USGS Locus Map
G:\Projects2\MA\Boston\6538\2023\MXD\1-2_Aerial_Locus_20221012.mxd Data Source: Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services
B ro LEGEND
ad
St r
ee
t
"3
) Project Site
°
ha rf
lS
tr e
e t
¦
¨
§ 93
1
Ro w
e sW Scale 1:3,600
1 inch = 300 feet
0 150 300
Feet
d el £
¤
en Basemap: 2021 Aerial Imagery, MassGIS
W
e et
h S tr
Hi g ttr ee
as e S
P ur c h
3A
"
O
li v
er
)
St
re
et
ue
v en Li b
e rt
cA
ay
t i Project Site yD
eW
la n ri v
At e
us
ho
ur t
Co
Bo
rd
n dD
va
r iv
ul e
e
Bo
i er
nP
No
r th
Fa
er
nA
ve
nu
e
t
re e
Se
ap
St
or
ue
tB
er
ou
en
lev
ep
Av
ar
S le
d
er
t
e st
ee
S tr
rch
r th
Do
wo
e
rn s
lac
Fa
nP
Co
ng
so
re
om
ss
t
St
r ee
Su
Th
mm re
oa
et
St
er
rf R
St C
gs
re
et
il lin
ha
nW
St
s to
Bo

Figure 1-2
Aerial Locus Map
Atop the barge deck, a metal-framed canopy support system will be constructed, and chairs,
tables, and other appurtenances will be placed to provide seating for restaurant patrons.
The barge will include restroom facilities which are entirely self-contained. Sewage and
wastewater will be collected in a holding tank(s) and periodically removed from the barge via a
pump-out vessel contracted by the Proponent. No conditioned spaces are proposed and
mechanical (i.e., HVAC systems) and kitchen equipment are not required. Any water and electrical
needs for the barge will be provided by shore power and water already installed at the docking
facility.
1.4 Schedule
The Proponent anticipates that the barge will be installed upon issuance of a Waterways License.
Installation activities are expected to occur within a single day.
1.5 Permitting Requirements
In addition to MEPA review, the Project will require from state and local agencies the permits and
approvals described below.
1.5.1 State Permits
The barge will be installed over the flowed tidelands of the Fort Point Channel and will require a
Waterways License under 310 CMR 9.00 et seq (the “Waterways Regulations”).
1.5.2 Local Permits
The Project will be reviewed by the Boston Conservation Commission under the Wetlands
Protection Act and the Boston Wetlands Ordinance.
6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 1-4 Project Description

G:\Projects2\MA\Boston\6538\2023\MXD\1-3_Env_Constraints_20221012.mxd Data Source: Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services
B ro LEGEND
ad
Project Site
St r
ee
t
"3
)
ha rf Ch. 91 Jurisdiction
l lS
tr e
e t
¦
¨
§ 93
1
Ro w
e sW
FEMA 100-year Flood Zone
de £
¤
°
en 0 150 300
W Scale 1:3,600
1 inch = 300 feet Feet
Basemap: 2021 Aerial Imagery, MassGIS
e et
h S tr
Hi g ttr ee
as e S
P ur c h
3A
"
O
li v
er
)
St
re
et
ue
v en Li b
e rt
cA
ay
t i yD
eW
la n ri v
At e
us
ho
ur t
Co
Bo
rd
n dD
va
r iv
ul e
e
Bo
i er
nP
No
r th
Fa
er
nA
ve
nu
e
t
re e
Se
ap
St
or
ue
tB
er
ou
en
lev
ep
Av
ar
S le
d
er
t
e st
ee
S tr
rch
r th
Do
wo
e
rn s
lac
Fa
nP
Co
ng
so
re
om
ss
t
St
r ee
Su
Th
mm re
oa
et
St
er
rf R
St C
gs
re
et
il lin
ha
nW
St
s to
Bo

Figure 1-3
Environmental Constraints
Section 2.0
Project Alternatives
2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Given the Proponent’s business focuses on the restaurant and marina operations active at the Project
site, no alternative uses of the site were considered. The Project (Preferred Alternative) is Zoning-
compliant and minimizes impacts to the surrounding resources while also providing public benefits. In
selecting the Preferred Alternative, the Proponent primarily sought to identify a feasible alternative given
the significant constraints of the site with regard to buildable land. The considered alternative (Alternative
1) maintains a similar Project program to that described in Section 1.3, and the No-build Alternative is
included to serve as a baseline for assessing project impacts.
2.1 No-Build Alternative
The No-build Alternative would keep the Project site in its current condition without expansion of
restaurant seating. This Alternative would not meet the Proponent’s goals of expanding their
restaurant’s open-air dining options and not provide any of the economic and/or public benefits
that the Project (Preferred Alternative) is anticipated to contribute, including additional
employment opportunities, tax revenue, and public access to the watersheet. For these reasons,
the no-build alternative was rejected.
2.2 Alternative 1
This alternative would construct a “roof top” deck above the existing building. With this
alternative, significant structural alterations to the pile-supported building would have to be
implemented including, potentially, the installation of additional pilings below the timber pier,
also resulting in impacts to Land Under the Ocean. It is anticipated that this alternative would
require reconfiguration and/or replacement of all roof-top mechanical systems and may require
installation of ADA-compliant infrastructure that would be infeasible to construct given the space
constraints of the existing building. The roof top deck would accommodate approximately the
same number of restaurant patrons as the proposed barge and would result in comparable traffic,
water, and wastewater impacts. If this alternative required installation of additional piles below
the existing structure, some temporary and localized water quality impacts (e.g.¸ turbidity) would
occur and noise from pile driving may temporarily impact fisheries habitat.
Given the associated cost of this alternative, it has been rejected.
2.3 Preferred Alternative
Table 1-1, below, summarizes the impacts of the alternatives considered.
6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 2-1 Alternatives

Table 1-1 Project Alternatives
Vehicle LUW LSCSF (SF)

Dining Area Trips Parking Impact Water
Alternative Wastewater (gpd)
(SF) Spaces (SF) Demand (gpd)
(tpd)
No-build 9,736 356 0 0 6,4802 8,778 7,980
Alternative 1 11,236 410 0 45.01 45.01,2 10,709 9,730
Preferred
11,236 410 0 10.8 8,380 10,709 9,7303
Alternative
1. Estimated square footage new piles beneath building/deck.

2. The existing structure is located above the Zone AE elevation (El. 10.0 NAVD88)
3. Wastewater generated by use of barge will be removed from the site by pumpout vessel. No new connection to
the sanitary sewer system is proposed.
6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 2-2 Alternatives

Section 3.0
Transportation
3.0 TRANSPORTATION
3.1 Introduction
Howard Stein Hudson (HSH) has conducted an evaluation of the transportation impacts related
to the proposed increase in outdoor seating for the Barking Crab restaurant (the “Project” and/or
“Site”). The Proponent intends to utilize an approximately 1,900 sf floating barge (1,500 sf of
which will be for restaurant seating) within the Fort Point Channel to provide supplementary
outdoor seating. The existing site, located on the western shore of the Fort Point Channel,
between Seaport Boulevard and Northern Avenue, is currently occupied by an approximately
4,856 sf restaurant with an additional, approximately 4,880 sf deck attached. The trip generation
impact of the increase in size has been determined.
3.2 Trip Generation Methodology
Determining the future trip generation of a Project is a complex, multi-step process that produces
an estimate of vehicle trips, transit trips, walk trips, and bicycle trips associated with a proposed
development and a specific land use program. A project’s location, proximity to different travel
modes, and specific operational characteristics determine how people will travel to and from a
project site.
To estimate the number of new trips expected to be generated by the Project, data published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual, 11th edition, was
used. ITE provides data to estimate the total number of unadjusted vehicle trips associated with
the Project. The ITE land use code (LUC) 932, High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant, was used,
which includes the description, “This land use consists of sit-down, full-service eating
establishments with a typical duration of stay of 60 minutes or less. This type of restaurant is
usually moderately priced, frequently belongs to a restaurant chain, and is commonly referred to
as casual dining. Generally, these restaurants serve lunch and dinner; they may also be open for
breakfast and are sometimes open 24 hours a day. These restaurants typically do not accept
reservations. A patron commonly waits to be seated, is served by wait staff, orders from a menu,
and pays after the meal.”
3.3 Mode Share
Table 3-1 Mode Shares
Land Use Walk/Bike Transit Private Vehicles

High-Turnover Restaurant 39% 27% 34%
3.3.1 Pass-By Trips
Based on procedures in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, not all trips associated with a project
will be entirely new trips. Some trips generated by the proposed Project will be pass-by trips. Pass-
by trips are a portion of the trip generation that typically applies to commercial or retail
6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 3-1 Transportation

developments, consisting of users that are already in the roadway network and use the new
commercial or retail on their current route. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook estimates that
pass-by trips for a High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant typically account for approximately 43%
of the p.m. peak hour trip generation.
3.3.2 Project Trip Generation
The aforementioned mode share percentages and pass-by percentages were applied to the
number of person trips to develop walk/bicycle, transit, and vehicle trip generation estimates for
the existing land use and for the proposed increase in square footage. Because the existing
restaurant currently operates between the hours of 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. on a typical weekday, the
a.m. peak hour has not been analyzed. The trip generation by mode for both the existing and
proposed conditions are shown in Table 3-2. The detailed trip generation information is provided
as Appendix B.
Table 3-2 Project Trip Generation
Land Use/Direction Walk/Bike Trips Transit Trips Auto Trips

Daily
Existing In 427 296 178

High-Turnover Out 427 296 178
Restaurant1
Total 854 592 356
Proposed In 493 341 205

Restaurant2
Total 986 682 410
In +66 +45 +27
Net Change Out +66 +45 +27
Total +132 +90 +54
p.m. Peak Hour
Existing In 44 31 10
Restaurant1
Total 72 50 17
Proposed In 51 35 12
Restaurant2
Total 83 58 20
In +7 +4 +2
Net Change Out +4 +4 +1
Total +11 +8 +3
1. ITE Trip Generation Rate, 11th Edition, LUC 932 (High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant), 9.736 KSF.
2. ITE Trip Generation Rate, 11th Edition, LUC 932 (High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant), 11.236 KSF.

As shown in Table 3-2 above, during the p.m. peak hour, when open, the proposed 1,500 sf
increase outdoor dining area will result in approximately 11 new pedestrian trips (7 entering and
4 exiting), eight new transit trips (4 entering and 4 exiting) and six new vehicle trips (3 entering
and 3 exiting). Based on the above analysis, HSH believes that the Project, as proposed, will not
result in a perceivable impact to the surrounding transportation network.

Section 4.0
Climate Change
4.0 CLIMATE CHANGE
4.1 Climate Change
To better understand the Project’s vulnerabilities and mitigation opportunities with regard to
climate change, the Project team evaluated data and plans from the City and state, including
Climate Ready Boston, Climate Ready South Boston, and the Massachusetts State Hazard
Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan. These plans help to identify climate-related hazards and
assess existing and future climate vulnerabilities of critical building infrastructure, stormwater,
transportation, water, energy, and vulnerable populations, and to understand possible adaptation
and resiliency opportunities. Extreme heat events, increased precipitation, coastal storm events,
and sea level rise were evaluated in the context of the proposed barge and the surrounding
neighborhood.
The Project site is located within one mile of Environmental Justice populations, according to the
Commonwealth’s Environmental Justice Viewer. However, impacts from the Project’s installation
and operation, and impacts to the Project associated with climate change and weather-related
events are not anticipated to have an impact on the surrounding communities.
4.1.1 Extreme Heat Events
Boston’s average annual temperatures, average summer temperatures, and number of days with
extreme heat are increasing. Between 1981 and 2010, the average summer temperature in
Boston was 69 degrees; it is estimated to be 76 degrees by 2050 and 84 degrees by 2100.
Furthermore, the number of days with extreme heat are increasing and, per the Climate Ready
Boston Executive Summary, by 2030 there are estimated to be as many as 40 days per year of 90
degrees and as many as 90 days per year of 90 degrees by 2070.
The Project does not include any conditioned space and does not require the measures typically
incorporated by projects to adapt to these conditions, such as a high-performance building
envelope and high-performance HVAC equipment. Separately, the barge and tent canopy, itself
lighter colors, are not likely to contribute to the heat island effect.
4.1.2 Increased Precipitation
Due to climate change, the Northeast is expected to experience more frequent and intense
storms, with an average annual precipitation increase of 4.42 inches by 2090
(ReslientMA.org/maps, RCP4.5 scenario). Increased precipitation, though not average annual
rainfall, is expected in the future with more frequent, higher intensity precipitation events (both
rainfall and snowfall). Consideration of a 10 percent increase in the 10-year rainfall event for the
2060s is recommended in Climate Ready Boston.
The Project does not include new stormwater conveyances, point-source discharges, or additional
impervious area, and will have no impact on the management or quality of stormwater quality
either on the Project site or in the surrounding neighborhood.
6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 4-1 Wetland Resources

4.1.3 Sea Level Rise and Coastal Storm Events
Sea level rise has been increasing and is expected to increase into the future, impacting coastal
areas and the infrastructure systems within those areas. The 2015 Boston Harbor Flood Risk
Model (BH-FRM) developed by University of Massachusetts, Boston, Woods Hole Group Inc., and
the University of New Hampshire as part of the MassDOT and Federal Highway Administration
Resiliency Pilot Project was used to inform Climate Ready Boston with regard to sea level rise and
flood risk. As discussed in Climate Ready Boston, sea levels in Boston are anticipated to increase
36 inches 1 as soon as 2070 if emissions continue at their current pace. 2
The barge will be located within the FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area, Zone AE on the
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM [Community Panel No. 25025C0081J, effective March 16,
2016]), for which the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) established by FEMA is 10.0-feet NAVD88. It
should be noted that FEMA FIRM maps are based on historical data and do not account for
anticipated increases in sea level rise.
As a floating structure, and given the intended useful life of the barge, sea level rise is not
anticipated to adversely affect its operations. The barge will be located within an operating
docking facility that is continually maintained to provide safe dockage for recreational and
commercial vessels. At a future date, sea level rise may require adaptation and/or reconfiguration
of the marina to maintain its access to upland areas or, eventually, its use may have to be
discontinued altogether. If the effects of sea level rise are such that the barge’s operations are
significantly compromised, the use of the barge may be discontinued, and it could be removed
from the Project site with minimal impact to the surrounding environment.
The potential for increased frequency and intensity of coastal storms may result in more
significant storm surges and wave action, which have the potential to damage port and harbor
infrastructure. Adaptation in response to these changing climate conditions could range from
minor design changes to the barge’s spuds, to removal or relocation of the barge altogether.
Adaptation and resiliency strategies typically evaluated by upland development (i.e., flood
barriers, stormwater infiltration, elevated infrastructure, increased tree canopy, etc.) are not
applicable and/or feasible for the proposed project and implementation of additional
infrastructure to address the anticipated effects of climate change, such as in-water wave
attenuators or breakwaters, are not being considered.
1
Note that 36 inches of sea level rise in Climate Ready Boston maps correlate to 40 inches of SLR from the BH-
FRM.
2
Climate Ready Boston report, City of Boston, pages 20-21.

Section 5.0
Wetland Resources
5.0 WETLAND RESOURCES
5.1 Introduction
The Proponent has taken steps to classify wetland resource areas on the Project site through
regulatory processes established in the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Regulations (the
“Wetland Regulations”).
5.2 Wetland Resources
5.2.1 Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage
Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF), as defined by the Wetlands Regulations at 310
CMR 10.04, is land subject to any inundation caused by coastal storms up to and including that
caused by the 100-year storm, surge of record or storm of record, whichever is greater. The
Project site is entirely within LSCSF and, as noted above, encompasses a base flood elevation of
10.0-feet NAVD88 associated with the Zone AE.
The Wetlands Regulations specify performance standards for projects located within or adjacent
to wetland resource areas and restrict the types of activities that can be permitted within these
areas. There are currently no performance standards under the Wetlands Regulations for work
that occurs within LSCSF, however, LSCSF is presumed significant to storm damage prevention
and flood control, therefore, activities in LSCSF should protect the landform’s ability to continue
to provide and support those two interests.
As a floating structure, the proposed barge is expected to have no measurable effect on velocity,
depth, and extent of coastal floodwaters at or near the Project site and will not alter the adjacent
landform. The barge, again floating atop floodwaters, should not result in the channeling of
floodwaters in a manner that increases the velocity of flow to adjacent areas. The barge is also
not anticipated to deflect, reflect, or redirect wave energy, overwash, and flood waters onto
adjacent resource areas, properties, and private and public roads in a manner substantially
different from the existing condition.
Floodwater drainage in the proposed condition will not be altered and the barge will not cause
floodwaters to be impounded. Additionally, the barge will be designed, engineered, and installed
such that it is unlikely to be damaged by or contribute debris to floodwaters.
LSCSF at the Project site is of little, if any, significance to the protection of wildlife and wildlife
habitat.
5.2.2 Land Under the Ocean
Land Under the Ocean (LUO) is defined in the Wetlands Regulations at 310 CMR 10.25(2) as “…
land extending from the mean low water line seaward to the boundary of the municipality’s
jurisdiction and includes land under estuaries.”

At the Project site, LUO includes the submerged lands of Boston Harbor within the Fort Point
Channel, including those beneath portions of the existing docking facility. A predominately sand
and silt bottom substrate is present at the proposed location of the barge.
In accordance with 310 CMR 10.25(3) through (7), activities conducted within LUO will contribute
to the protection of the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act by complying with the
following general performance standards:
310 CMR 10.25(3): “Improvement dredging for navigational purposes affecting land under the
ocean shall be designed and carried out using the best available measures so as to minimize
adverse effects on such interests caused by changes in:
a) Bottom topography which will result in increased flooding or erosion caused by an

increase in the height or velocity of waves impacting the shore;
b) Sediment transport processes which will increase flood or erosion hazards by affecting the
natural replenishment of beaches;
c) Water circulation which will result in an adverse change in flushing rate, temperature, or
turbidity levels; or
d) Marine productivity which will result from the suspension or transport of pollutants, the
smothering of bottom organisms, the accumulation of pollutants by organisms, or the
destruction of marine fisheries habitat or wildlife habitat.”
The Project does not involve dredging of any kind. These performance standards are inapplicable.
310 CMR 10.25(4): “Maintenance dredging for navigational purposes affecting land under the
ocean shall be designed and carried out using the best available measures so as to minimize
adverse effects on such interests caused by changes in marine productivity which will result from
the suspension or transport of pollutants, increases in turbidity, the smothering of bottom
organisms, the accumulation of pollutants by organisms, or the destruction of marine fisheries
habitat or wildlife habitat.”
The Project does not involve dredging of any kind. These performance standards are inapplicable.
310 CMR 10.25(5): “Projects not included in 310 CMR 10.25(3) or (4) which affect nearshore areas
of land under the ocean shall not cause adverse effects by altering the bottom topography so as
to increase storm damage or erosion of coastal beaches, coastal banks, coastal dunes, or salt
marshes.”

The installation of the barge spuds will not alter the bottom topography, and therefore no change
in erosion or flooding is anticipated. The nearshore areas do not support coastal beaches, coastal
dunes, or salt marshes; therefore, the Project will not affect those resource areas. The landform
behind the granite block seawall adjacent to the docking facility is regulated as Coastal Bank, and
the installation of the barge will not affect the stability of that man-made Coastal Bank.
310 CMR 10.25(6): “Projects not included 310 CMR 10.25(3) which affect land under the ocean
shall if water-dependent be designed and constructed, using best available measures, so as to
minimize adverse effects, and if non-water-dependent, have no adverse effects, on marine
fisheries habitat or wildlife habitat caused by:
a) Alteration in water circulation;
b) Destruction of eelgrass (Zostera marina) or widgeon grass (Rupia maritina) beds;
c) Alterations in the distribution of sediment grain size;
d) Changes in water quality, including, but not limited to, other than natural fluctuations in
the level of dissolved oxygen, temperature or turbidity, or the addition of pollutants; or
e) Alterations of shallow submerged lands with high densities of polychaetes, mollusks or

macrophytic algae.”
Although the Project is nonwater-dependent, the proposed barge spuds are not anticipated to
cause adverse effects on water circulation, sediment grain size or water quality parameters of the
Fort Point Channel or Boston Harbor, more broadly.
310 CMR 10.25(7): “Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR 10.25(3) through (6), no project
may be permitted which will have any adverse effect on specified habitat sites of rare vertebrate
or invertebrate species as identified by procedures under 310 CMR 10.37.”
The Project Site is not located within NHESP mapped habitat of rare vertebrate or invertebrate
species.

Section 6.0
Tidelands
6.0 TIDELANDS
The following sections provide a comprehensive and detailed review of the jurisdictional framework
and regulatory requirements under the Massachusetts Public Waterfront Act, M.G.L c.91, as
implemented by MassDEP through 310 CMR 9.00 et seq. (the “Waterways Regulations”), including
substitute provisions and offsetting measures of the South Boston Waterfront District Municipal Harbor
Plan (MHP). This section also discusses the local planning and regulatory controls applicable to the
Project and relevant tidelands at the Project site.
6.1 Massachusetts Public Waterfront Act (Chapter 91)
The Waterways Regulations establish procedures, criteria, and standards for activities in filled and
flowed tidelands within the Commonwealth to protect and promote public use and enjoyment of the
waterfront and provide effective stewardship of trust lands. The proposed barge will be installed within
the flowed tidelands of the Fort Point Channel and will require a Waterways License. Existing structures
and uses at the Project site, including the docking facility, are authorized by the License (See Appendix
C).
Chapter 91 provides for the protection of the public’s right to fish, fowl, and navigate in tidelands and
waterways, known as public trust rights, and ensures that projects located on tidelands provide greater
benefits than detriments to the public’s rights to use and enjoy those tidelands. The Waterways
Regulations establish dimensional and use standards for projects based on several criteria. A project’s
status as water-dependent or nonwater-dependent, its location on flowed or filled tidelands, and its
location on tidelands categorized as either Private or Commonwealth Tidelands are key considerations
under the Waterways Regulations. Additionally, the Municipal Harbor Planning regulations at 310 CMR
23.00 allow municipalities to tailor particular Chapter 91 standards to that municipality’s objectives,
standards, and policies for guiding public and private use of land and water within a municipal harbor
planning area. The MHP, as issued in 2000 and subsequently amended, provides several substitutions
for dimensional and use standards specific to the Project site. Certain substitutions, and the
corresponding offsetting measures, are intended to accommodate potential future redevelopment of
the Project site. No such redevelopment is herein proposed and, accordingly, none of the substitutions
are necessary for the proposed Project. The Project is consistent with the Waterways Regulations.
6.1.1 Chapter 91 Regulatory Review Standards
The following sections review the applicable standards of the Waterways Regulations and describe
consistency with the Fort Point Channel Watersheet Activation Plan as they relate to the proposed
project.
6.1.1.1 Public Purpose
As required by 310 CMR 9.31(2)(b), the Project is required to serve a proper public purpose established
by applicable standards for nonwater-dependent use projects. The Project serves a proper public
purpose by complying with each of those standards as described in the following sections.
Consistent with the applicable provisions of 310 CMR 9.51 through 9.52, the Project conserves and
utilizes the capacity of the Project site to accommodate water-dependent uses, and complies with the
6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 6-1 Tidelands

additional standard for activating Commonwealth Tidelands for public use consistent with the
provisions of 310 CMR 9.53. The Project also complies with the standards at 310 CMR 9.54 regarding
the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (CZM) policies.
6.1.1.2 Determination of Water Dependency
In determining water dependency pursuant to 310 CMR 9.12, a project that primarily includes
nonwater-dependent uses will be reviewed as nonwater-dependent, whether or not it includes water-
dependent aspects. The restaurant use proposed for the barge is nonwater-dependent. Consequently,
the Project will be licensed as nonwater-dependent and subject to the standards for the “conservation
of capacity for water-dependent use” (310 CMR 9.51), the standards for the “utilization of the shoreline
for water-dependent purposes” (310 CMR 9.52), and the standards for the activation of Commonwealth
Tidelands for public use (310 CMR 9.53).
6.1.1.3 Categorical Restrictions on Fill and Structures
The barge is expressly permitted under 310 CMR 9.32(1)(a)(6), which allows for stationary vessels to be
positioned below the high water mark to be used for nonwater-dependent Facilities of Public
Accommodation (FPAs). The barge will exclusively provide open-air dining for patrons of the
Proponent’s restaurant (an FPA). No buildings will be constructed on the barge and it is located outside
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Designated Port Areas.
6.1.1.4 Environmental Protection Standards
The Waterways Regulations at 310 CMR 9.33 state that all projects must comply with the applicable
environmental regulatory programs of the Commonwealth. The Project will comply with the regulatory
programs specifically applicable to this Project, including without limitation, the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, the Massachusetts
Historical Commission Act, and the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Act. A final Coastal Zone
Management Consistency Statement will be included in a waterways license application to be submitted
by the Proponent.
More specifically, the regulatory programs applicable to the Project, and the status of the Project with
respect to those programs, are summarized below:
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act: Through the filing of an ENF on May 1, 2023, and the
concurrent filing of this Proposed EIR, the Proponent seeks a determination from the Secretary of
Energy and Environmental Affairs that the Project “adequately and properly complies” with MEPA.
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Compliance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act
is described in Section 5.0. The Project will obtain approval in the form of an Order of Conditions from
the Boston Conservation Commission for work within wetland resources areas.
Coastal Zone Management Consistency Review: The Project’s compliance with the Coastal Zone
Management Act is reviewed in Section 6.2.1.

6.1.1.5 Conformance with Municipal Zoning and Harbor Plans
As noted in Section 6.1, the Project site is within the planning area of the South Boston Waterfront
District Municipal Harbor Plan. However, the Project is consistent with the Waterways Regulations and
none of that plan’s substitutions are necessary for the proposed Project.
The Project site is located within the Waterfront Transition Zone Sub-district of the Harborpark: Fort
Point Waterfront Zoning District governed by Article 42E of the Boston Zoning Code. The proposed
barge is a conditionally approved use in this sub-district.
6.1.1.6 Standards to Preserve Water-Related Public Rights
The Waterways Regulations at 310 CMR 9.35 are intended to preserve the public’s rights to navigation
along, and free passage over and through, the water, and access to Town Landings, and are also
designed to ensure that jurisdictional public waterfront open spaces are properly managed and
maintained.
The Project will provide for the expansion of a long established FPA along the Fort Point Channel. The
barge will be located within an existing docking facility and will have no impact to navigation and the
free passage over and through the water. Further, the Project creates opportunity for additional public
access to the watersheet. The Proponent anticipates that a management plan for the facility will be
required as a special condition of any waterways license granted for the Project.
The proposed barge will be installed seaward of the State Harbor Line established by Chapter 403 of the
Legislative Acts of 1939. The proposed barge, as with the existing docking facility, may be authorized
pursuant to an exception granted in Chapter 204 of the State Legislative Acts of 2010. As was the case
with the License, it is anticipated that the Boston Planning and Development Agency will be a co-
applicant, but not a co-licensee, for the proposed barge.
6.1.1.7 Standards to Protect Water-Dependent Uses
The Waterways Regulations at 310 CMR 9.36 are designed to protect water-dependent uses occurring
at or proximate to a project site. The Proponent has long operated a docking facility at the Project site
that provides facilities for both recreational and commercial vessels, a touch-and-go water taxi stop,
and dock space for several community boating programs. This facility has been a critical gateway to the
Fort Point Channel for many years and the Proponent intends to maintain these facilities long into the
future. The installation of the barge requires the removal or relocation of a single, approximately 5’ X
20’ finger dock. The License established a reconfiguration zone and the Proponent is evaluating
alternate locations for the finger dock within that reconfiguration zone so that all currently available
dock space is maintained.
6.1.1.8 Engineering Construction Standards
The barge will be designed and constructed in a manner that is structurally sound and will be certified
by a Registered Professional Engineer. To improve resiliency in light of anticipated future flood events
and anticipated rising sea levels, the barge spuds will extend to an elevation well above the FEMA base
flood elevation. The additional height ensures that the barge cannot be released from the top of the
spuds during a storm/flood event.

6.1.1.9 Conservation of Capacity for Water-Dependent Use
In accordance with 310 CMR 9.51, nonwater-dependent projects that include fill or structures on any
tidelands shall not unreasonably diminish the capacity of the tidelands to accommodate future water-
dependent uses. To meet this standard, 310 CMR 9.51 establishes specific standards and conditions
regarding private tenancy, building setbacks and heights, and open space. A review of the Project’s
compliance with the standards of 310 CMR 9.51 is provided below.
Pile Supported Structures - 310 CMR 9.51(3)(a)
310 CMR 9.51(3)(a) precludes new pile-supported structures for nonwater-dependent use beyond the
footprint of existing pile-supported structures. No pile-supported structures are herein proposed.
Facilities of Private Tenancy - 310 CMR 9.51(3)(b)
The Waterways Regulations prohibit nonwater-dependent Facilities of Private Tenancy (FPTs) on any
pile-supported structure on flowed tidelands, or on the ground floor of any filled tidelands within 100
feet of a project shoreline (Mean High Water). As described above, the Project Site is comprised of
flowed Commonwealth Tidelands, and although the barge is not a pile-supported structure, no FPTs are
proposed.
Water Dependent Use Zone - 310 CMR 9.51(3)(c)
The Waterways regulations establish certain building and use setbacks from the water for properties
that include a project shoreline and a Water Dependent Use Zone. In this instance, no new structures
or uses are proposed within the Water Dependent Use Zone.
Open Space - 310 CMR 9.51(3)(d)
The Waterways Regulations require one square foot of ground level open space for every square foot
of tideland area within the footprint of new buildings containing nonwater-dependent uses. This
standard applies to buildings constructed landward of the project shoreline and, because no such
building is proposed, does not apply to the Project.
Building Height - 310 CMR 9.51(3)(e)
The Waterways Regulation limit the height of new or expanded nonwater-dependent buildings on
tidelands to 55 feet if located over flowed tidelands and within 100 feet of the current high water mark.
At greater landward distances, the height of such buildings within Chapter 91 jurisdiction is limited to
55 feet plus one-half foot for every additional foot of separation from the current high water mark.
Although no buildings will be constructed atop the barge, it should be noted that the proposed canopy
covering the barge will not exceed the height limit.

6.1.1.10 Utilization of Shoreline for Water-Dependent Purposes – 310 CMR 9.52
In accordance with 310 CMR 9.52, any nonwater-dependent project shall devote a reasonable amount
of space to water-dependent uses, including public access. In applying the standards of 310 CMR 9.52,
the Department shall consider any relevant information concerning the capacity of a project site to
serve such water-dependent purposes.
As noted above, the Proponent operates a docking facility that offers long-term and transient dockage
for recreational and fishing vessels. The Proponent also provides free of charge “touch-and-go” facilities
for water taxi service and the general public and supports several community-based boating
organizations. In conformance with the License, the Old Sleeper Street Plaza landward of the
Proponents restaurant provides public access at the Project site and the Proponent maintains signage
advertising said public access.
6.1.1.11 Activation of Commonwealth Tidelands for Public Use – 310 CMR 9.53
310 CMR 9.53 states that a “nonwater-dependent use project that includes fill or structures on
Commonwealth Tidelands … must promote public use and enjoyment of such lands to a degree that is
fully commensurate with the proprietary rights of the Commonwealth, and which ensures that private
advantages of use are not primarily but merely incidental to the achievement of public purpose. In
applying this standard, the Department shall take into account any factor affecting the quantity and
quality of benefits provided to the public, in comparison to the detriments to public rights associated
with facilities of private tenancy….”
To meet this standard, the Waterways Regulations establish criteria that are applicable to those
portions of a project that are within Commonwealth Tidelands, are non-water-dependent uses, and are
subject to licensing. As noted above, the Project site is located on Commonwealth Tidelands, and, as
evidenced by the issuance of the License, provides substantial public benefits. The Project site will
continue to meet and exceed the standards of 310 CMR 9.53 as follows:
 Facilities for Water-Dependent Activity - 310 CMR 9.53(2)(a)
310 CMR 9.53(2)(a) requires that project sites with a Water Dependent Use Zone provide and
at least one facility utilizing the shoreline must also promote water-based public activity. In
conformance with this standard, the Proponent will continue to operate the docking facility and
offer long-term and transient dockage for recreational and fishing vessels. The Proponent will
also continue to provide free of charge “touch-and-go” facilities for water taxi service and the
general public. The Proponent remains committed to supporting the several community-based
boating organizations that make use of the docking facility.
♦ Space for Active and Passive Public Recreation - 310 CMR 9.53(2)(b)
310 CMR 9.53(2)(b) of the Waterways Regulations stipulates that every square foot of
Commonwealth tidelands area not within the footprint of buildings, and not deemed necessary
to accommodate other water-dependent uses, must be available as public open space. This
standard is applicable only to the portions of a project site landward of a project shoreline and
is inapplicable to the Project.

♦ Facilities of Public Accommodation – 310 CMR 9.53(2)(c)
As noted above, the Project does not include any new or expanded buildings or fill.
Nonetheless, the entire barge will be used for restaurant dining which constitutes an FPA that
will draw the local community and visitors alike to the waterfront and increase the public’s
enjoyment of the waterfront.
♦ Management Plan – 310 CMR 9.53(2)(d)
310 CMR 9.53(2)(d) requires the development and implementation of a management plan for
all on-site facilities offering water related benefits to the public. The Proponent anticipates that
a management plan for the Project site will be required as a special condition of any waterways
license granted for the Project.
6.1.1.12 Consistency with Coastal Zone Management Policies – 310 CMR 9.54
Nonwater-dependent use projects located in the coastal zone must be consistent with all policies of the
MCZM Program. The Project is located within the boundaries of the coastal zone as determined by the
regulations of the MCZM Program. The Project complies with the applicable policies of the approved
MCZM program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such policies. A summary of the
regulatory and non-regulatory MCZM policies and the Project's consistency with applicable policies is
presented below.
Coastal Hazards
 Coastal Hazard Policy #1 - Preserve, protect, restore, and enhance the beneficial functions of
storm damage prevention and flood control provided by natural coastal landforms, such as
dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, coastal banks, land subject to coastal storm flowage, salt
marshes, and land under the ocean.
The Project will have no effect on natural coastal landforms and will not result in the increase
in impervious surfaces. Management procedures for the barge will minimize potential hazards
during storm and inundation events.
 Coastal Hazard Policies #2, #3, and #4 are not applicable to the Project.
Energy
 Energy Policy #1 is not applicable to the Project.
 Energy Policy #2 Encourage energy conservation and the use of renewable sources such as solar
and wind power in order to assist in meeting the energy needs of the Commonwealth.
The Project does not require mechanical systems and the installation of renewable energy
sources is not feasible given the scope of the Project.

Growth Management
 Growth Management Policy #1 - Encourage sustainable development that is consistent with

state, regional, and local plans and supports the quality and character of the community.
The Project has been designed to complement the character of the surrounding Fort Point
Channel neighborhood and aids in creating a vibrant mixed-use district that is well served by
pedestrian infrastructure.
 Growth Management Principle #2 is not applicable to the Project.
 Growth Management Principle #3 is not applicable to the Project.
Habitat
 Habitat Policy #1 – Protect coastal, estuarine, and marine habitats – including salt marshes,
shellfish beds, submerged aquatic vegetation, dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, banks, salt
ponds, eelgrass beds, tidal flats, rocky shores, bays, sounds, and other ocean habitats—and
coastal freshwater streams, ponds, and wetlands to preserve critical wildlife habitat and other
important functions and services including nutrient and sediment attenuation, wave and storm
damage protection, and landform movement and processes.
The Project will not alter bottom topography, water circulation, or sediment grain size
distribution. Similarly, the Project will not alter or destroy any eelgrass or widgeon grass beds,
or any area of high densities of shellfish. The Project site is fully developed and located in a
highly urbanized setting. Hence, the Project will not impact wildlife habitat.
 Habitat Policy #2 - Advance the restoration of degraded or former habitats in coastal and marine
areas.
The Project does not involve the restoration of degraded or former habitats in coastal and
marine areas.
Ocean Resources
 Ocean Resources Policies #1, #2, and #3 are not applicable to the Project.
Ports and Harbors
 Ports and Harbors Policy #1, #2, and #3, are not applicable to the Project.
 Ports and Harbors Policy #4 - For development on tidelands and other coastal waterways,
preserve and enhance the immediate waterfront for vessel-related activities that require
sufficient space and suitable facilities along the water’s edge for operational purposes.
The proposed barge will have little, if any, impact to water-dependent uses at the Project site.
The Proponent is evaluating options to relocate the 5’ X 20’ finger dock within the docking
facility’s authorized reconfiguration zone.

 Ports and Harbors Policy #5 - Encourage, through technical and financial assistance, expansion
of water-dependent uses in Designated Port Areas and developed harbors, re-development of
urban waterfronts, and expansion of physical and visual access.
The proposed barge will enhance public access to the Fort Point Channel watersheet.
Protected Areas
 Protected Areas Policy #1 and #2 are not applicable to the Project.
 Protected Areas Policy #3 - Ensure that proposed developments in or near designated or

registered historic places respect the preservation intent of the designation and that potential
adverse effects are minimized.
The Project will have no impact to designated or registered historic places.
Public Access
 Public Access Policy #1 - Ensure that development (both water-dependent or nonwater-

dependent) of coastal sites subject to state waterways regulation will promote general public
use and enjoyment of the water’s edge, to an extent commensurate with the Commonwealth’s
interests in flowed and filled tidelands under the Public Trust Doctrine.
The proposed barge promotes public use and enjoyment of the site to a degree that is fully
commensurate with the proprietary rights of the Commonwealth in the site’s tidelands, and
which “ensures that the private advantages of use are not primary but merely incidental to the
achievement of public purposes.” The Project will enhance the Fort Point Channel
neighborhood by expanding an FPA.
 Public Access Policy #2 and #3 are not applicable to the Project.
Water Quality
 Water Quality Policy #1 - Ensure that point-source discharges and withdrawals in or affecting
the coastal zone do not compromise water quality standards and protect designated uses and
other interests.
The Project will not compromise water quality or otherwise have a significant adverse effect on
their physical, biological, and chemical integrity and functions of the Boston Harbor or any other
waterbody.
 Water Quality Policy #2 - Ensure the implementation of nonpoint source pollution controls to
promote the attainment of water quality standards and protect designated uses and other
interests.

Oil, gasoline, or other toxic substances will not be stored on the proposed barge and very little
of the barge deck will be exposed to stormwater. Wastewater removed from the barge will be
done so by a third-party and in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal standards
and requirements.
 Water Quality Policy #3 - Ensure that subsurface waste discharges conform to applicable
standards, including the siting, construction, and maintenance requirements for on-site
wastewater disposal systems, water quality standards, established Total Maximum Daily Load
limits, and prohibitions on facilities in high-hazard areas.
No subsurface discharges are proposed.

Section 7.0
Environmental Justice
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
In accordance with the MEPA Public Involvement Protocol for Environmental Justice Populations (the “EJ
Involvement Protocol”) and the MEPA Interim Protocol for Analysis of Project Impacts on Environmental
Justice Populations (the “EJ Analysis Protocol”), this Chapter describes the efforts made and planned to
engage potentially affected Environmental Justice (EJ) communities. This section also analyses the
Project’s potential impacts coupled with historical or existing sources of environmental pollution, on
surrounding EJ populations.
The Project will not have a disproportionate impact on EJ Populations.
7.1 Existing EJ Population
Per the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), EJ is based on
the principle that all people have a right to be protected from environmental pollution, and to live
in and enjoy a clean and healthy environment. The EEA has established an EJ Policy (updated June
2021) to “help address the disproportionate share of environmental burdens experienced by
lower-income people and communities of color” and “ensure their protection from
environmental pollution as well as promote community involvement in planning and
environmental decision-making.”
MEPA has classified areas of Massachusetts as to whether they meet the criteria of an EJ
Population by using the United States Census data to determine whether a block group meets one
or more of the following criteria:
♦ The annual median household income is not more than 65% of the statewide annual
median household income;
♦ Minority groups comprise 40% or more of the population;
♦ 25% or more of households lack English language proficiency;
♦ Minority groups comprise 25% or more of the population and the annual median
household income of the municipality in which the neighborhood is located does not
exceed 150% of the statewide annual median household income; or
♦ The Secretary has determined that a particular neighborhood should be designated as an
EJ population.
The Project is located within one mile of communities that meet the criteria for EJ populations
including minority, income, and minority and income. Figure 7-1 shows the EJ populations within
a one-mile radius around the Project site and establishes the 1-mile Designated Geographic Area
(DGA) used as the basis for analyzing potential Project impacts and for public outreach purposes.
All EJ populations within the DGA are located in the City of Boston. Table 7-1 provides a summary
of the EJ block groups located within the DGA.
6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 7-1 EJ Assessment

G:\Projects2\MA\Boston\6538\2023\MXD\7-1_EJ_Populations_20230302.mxd Data Source: Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services
LEGEND
Po
r te
rS
tr e
e t Project Site
CAMBRIDGE
1-Mile Buffer
Ma
ve
ri c EJ Criteria, by Block Group
Su kS
mn tr e
er et Minority
ay
e et
St
re e
r kw
Income
S tr
t
et
Pa
l Stre
er
English Isolation
ge
no v
ri d
e rc ia
ro
Ha
mb
ss Minority and Income

Ca
St
Co m m
re
et Minority and English Isolation
nue
Income and English Isolation
Atla ntic Ave

Ca m
bridg
e St Minority, Income and English Isolation
re et
t
Ch a
°
Stre e
State
Scale 1:24,000 0 1,000 2,000
r le s
1 inch = 2,000 feet Feet

et
S t re
S t re
ea c
on Basemap: 2021 Aerial Imagery, MassGIS
et
B
¦
¨
§ 93
Se
ap
Essex Street Co or
ng tB
re ou
ss l ev
St ar
d
re
et
nu e
BOSTON
No
rt h
er n
Av e
Su Av
en
¦
¨
§ mm ue
is o n
90 er
St
Ha r r
re
et
et
tr e
AS
d
oa
R
et
et
re
ul
tr e
Ha
St
S
nt
D
o
em
Tr
W
es
et
t tF
ee
re
tr i rs
et
St
S tS
d
re
B
n
St W t re
R oa
o East First Street

gt es et
hi
n
a ny tB
t ag e
as lb ro
W A ad
w
ay
Fr o n
East Broadway

Figure 7-1
Environmental Justice Populations
Table 7-1 2020 EJ Block Groups within the DGA
Census Tract Block Group EJ Designation Municipality

606.04 1 Minority Boston
607 1 Minority and Income Boston
Minority, Income,
702.02 1 Boston
and English Isolation
Minority, Income,
702.02 2 Boston
Minority, Income,
704.02 2 Boston
Minority, Income,
702.01 1 Boston
Minority and English
701.04 3 Boston
Isolation
Minority, Income,
701.02 1 Boston
202 1 Minority Boston
Minority, Income,
503 3 Boston
Minority and English
512 1 Boston
Isolation
7.2 Outreach Performed To-Date
As stated in the ENF, efforts were made to reach out to the EJ communities within one mile of the
Project, and to the broader community including:
♦ Identification of Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and interested individuals.

♦ Advanced notification of the ENF filing.
The Proponent is committed to a comprehensive community outreach process and will continue
to engage the community to ensure public input on the Project.
The EJ Screening Form and Distribution List are provided as Appendix D.
At the request of Conservation Law Foundation and Boston Harbor Now, representatives of the
Proponent scheduled a meeting and discussed the Project. The Proponent is grateful for the
feedback provided by those organizations and, at the suggestion of Boston Harbor Now, is
evaluating the orientation of the barge’s bathrooms, the location of Harborwalk signage, and
improvements to pedestrian access to the docking facility.
7.3 Enhanced Environmental Justice Analysis
The EJ Analysis Protocol applies to “any project that is likely to cause damage to the environment
and is located within a distance of one mile of an Environmental Justice (EJ) population.” The
Project does not meet or exceed MEPA review thresholds under 301 CMR 11.03(8)(a)-(b) and will
not add 150 or more new adt of diesel vehicle traffic over a duration of one year or more;
therefore, the Project is not subject to a 5-mile radius.
Under the EJ Analysis Protocol, the analysis must include:
♦ An assessment of existing unfair or inequitable environmental burdens on the EJ

population;
♦ An assessment of the Project’s impacts to determine disproportionate adverse effect (if

existing unfair or inequitable environmental burdens exist) on the EJ population;
♦ An analysis of the Project to determine Climate Change Effects (if existing unfair or
inequitable environmental burdens exist); and
♦ Mitigation and Section 61 Findings (if the Project impacts causes a disproportionate
adverse effect or Climate Change Effects on the EJ population)
7.3.1 Assessment of Existing Environmental Burden
Under the EJ Analysis Protocol, a four-step process has been developed for assessing whether EJ
populations have experienced existing unfair or inequitable environmental burdens within the
DGA. As part of this approach, a series of mapping tools have been developed that focus on, (1)
the rates of four vulnerable health criteria as it relates to statewide averages, (2) existing past and
current polluting activities, and (3) a review of the RMAT Climate Resilience Output Tool 3, and (4)
the use of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Environmental Justice
3
As noted in the ENF, the RMAT Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool does not allow for the analysis of
projects in flowed tidelands.

Screening Tool (EJ SCREEN). The rates of four vulnerable health criteria as they relate to statewide
averages and an analysis of existing past and current polluting activities are described in detail
below along with an assessment of the specific results for the EJ populations within the DGA. The
optional EJ SCREEN analysis was not conducted because EJ Screen indicators are not necessarily
useful for evaluating local health impacts given the methodology is based on a ranking against
other areas and not on a comparison with health-based standards. For example, this screening
tool may flag an area as an area of concern for PM2.5 even if measured PM2.5 concentrations at
nearby monitoring stations show that levels are well below health-based NAAQS. In addition,
there is a large amount of uncertainty in the underlying data for many of the EJ indicators. For
example, the indicator for cancer risks from Air Toxics is based on data from US EPA’s
AirToxScreen. As noted by US EPA, these data are uncertain and should not be used to compare
risks at local levels (i.e., at the Block Group level). 4
7.3.2 Vulnerable Health Criteria
The vulnerable health EJ criteria are four environmental-related health indicators used to identify
populations with evidence of higher-than-average rates of health outcomes. Multiple terms are
used to describe the vulnerable health EJ criteria as they relate to EJ populations. These terms are
defined and described below.
The vulnerable health EJ criteria are reported for a population in a specific area. The area can be
a state, town, or census tract. Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions
of a county with a population typically between 1,200 and 8,000 people.
Health criteria are reported as rates, or the number of people with the identified condition divided
by the population in consideration. The DPH EJ tool compares the community rate, the rate of the
town or census tract of interest, to the statewide rate, the rate for the population of
Massachusetts. Two rate types are used: crude rate and age-adjusted rate. Crude rate is the rate
calculated as the number of individuals with a condition divided by the entire population. Age-
adjusted rate is statistically modified to consider how different age groups have different rates of
prevalence, as in the case of heart attack rates. Rates are also classified as stable or unstable.
Unstable rates occur when there are too few cases in a community for a rate to be considered
reliable such that the addition or deletion of a small number of cases would lead to a large change
in the rate. On the other hand, stable rates occur when there are sufficient cases in a population
to prevent dramatic fluctuations.
A confidence interval refers to the minimum and maximum value such that the actual rate has a
95% chance of occurring between the calculated range. In other words, the specified rate has a
high likelihood to be included in the range of values. The confidence interval is helpful in
determining if a rate of a community is much higher than the statewide rate and not due to
chance.
4
AirToxScreen Frequent Questions | US EPA

A casecount refers to the number of surveyed individuals that had the condition of interest. For
example, if out of 40 children screened for blood lead levels, one child had elevated levels, the
casecount would be equal to one.
As described above, the first step is determining whether EJ populations within the designated
geographic area have experienced higher rates in their community compared to state levels for
the four different vulnerable health criteria. A community meets the criteria of an elevated rate
if the rate is greater than 110% of the state rate.
The four different vulnerable health criteria that the MA DPH EJ tool provides information on
include:
♦ heart attack hospitalizations,
♦ childhood blood lead exposure,
♦ low birth weight, and
♦ childhood asthma for the most recent 5-year period of available data.
It should be noted that each of these datasets are available at different subdivision levels. For
example, heart attack hospitalizations and childhood asthma are available at the community level,
while low birth weight and childhood blood lead exposure are available at the census tract level.
In some cases, data from the DPH Tool output indicates Not Shown (“NS”) due to data
suppression. That is, DPH does not report values to protect the identity and privacy of individuals
and to avoid the risk of identification of individuals in small population groups. For most datasets,
the suppression rule is to not release numbers or rates when the number of events (e.g., number
of blood lead cases in a particular census tract) is less than 6 and the population (e.g., number of
individuals in that census tract) is less than 1,200. The suppression rule applies only to confidential
health data and not data otherwise available to the public, such as air pollution data.
Each of the vulnerable health criteria are described below, along with the results of the analysis
for the DGA.
7.3.2.1 Heart Attack Hospitalizations
As described on the MA DPH website, heart attack hospitalization is a criterion used to identify
vulnerable health EJ populations. Exposure to air pollution can increase the risk for heart attack
and other forms of heart disease, and it is indicative of a serious chronic illness that can lead to
disability, decreased quality of life, and premature death. EJ populations have higher than average
heart attack hospitalization rates when compared to other communities.

Heart attack hospitalization data is based on data collected from all hospitals in Massachusetts of
individuals older than 35 years of age, who have been admitted to the hospital for a heart attack.
The vulnerable health criterion for Heart Attack Hospitalizations is the most recent 5-year average
age-adjusted rate of hospitalization for myocardial infarction that is equal to or greater than 100%
of the state rate. This indicator is available on a community basis.
Heart Attack Vulnerable Health Criteria for the Project
As described above, heart attack data is available at the community level. The heart attack rate
for Boston is 23.8 per 10,000 individuals. This is less than the statewide heart attack rate of 26.4
per 10,000. The heart attack rate for Boston is considered stable and statistically significantly
lower than the statewide level and, therefore, Boston does not meet the Vulnerable Health
Criteria for heart attack.
Community level data are summarized in Table 7-2 below along with the statewide prevalence
data for comparison.
7.3.2.2 Childhood Blood Lead Levels
As described on the MA DPH website, childhood lead exposure is a criterion used to identify
vulnerable health EJ populations because lead exposure disproportionately impacts lower income
communities and communities of color. Childhood exposure to relatively low levels of lead can
cause severe and irreversible health effects, including damage to a child’s mental and physical
development.
Childhood Blood lead level data is based on data collected as part of the Massachusetts Lead
Poisoning Prevention and Control Act, a state law that requires all children to be screened each
year for lead poisoning through age three and children in high-risk communities must be screened
through age four. DPH reports the five-year average prevalence of elevated (≥5 ug/dL estimated
confirmed) childhood blood lead levels (ages 9-47 months) that are equal to or greater than 110%
the state prevalence. This indicator is available at the community and census tract level.
Childhood Blood Lead Levels Vulnerable Health Criteria for the Project
The statewide average for childhood blood lead level between 2016–2020 was 15.0 cases per
1,000. At the community level, Boston’s blood lead level rate of 16.2 cases per 1,000 exceed the
statewide rate cases per 1,000 but does not exceed 110% of the statewide average and, therefore,
does not meet the Vulnerable Health Criteria for childhood blood lead levels.
This indicator was further examined for the census tracts within the DGA and no census tracts
within the DGA meet the vulnerable health criteria. Community level data are summarized in
Table 5 below along with the statewide rate data for comparison.

7.3.2.3 Low Birth Weight
Low birth weight (LBW) is a criterion used to identify vulnerable EJ populations because exposure
to environmental contaminants can increase the risk of delivering a LBW baby and LBW is a
significant predictor of maternal and infant health. Women of color and women of low income
have a higher risk of delivering a LBW baby. LBW can increase the risk of infant mortality and
morbidity, health problems throughout childhood, developing cognitive disorders, developmental
delay and chronic diseases as an adult such as cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes.
LBW data are collected by the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics. Medical data, such as birth
weight and gestational age, are based on information supplied by hospitals and birthing facilities.
DPH reports the five-year average low birth weight rate among full-term births that is equal to or
greater than 110% of the statewide rate. This indicator is available at both the community and
census tract level.
Low Birth Weight Vulnerable Health Criteria for the Project
As described above, the LBW indicator is available on a community and census level basis. The
statewide low birth weight rate was 216.8 per 10,000 between 2011-2015. Boston’s community-
level low birth weight rate was 282.4 per 10,000, which exceeds the statewide average. Boston
meets the Vulnerable Health Criteria for low birth weight.
This indicator was further examined for the census tracts within the DGA and no census tracts
within the DGA meet the vulnerable health criteria. Community level data are summarized in
Table 7-2 below along with the statewide rate data for comparison.
7.3.2.4 Childhood Asthma
As described on the MA DPH website, childhood asthma is a criterion used to identify vulnerable
EJ populations because people of color and low-income individuals are at greater risk for asthma
exacerbations due to increased exposure to asthma triggers. Uncontrolled asthma can impact an
individual’s overall health and wellbeing. For example, uncontrolled asthma can reduce activity
levels, negatively impact cardiovascular fitness, and increase school absenteeism.
Childhood asthma data are based on data collected from all hospitals in Massachusetts for
children between the ages of 5 and 14 years that have visited an emergency room for the
treatment for asthma. DPH reports the five-year average rate of emergency department visits for
childhood (5-14 years) asthma that is equal to or greater than 110% of the state rate. This
indicator is available at the community and town levels.
Childhood Asthma Vulnerable Health Criteria for the Project
This indicator was examined for the EJ populations within the DGA. In Massachusetts, the
statewide childhood asthma rate was 83.1 per 10,000 between 2013-2017. Boston’s community
level rate for the same period was 172.8 per 10,000, which is greater than 110% of the statewide

average (91.4) and is statistically significantly higher than the statewide average. Based on this,
the EJ populations within the DGA meet the vulnerable health criteria for childhood asthma.
Community level data are summarized in Table 7-2 below along with the statewide rate data for
comparison.
7.3.2.5 Vulnerable Health Criteria Summary
Based on the information described above, Boston meets the vulnerable health criteria for
childhood lead blood levels and childhood asthma. Based on the descriptions provided above,
some of the EJ communities in the designated geographic area are considered vulnerable and are
subject to existing environmental burdens.
Table 7-2 Vulnerable Health Criteria
Community
Vulnerable 110% >110% of
Community Rate Statistical Statewide
Health Geography Stability Statewide Statewide
Rate Confidence Significance Rate
Criteria Rate Rate?
Interval
Heart
Boston 23.8 23.0-24.5 SSL Stable 26.4 29.1 No
Attack
Blood Lead
Boston 16.2 15.3-17.1 SSH Stable 15.0 16.5 No
Prevalence
Low Birth
Boston 282.4 264.8-300.1 SSH Stable 216.8 238.5 Yes
Weight
Childhood
Boston 172.8 168.2-177.5 SSH Stable 83.1 91.4 Yes
Asthma
Notes:
SSL: Statistically significantly Lower
SSH: Statistically significantly higher
NSSD: Not statistically significantly different
7.3.3 Potential Sources of Pollution
As described in the MEPA Interim Protocol for Analysis of Projects Impacts on Environmental
Justice Populations, the next step of the existing environmental burden analysis focuses on other
potential sources of pollution within the boundaries of the EJ communities. Specifically, the MEPA
Protocol specifies consultation of the data layers in the MA DPH EJ tool to review other potential
sources of pollution near the EJ communities.
Layers from the DPH EJ Tool were downloaded into ArcGIS and a one-mile buffer drawn around
the Project site boundary. Each of the resulting layers were used to determine the number and
the types of facilities and infrastructure within the EJ communities in the DGA and the
enforcement history.

MassDEP Major Air and Waste Facilities
MassDEP major air and waste facilities are facilities that have air operating permits, treat, store,
generate or recycle large quantities of hazardous waste, or utilize large quantities of toxics. These
facilities are further specified in the following sections and include airports, facilities with air
permits, draft NPDES permits, hazardous waste, treatment, storage, recycling, or disposal
facilities, large quantity generators, large quantity toxic users, land disposal of solid waste, and
toxics release inventory sites 5.
There are no hazardous waste, treatment, storage, recycling, or disposal facilities within the DGA.
Within the DGA, there are two facilities with Air Operating Permits. The Veolia Energy facility
located at 165 Kneeland Street, which is located within an EJ block group (Census Tract 701.01,
Block Group 1), and the Gillette Company in the Fort Point Neighborhood. The Gillette Company,
however, is not located within an EJ Block Group.
Within the DGA, there are sixteen “Large Quantity User” facilities listed in the DPH database, of
which, eight are located within EJ block groups. Five of the facilities are pharmacies (e.g., CVS and
Rite Aid), one facility is the Tufts New England Medical Center, and the remaining facility is
MassDOT.
Within the DGA, there are six Large Quantity Toxics Uses, of which two are located within EJ block
groups – Veolia Energy at 165 Kneeland Street and the Four Season Hotel at 200 Boylston Street.
Massachusetts Contingency Plan (21E Sites)
The Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) falls under M.G.L. c. 21E and aims to protect the
health, safety, welfare and the environment of the Commonwealth by regulating the reporting,
response, assessment, and cleanup of hazardous waste and oil spills. Releases of oil and/or
hazardous materials are reported to the MassDEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup (BWSC),
according to procedures established in the MCP (310 CMR 40.0000 et seq.) 21E sites are sites that
have experienced a release of a hazardous material above a certain threshold. Once a release is
reported to MassDEP it must be cleaned up within a year or it is classified as Tier I, Tier ID, or Tier
II. A Tier I site poses an immediate hazard, a Tier 1D site has not posed a permanent solution or
final classification of the site while a Tier II site does not meet the criteria for an immediate hazard.
There are 24 21E sites within the DGA, however, only eleven of the sites are within EJ block groups.
Of those eleven sites, ten are categorized as Tier II and one is categorized as Tier 1D. There are
no Tier 1 sites within the EJ block groups.
5
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massgis-data-massdep-major-facilities

MassDEP sites with AULs
An Activity Use Limitation (AUL) provides notice of the presence of oil and/or hazardous material
contamination remaining at the location after a cleanup has been conducted pursuant to Chapter
21E and the MCP. The AUL is a legal document that identifies activities and uses of the property
that may and may not occur, as well as the property owner’s obligation and maintenance
conditions that must be followed to ensure the safe use of the property.
There are 68 locations with AULs within the DGA, however, only 12 of those AULs are located
within EJ block groups.
Underground Storage Tanks
The MassDEP regulates the registration, installation, operation, maintenance, inspection, and
closure of petroleum fuel and hazardous substance of underground storage tank (UST) systems.
There are 21 UST locations within the DGA, however, only eight of those UST are within EJ block
groups.
MassDEP Groundwater Discharge Permits
This dataset contains the locations of permitted discharges of groundwater. This includes
discharges from: Sanitary sewage in excess of 10,000 gallons per day (gpd), coin operated
laundromats, car washes, industrial facilities, and reclaimed water (used in cooling towers and
other closed-loop systems, no actual discharge). There were no identified MassDEP Groundwater
Discharge Permits identified in EJ areas within the DGA.
Wastewater Treatment Plants
The MA DPH tool provides information on facilities that have received a NPDES permit for facilities
that treat wastewater. There are three facilities within the DGA, however, none of them are
located within EJ block groups.
United States Environmental Protection Agency Facilities
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) facilities are defined as Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) facilities. TRI facilities use and/or release over a certain threshold of toxic
chemicals to the environment. There are 777 individual chemicals and 33 chemical categories
covered by the TRI program. 6 There is one EPA facilities in the DGA but it is not located within an
EJ block group.
6
https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/tri/ef-facilities/#/Facility/01082KNZKS20COM

7.4 Project Impacts to Environmental Justice Population
7.4.1 Impacts to EJ and Non-EJ Populations
The Proponent has taken steps to minimize and mitigate overall Project impact. However,
impacts on transportation, air quality as a result of transportation, and climate, are diffused and
would be present regardless of the Project. The beneficial aspects of the Project are expected to
outweigh anticipated impacts.
7.4.2 Transportation Impacts to EJ Population
The Project is expected to generate three additional peak hour trips (two entering and one exiting)
to the area roadway network. The Project is not expected to result in an increase in truck traffic
or diesel-powered vehicles. The Proponent will retain existing service providers for trash,
recycling and other services so as to not increase the overall number of trucks in the area or that
travel through the EJ community. The expansion of the restaurant is not anticipated to create
additional truck trips from those service providers.
7.4.3 Air Quality Impacts to EJ Population
The Project’ effect on air quality will primarily be the result of vehicle emissions. The products of
these emissions include air pollutants such as particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx),
as well as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Project trips and particulate matter. As noted in
Chapter 3, the Project will generate very few new vehicle trips and based on the Project Team’s
experience with projects in the surrounding area, these vehicle trips are not expected to produce
emissions that would significantly impact background levels. Therefore, the Project will not
contribute to air pollutant concentrations that would result in an exceedance of the NAAQS. With
distance from the Project site, air pollution levels will decrease significantly and therefore will not
cause adverse or disproportionate impacts to EJ communities. As noted in Chapter 8, any air
quality impacts will not contribute to health vulnerabilities identified for the EJ communities
including asthma and blood lead levels. Levels of air pollution are not expected to exceed
standards that are protective of the health effects including asthma. Lastly, vehicle emissions are
no longer a source of lead and will not contribute to increased blood lead levels.
7.4.4 Climate Impacts to EJ Population
Climate change is expected to produce conditions which will require the adoption of resiliency
measures at the Project site. However, the Project is not expected to produce any direct adverse
impacts to the climate that will affect EJ populations. Climate change in relation to the Project is
discussed in Chapter 4.

7.4.5 Stormwater and Flooding Impacts to EJ Population
The Project will not create new impervious area and all drainage patterns, such as they may exist,
will be maintained at pre-development conditions. The installation of the barge will pose no
additional risk to either the surrounding neighborhood or to EJ Populations.

Section 8.0
Public Health
8.0 PUBLIC HEALTH
A comprehensive review of the vulnerable health criteria and information included in the DPH EJ
Tool to assess public health conditions in the area surrounding the Project site is provided in
Chapter 7 as part of the EJ evaluation. The key vulnerability criteria that are likely to be associated
with air quality impacts from traffic include heart attacks and asthma. Prevalence of childhood
asthma is assumed to be exceeded in the EJ communities within a one-mile radius of the Project
site. Childhood asthma can be caused and exacerbated by a large number of environmental
exposures, including many indoor sources and allergens. Although outdoor air pollution could be
a contributing factor, based on the Project Team’s experience, the Project’s minimal emissions
contributions will not result in air quality that would exceed these standards and therefore would
not adversely or disproportionally impact the health of the surrounding EJ community.
Blood lead levels also exceeded the criteria but are no longer associated with mobile sources
emissions because of the removal of lead from gasoline. Therefore, although vulnerabilities were
identified for the EJ communities in the area around the Project site, these vulnerabilities are not
anticipated to be exacerbated by any Project-related air quality impacts.
6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 8-1 Public Health

Section 9.0
Construction Impacts
9.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
9.1 Introduction
The Proponent is committed to minimizing construction-related impacts.
Construction management and scheduling practices including plans for construction worker
commuting and parking, routing plans and scheduling for trucking and deliveries, protection of
existing utilities, maintenance of fire access, control of noise and dust, and public safety will be
employed to minimize impacts on the surrounding environment and community.
The Proponent will follow City and MassDEP guidelines which will direct the evaluation and
mitigation of construction impacts.
9.2 Construction Methodology/Public Safety
Construction methodologies that ensure public safety and protect nearby properties will be
employed. The Proponent anticipates that all work will be conducted from the water and will have
no impact to pedestrian and vehicular movements.
9.3 Construction Schedule
It is anticipated that construction will begin following Project approvals and the barge is expected
be installed within a single day.
Construction will conform to applicable requirements established by the City of Boston, which
typically limits construction activities to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
9.4 Construction Staging/Access
Although specific construction and staging details have not been finalized, the Proponent
anticipates that all work will be conducted from the water and will have no impact to pedestrian
and vehicular movements. Construction procedures will be designed to meet all Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety standards for specific site construction activities.
9.5 Construction Truck Routes and Deliveries
Although specific construction and staging details have not been finalized, the Proponent
anticipates that all work will be conducted from the water and will not require truck deliveries.
9.6 Construction Air Quality
The contractor will strive to minimize diesel emissions during construction. Specific measures to
be taken to reduce diesel emissions and other construction related air quality impacts may include
the following measures:
6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 9-1 Construction Impacts

♦ Using equipment retrofitted with diesel emissions control devices. The Proponent will
specify during the procurement of the subcontractors, that heavy equipment operating
on the Project site be retrofitted with diesel emissions control devices;
♦ Maintaining an “idle free” work zone for fossil fuel equipment. On-site idling will be
limited to five minutes, if feasible, for the installation methodology; and
♦ Using Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all construction machinery as required by the US EPA.
9.7 Construction Noise
The Proponent is committed to mitigating noise impacts from the construction of the Project.
Periodic increased community sound levels, however, are an inherent consequence of
construction activities. Most of the noise-producing work at the Project site will involve the short-
term use of a vibratory hammer to install the barge spuds to the desired depth. These activities
are anticipated to occur over a few hours of a single workday and are not anticipated to generate
sound levels that will impact off-site receptors. Every reasonable effort will be made to minimize
the noise impact of construction activities, including:
♦ Limiting construction to weekdays between 7 AM and 5 PM;
♦ Using appropriate mufflers on all equipment and ongoing maintenance of intake and
exhaust mufflers;
♦ Muffling enclosures on continuously running equipment, such as air compressors and

generators;
♦ Replacing specific construction operations and techniques by less noisy ones where
feasible;
♦ Selecting the quietest of alternative items of equipment where feasible;
♦ Scheduling equipment operations to keep average noise levels low, to synchronize the
noisiest operations with times of highest ambient levels, and to maintain relatively
uniform noise levels;
♦ Turning off idling equipment; and
♦ Locating noisy equipment at locations that protect sensitive locations by shielding or

distance.
9.8 Construction Waste Management
The barge will be fabricated off site and installation of the barge is not anticipated to generate
any construction waste.

9.9 Protection of Utilities
The Project is not expected to have any impact on existing public and private infrastructure
located in proximity to the Project site. All necessary permits and approvals will be obtained
before installation of the barge.
9.10 Construction Soil Management
The Project does not involve earth disturbing activities that require construction-period soil
management.
9.11 Construction Period Stormwater Management
The Project does not involve earth disturbing activities that require construction-period
stormwater controls.

Section 10.0
Mitigation and Draft Section 61 Findings

10.0 MITIGATION AND DRAFT 61 FINDINGS
This Chapter provides a summary of proposed mitigation and Proposed Section 61 Findings for
the Project.
10.1 Introduction
M.G.L.c.30, s.61 requires that “[a]ll authorities of the Commonwealth … review, evaluate, and
determine the impact on the natural environment of all works, projects or activities conducted by
them and … use all practicable means and measures to minimize [their] damage to the
environment. … Any determination made by an agency of the Commonwealth shall include a
finding describing the environmental impact, if any, of the project and a finding that all feasible
measures have been taken to avoid or minimize said impact.” Each state agency that issues a
permit for the Project shall issue a Section 61 Finding in connection with permit issuance,
identifying mitigation that is relied upon to satisfy the Section 61 requirement. A proposed
Section 61 Finding is provided in Section 10.3, and a table of mitigation measures is included as
part of the Section 61 Finding. All mitigation will be the responsibility of the Proponent.
10.2 Anticipated State Permits and Approvals
Table 10-1 identifies the Agencies that are expected to take Agency Action on the Project and,
therefore, issue Section 61 Findings. It also identifies the Agency Actions anticipated to be
required. One state permit is required for the Project: MassDEP Waterways License.
Table 10-1 Agency Actions Required for the Project
Agency Name State Action / Permit Notes

Massachusetts Department of Scope of Section 61 Findings limited
Waterways License
Environmental Protection to the subject matter of the permit.
10.3 Proposed Section 61 Finding
Project Name: Barking Crab

Project Location Boston
Project Proponent Poseidon Enterprises
EEA Number XXXXX
Date Noticed in Monitor March 22, 2023
The potential environmental impacts of the Project have been characterized and quantified in the
ENF dated March 15, 2023 and this Proposed EIR, which are incorporated by reference into this
Section 61 Finding. Throughout the planning and environmental review process, the Proponent
has been working to develop measures to mitigate impacts of the Project. With the mitigation
proposed and carried out in cooperation with state agencies, [AGENCY] finds that there are no
significant unmitigated impacts.
6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 10-1 Draft Section 61 Findings

The Proponent recognizes that the identification of effective mitigation, and implementation of
that mitigation throughout the life of the Project, is central to its responsibilities under the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). The Proponent has accordingly prepared the
annexed Table of Impacts and Mitigation Measures that specifies the mitigation that the
Proponent will provide.
Now, therefore, [AGENCY], having reviewed the MEPA filings for the Project, including the
mitigation measures itemized on the annexed Table of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, finds
pursuant to M.G.L. C. 30, S. 61, that with the implementation of the aforesaid measures, all
practicable and feasible means and measures will have been taken to avoid or minimize potential
damage from the Project to the environment.
_____________________________________
[Agency]
_____________________________________
By
_____________________________________
[Date]
Table 10-2 describes the measures to be implemented to mitigate the effects of the Project
related to the required state actions and the schedule for implementation. The Proponent will be
responsible for all mitigation measures
Table 10-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Schedule Cost

Barking Crab
Tidelands
Public Realm Management Plan. Prior to Included in the
Issuance of overall Project cost.
Certificate of
Compliance
The Proponent will install public access signage. Prior to Included in the
Issuance of overall Project cost.
Certificate of
Compliance
The Proponent will maintain the existing water taxi landing area and During Included in the
the public “touch-and-go” docking. Both water taxi landing and Operation overall Project cost.
public “touch-and-go” docking will remain free of charge.

Table 10-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures (Continued)

Tidelands (Continued)
The Proponent will maintain the existing public transient docking During Included in the
facilities (first-come, first-serve) and will make reasonable Operation overall Project cost.
arrangement to accommodate transient boaters at any berth during
periods of vacancy in excess of 24 hours
Environmental Justice
The Project is not expected to result in a significant increase in truck During Included in the
traffic or diesel-powered vehicles. The Proponent will seek to retain operation overall Project cost
service providers for trash, recycling and other services from
providers that are currently serving the area so as to not increase the
overall number of trucks in the area or that travel through the EJ
community.
Construction
Specific measures to be taken to reduce diesel emissions and other During Included in the
construction related air quality impacts include the following construction. overall Project cost
measures:
♦ Using equipment retrofitted with diesel emissions control
devices. The Proponent will specify during the procurement
of the subcontractors, that the majority of the heavy
equipment operating on the site be retrofitted with diesel
emissions control devices;
♦ Maintaining an “idle free” work zone of fossil fuel trucks and
equipment by providing supplemental hoisting and pumping
equipment along with “just-in-time” delivery methods. On-
site idling will be limited to five minutes. “Do Not Idle” signs
will be posted at appropriate locations;
♦ By locating combustion engines away from sensitive
receptors such as fresh air intakes, air conditioners and
windows; and
♦ Using Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel for all trucks and construction
machinery as required by the US EPA.
Every reasonable effort will be made to minimize the noise impact of During Included in the
construction activities, including: construction. overall Project cost
♦ Limiting construction to weekdays between 7 AM and 5 PM;
♦ Using appropriate mufflers on all equipment and ongoing
maintenance of intake and exhaust mufflers;
♦ Muffling enclosures on continuously running equipment,
such as air compressors and welding generators;
♦ Replacing specific construction operations and techniques by
less noisy ones where feasible;

Table 10-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures (Continued)

Construction
♦ Selecting the quietest of alternative items of equipment During Included in the
where feasible; construction. overall Project cost
♦ Scheduling equipment operations to keep average noise
levels low, to synchronize the noisiest operations with times
of highest ambient levels, and to maintain relatively uniform
noise levels;
♦ Turning off idling equipment; and
♦ Shielding noisy equipment and/or activities to protect
sensitive locations.
Sustainable Design Features
All lighting will be LED. Exterior lighting will be sharp cutoff LED During Included in the
energy efficient and designed to project minimal light beyond the operation overall operating
barge. cost
Low-Flow Fixtures During Included in the
operation overall Project cost

Appendix A
Proposed Site Plan

Appendix B
Transportation
Barking Crab (Existing)
Trip Generation Assessment
HOWARD STEIN HUDSON

29-Sep-2022
Assumed
National Assumed
Vehicle Transit Local Auto
Directional Average Unadjusted Occupancy Unadjusted Primary Person- Transit Person- Walk/Bike/ Walk/ Bike/ Auto Person- Pass-By Pass-By Primary Auto- Occupancy Primary
Land Use Size Category Split Trip Rate Vehicle Trips Rate1 Person-Trips Trips Share2 Trips Other Share2 Other Trips Auto Share2 Trips Percentage Person Trips Person Trips Rate3 AutoTrips
Daily Peak Period
Sit-Down Restaurant16 9.736 Total 107.200 1,044 2.10 2,192 2,192 27% 592 39% 854 34% 746 0% 0 746 2.10 356
KSF In 50% 53.600 522 2.10 1,096 1,096 27% 296 39% 427 34% 373 0% 0 373 2.10 178
Out 50% 53.600 522 2.10 1,096 1,096 27% 296 39% 427 34% 373 0% 0 373 2.10 178
Total Total 1,044 2,192 2,192 592 854 746 356
In 522 1,096 1,096 296 427 373 178
Out 522 1,096 1,096 296 427 373 178
PM Peak Hour
4
Sit-Down Restaurant 9.736 Total 9.05 88 2.10 184 184 50 72 62 43% 26 36 2.10 17
KSF In 61% 5.521 54 2.10 113 113 27% 31 39% 44 34% 38 43% 16 22 2.10 10
Out 39% 3.530 34 2.10 71 71 27% 19 39% 28 34% 24 43% 10 14 2.10 7
Total Total 88 184 184 50 72 62 17
In 54 113 113 31 44 38 10
Out 34 71 71 19 28 24 7
1. 2017 National vehicle occupancy rates - 1.18:home to work; 1.82: family/personal business; 1.82: shopping; 2.1 social/recreational
2. Mode shares based on South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transportation Plan
3. Local vehicle occupancy rates based on 2017 National vehicle occupancy rates
4. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, LUC 932 (High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant), average rate
Barking Crab (Proposed)

Trip Generation Assessment
HOWARD STEIN HUDSON

29-Sep-2022
Assumed
National Assumed
Vehicle Transit Local Auto
Directional Average Unadjusted Occupancy Unadjusted Primary Person- Transit Person- Walk/Bike/ Walk/ Bike/ Auto Person- Pass-By Pass-By Primary Auto- Occupancy Primary
Land Use Size Category Split Trip Rate Vehicle Trips Rate1 Person-Trips Trips Share2 Trips Other Share2 Other Trips Auto Share2 Trips Percentage Person Trips Person Trips Rate3 AutoTrips
Daily Peak Hour
Sit-Down Restaurant16 11.236 Total 107.200 1,204 2.10 2,528 2,528 27% 682 39% 986 34% 860 0% 0 860 2.10 410
KSF In 50% 53.600 602 2.10 1,264 1,264 27% 341 39% 493 34% 430 0% 0 430 2.10 205
Out 50% 53.600 602 2.10 1,264 1,264 27% 341 39% 493 34% 430 0% 0 430 2.10 205
Total Total 1,204 2,528 2,528 682 986 860 410
In 602 1,264 1,264 341 493 430 205
Out 602 1,264 1,264 341 493 430 205
PM Peak Hour
Sit-Down Restaurant4 11.236 Total 9.05 102 2.10 214 214 58 83 73 43% 31 42 2.10 20
KSF In 61% 5.521 62 2.10 130 130 27% 35 39% 51 34% 44 43% 19 25 2.10 12
Out 39% 3.530 40 2.10 84 84 27% 23 39% 32 34% 29 43% 12 17 2.10 8
Total Total 102 214 214 58 83 73 20
In 62 130 130 35 51 44 12
Out 40 84 84 23 32 29 8
1. 2017 National vehicle occupancy rates - 1.18:home to work; 1.82: family/personal business; 1.82: shopping; 2.1 social/recreational
2. Mode shares based on South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transportation Plan
3. Local vehicle occupancy rates based on 2017 National vehicle occupancy rates
4. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, LUC 932 (High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant), average rate
Appendix C
Waterways License No. 14105

Appendix D
Environmental Justice Package

EJ Distribution List
Statewide Environmental Justice Community Based Organizations

Julia Blatt Executive Director (617) 714-4272 Mass Rivers Alliance
danielledolan@massriversalliance.
org
juliablatt@massriversalliance.org
Andrea Nyamekye Associate Director 508-505-6748 Andrea@n2nma.org Neighbor to Neighbor
elvis@n2nma.org
Ben Hellerstein MA State Director 617-747-4368 ben@environmentmassachusetts. Environment Massachusetts

org
Claire B.W. Muller Movement Building 508 308-9261 claire@uumassaction.org Unitarian Universalist Mass Action
Director Network
Cindy Luppi New England Director 617-338-8131 cluppi@cleanwater.org Clean Water Action
x208
Deb Pasternak Director, MA Chapter 617-423-5775 deb.pasternak@sierraclub.org Sierra Club MA
Heather Clish Director of Conservation (617) 523-0655 hclish@outdoors.org Appalachian Mountain Club
& Recreation Policy
Heidi Ricci Director of Policy Not Provided hricci@massaudubon.org Mass Audubon
Kelly Boling MA & RI State Director (617) 367-6200 kelly.boling@tpl.org The Trust for Public Land
Kerry Bowie Board President Not Provided kerry@msaadapartners.com Browning the GreenSpace
6538/Barking Crab/PEIR D-1 EJ Distribution

Linda Orel Director of Policy 617-360-1857 lorel@thetrustees.org The Trustees of Reservations
Nancy Goodman Vice President for Policy Not Provided ngoodman@environmentalleague. Environmental League of MA
org
Pat Stanton Project Manager Not Provided pstanton@e4thefuture.org E4TheFuture
Rob Moir Executive Director Not Provided rob@oceanriver.org Ocean River Institute
Robb Johnson Executive Director (978) 443-2233 robb@massland.org Mass Land Trust Coalition
Sarah Dooling Executive Director Not Provided sarah@massclimateaction.net Mass Climate Action Network (MCAN)
Staci Rubin Senior Attorney 617 350-0990 srubin@clf.org Conservation Law Foundation
Sylvia Broude Executive Director 617 292-4821 sylvia@communityactionworks.org Community Action Works
Winston Vaughan Director of Climate Not Provided wvaughan@hcwh.org Healthcare without Harm
Solutions
Local Environmental Justice Community Based Organizations
May Lui Community Outreach 617-482-2380 may.lui@asiancdc.org Asian Community Development

Coordinator Corporation

Heather Miller Not Provided 781-788-007 hmiller@crwa.org Charles River Watershed Assoc.
Joy Gary Executive Director 617-825-3846 joy@bostonfarms.org Boston Farms Community Land Trust
Alice Brown Chief of Planning and Not provided abrown@bostonharbornow.org Boston Harbor Now
Policy
Kathy Abbott President and CEO 617-223-8104 kabbott@bostonharbornow.org Boston Harbor Now
Karen Chen Executive Director 617-357-4499 karen@cpaboston.org Chinese Progressive Association
Lee Matsueda Executive Director 617-723-2639 lee@massclu.org Mass Community Labor United
Bruce Berman Not Provided (617) 293-6243 Bruce@bostonharbor.com Save the Harbor/Save the Bay
Deb Fastino Executive Director 617-316-0456 dfastino@aol.com Coalition for Social Justice
Laura Jasinski Executive Director Not provided ljasinski@thecharles.org Charles River Conservancy
Anabel Santiago Grassroots Organizer 978-880-0016 anabel@coalitionforsocialjustice.or Coalition for Social Justice
g

Andres Ripley Natural Resource Not provided ripley@neponset.org Neponset River Watershed
Specialist Association
Patricia Alvarez Not Provided Not provided palvarez@swbcdc.org Southwest Boston Community
Development Corporation
Lydia Lowe Executive Director 617-259-1503 lydia@chinatownclt.org Chinatown Community Land Trust
Hin Sang Yu Co-Chair 603-905-9915 chinatownresidents@gmail.com Chinatown Resident Association
Melanie Gárate Climate Resiliency (781) 316-3438 melanie.garate@mysticriver.org Mystic River Watershed Association
Project Manager
Maria Power Associate Executive 617-466-3076 mariabelenp@greenrootschelsea.o GreenRoots, Inc.

Belen Director Ext 2 rg
Chris Marchi Vice President Not Provided cbmarchi@gmail.com Air, Inc.
David Queeley Director of Projects Not Provided david.queeley@mysticriver.org Mystic River Watershed Association
Julie Wormser Deputy Director Not Provided julie.wormser@mysticriver.org Mystic River Watershed Association
Eugene Benson Former City Planning & Not provided eugene.b.benson@gmail.com GreenRoots, Inc.
Urban Affairs Professor
Indigenous Organizations

Alma Gordon President Not Provided tribalcouncil@chappaquiddick- Chappaquiddick Tribe of the
wampanoag.org Wampanoag Nation
Cheryll Toney Holley Chair 774-317-9138 crwritings@aol.com Nipmuc Nation (Hassanamisco
Nipmucs)
John Peters, Jr. Executive Director 617-573-1292 john.peters@mass.gov Massachusetts Commission on Indian
Affairs (MCIA)
Kenneth White Council Chairman 508-347-7829 acw1213@verizon.net Chaubunagungamaug Nipmuck Indian

Council
Melissa Ferretti Chair (508) 304-5023 melissa@herringpondtribe.org Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe
Patricia D. Rocker Council Chair Not Provided rockerpatriciad@verizon.net Chappaquiddick Tribe of the
Wampanoag Nation, Whale Clan
Raquel Halsey Executive Director (617) 232-0343 rhalsey@naicob.org North American Indian Center of
Boston
Cora Pierce Not Provided Not Provided Coradot@yahooe.com Pocassett Wampanoag Tribe
Elizabth Soloman Not Provided Not Provided Solomon.Elizabeth.e@gmail.om Massachusetts Tribe at Ponkapoag
Federal Tribes
Bettina Washington Tribal Historic 508-560-9014 thpo@wampanoagtribe-nsn.gov Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head
Preservation Officer (Aquinnah)
Bonney Hartley Historic Preservation 413-884-6048 bonney.hartley@mohican-nsn.gov Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe
Manager
Brian Weeden Chair 774-413-0520 Brian.Weeden@mwtribe-nsn.gov Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe

Environmental Justice Screening Form
Project Name Barking Crab
Anticipated Date of MEPA Filing March 31, 2023
Proponent Name Poseidon Enterprises
Contact Information (e.g., consultant) Erik Rexford
3 Mill & Main, Suite 250
Maynard, MA 01754
erexford@epsilonassociates.com
978-897-7100
Public website for project or other
physical location where project
materials can be obtained (if available)
Municipality and Zip Code for Project Boston, 02210
(if known)
Project Type* (list all that apply) Commercial (Restaurant)
Is the project site within a mapped Yes
100-year FEMA flood plain? Y/N/
unknown
Estimated GHG emissions of N/A. No conditioned space is proposed.
conditioned spaces (click here for
GHG Estimation tool)
Project Description
1. Provide a brief project description, including overall size of the project site and square footage of proposed
buildings and structures if known.
The Proponent intends to install an approximately 1,900 square foot barge at an existing marina on the Fort
Point Channel. The barge will provide additional seating for the Barking Crab restaurant located adjacent to
the marina.
2. List anticipated MEPA review thresholds (301 CMR 11.03) (if known)
301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)(5) – New Nonwater-dependent Waterways License
3. List all anticipated state, local and federal permits needed for the project (if known)
Order of Conditions (Boston Conservation Commission)

Waterways License (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection)
General Permit (US Army Corps of Engineers)
1
4. Identify EJ populations and characteristics (Minority, Income, English Isolation) within 5 miles of project site
(can attach map identifying 5-mile radius from EJ Maps Viewer in lieu of narrative)
There are numerous EJ populations within five miles of the Project Site (see attached map). These populations
are identified as: Minority; Income; Language Isolation; Minority and Income; Minority and English Isolation;
Minority, Income, and English Isolation.
5. Identify any municipality or census tract meeting the definition of “vulnerable health EJ criteria” in the DPH
EJ Tool located in whole or in part within a 1 mile radius of the project site
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MassDPH) EJ Tool’s Vulnerable Health by Community
layer indicates the existing vulnerabilities of the surrounding EJ Population near the Project site. Boston is
the only municipality within one mile of the Project site.
Boston meets the vulnerable Health EJ Criteria for childhood asthma, low birth weight, and elevated
childhood blood lead levels.
6. Identify potential short-term and long-term environmental and public health impacts that may affect EJ
Populations and any anticipated mitigation
The placement of a barge for restaurant seating is not anticipated to have any short- or long-term public
health impacts that may affect EJ Populations. De minimis impacts to Land Under the Ocean, a resource
area under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, will be mitigated through implementation of best
management practices.
7. Identify project benefits, including “Environmental Benefits” as defined in 301 CMR 11.02, that may
improve environmental conditions or public health of the EJ population
Although the Project will have no direct environmental benefits, there are few, if any, impacts to
environmental conditions or the public health of EJ populations.
8. Describe how the community can request a meeting to discuss the project, and how the community can
request oral language interpretation services at the meeting. Specify how to request other
accommodations, including meetings after business hours and at locations near public transportation.
If you are interested in learning more about the Project or would like to schedule a meeting to discuss
the Project, please feel welcome to contact Erik Rexford (Epsilon Associates, Inc.) at
erexford@epsilonassociates.com or 978-897-7100. If you require language interpretation services,
Epsilon Associates will arrange those services.
2
Formulario de evaluación de justicia ambiental
Nombre del proyecto Barking Crab
Fecha prevista de presentación de 31 de marzo de 2023
MEPA
Nombre del proponente Poseidon Enterprises
Información de contacto (por ejemplo, Erik Rexford
consultor) Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Maynard, MA 01754
978-897-7100
Sitio web público del proyecto u otra
ubicación física donde se pueden
obtener los materiales del proyecto (si
está disponible)
Municipio y código postal del Boston, 02210
proyecto (si se conoce)
Tipo de proyecto* (indique todas las Comercial (restaurante)
opciones que correspondan)
¿El sitio del proyecto se encuentra Sí
dentro de una llanura de
inundación mapeada por FEMA de
100 años? S/N/No sé
Emisiones estimadas de GEI de los N/A. No se propone ningún espacio acondicionado.
espacios acondicionados (haga
clic aquí para ver la herramienta
de estimación de GEI)
Descripción del proyecto

1. Proporcione una breve descripción del proyecto, incluido el tamaño total del sitio del proyecto y los pies
cuadrados de los edificios y estructuras propuestos, si se conocen.
El Proponente tiene la intención de instalar una barcaza de aproximadamente 1,900 pies cuadrados en un
puerto deportivo existente en Fort Point Channel. La barcaza proporcionará asientos adicionales para el
restaurante Barking Crab ubicado junto al puerto deportivo.
2. Indique los umbrales de revisión anticipados de MEPA (301 CMR 11.03) (si se conocen).
301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)(5) – Nueva licencia de vías fluviales no dependientes del agua
3. Indique todos los permisos anticipados estatales, locales y federales necesarios para el proyecto (si se
conocen).
Orden de condiciones (Comisión de Conservación de Boston)

Licencia de vías fluviales (Departamento de Protección Ambiental de Massachusetts)
Permiso general (Cuerpo de Ingenieros del Ejército de EE. UU.)
1
4. Identifique las poblaciones y características de EJ (minoría, ingresos, aislamiento por idioma inglés) dentro de
las 5 millas del sitio del proyecto (puede adjuntar un mapa que identifique un radio de 5 millas desde Visor
de mapas de EJ en lugar de un texto narrativo).
Hay numerosas poblaciones de EJ dentro de las cinco millas del sitio del proyecto (ver mapa adjunto). Estas
poblaciones se identifican como: minoría; ingresos; aislamiento por idioma; minoría e ingresos; minoría y
aislamiento por idioma inglés; minoría, ingresos y aislamiento por idioma inglés.
5. Identifique cualquier municipio o tramo censal que cumpla con la definición de “criterios de EJ de salud
vulnerable” en la Herramienta de EJ del DPH ubicada en su totalidad o en parte dentro de un radio de 1
milla del sitio del proyecto.
La capa Salud vulnerable por Comunidad de la Herramienta de EJ del Departamento de Salud Pública de
Massachusetts (MassDPH) indica las vulnerabilidades existentes de la población de EJ circundante cerca
del sitio del proyecto. Boston es el único municipio dentro de una milla del sitio del proyecto.
Boston cumple con los criterios de EJ de salud vulnerable para asma infantil, bajo peso al nacer y niveles
elevados de plomo en la sangre infantil.
6. Identifique los posibles impactos ambientales y de salud pública a corto y largo plazo que pueden afectar a
las poblaciones de EJ y cualquier mitigación anticipada.
No se prevé que la colocación de una barcaza para asientos de restaurante tenga algún impacto a corto o
largo plazo en la salud pública que pueda afectar a las poblaciones de EJ. Los impactos de minimis en la
tierra bajo el océano, un área de recursos según la Ley de Protección de Humedales de Massachusetts, se
mitigarán mediante la implementación de las mejores prácticas de gestión.
7. Identifique los beneficios del proyecto, incluidos los “Beneficios ambientales” tal como se define en 301
CMR 11.02, que pueden mejorar las condiciones ambientales o la salud pública de la población de EJ.
Si bien el proyecto no tendrá beneficios ambientales directos, hay pocos impactos, si es que los hay, en las
condiciones ambientales o la salud pública de las poblaciones de EJ.
8. Describa cómo la comunidad puede solicitar una reunión para analizar el proyecto y cómo la comunidad
puede solicitar servicios de interpretación de lenguaje oral en la reunión. Especifique cómo solicitar
otras adaptaciones, incluidas reuniones fuera del horario laboral y en lugares cercanos al transporte
público.
Si le interesa obtener más información sobre el proyecto o si desea programar una reunión para analizar
el proyecto, no dude en comunicarse con Erik Rexford (Epsilon Associates, Inc.) al correo electrónico
erexford@epsilonassociates.com o al número de teléfono 978-897-7100. Si necesita servicios de
interpretación de idiomas, Epsilon Associates se encargará de esos servicios.
2
环境正义筛查表
项目名称 Barking Crab
预计在 MEPA 备案日期 2023 年 3月 31 日
提议人名称 Poseidon Enterprises
联系人信息（例如顾问） Erik Rexford
Maynard, MA 01754
978-897-7100
有关项目的公共网站或可以获得项
目相关资料的其他实际地点（如果
有的话）
项目所在的市镇和邮政编码（若已波士顿，02210
知）
项目类型*（请列出所有适用项）商业（餐馆）
项目地点是否在百年 FEMA 洪灾是
平原区地图范围内？是/否未知
空调空间的温室气体排放量估不适用。没有提议任何带空调的空间。
算（点击此处获取温室气体估
算工具）
项目描述
1.提供简短的项目描述，包括项目场地的总体规模以及拟建建筑物和结构的平方英尺（如果知道的话）。
提议人打算在 Fort Point 海峡的现有码头上安装一个约 1,900 平方英尺的驳船。驳船将为位于码头附近的

Barking Crab 餐厅提供额外的座位。
2.列出预期的 MEPA 审查阈值（根据 301 CMR 11.03 条规）（如果知道的话）
301 CMR 11.03(3) (b) (5) – 新的不依赖水的水道许可证
3.列出项目所在州、地方和联邦预期需要的许可证（如果知道的话）
条件令（波士顿保护委员会）
水道许可证（马萨诸塞州环境保护局）
一般许可（美国陆军工程兵团）
4.请确定项目场地 5 英里内的环境正义人群和特征（少数族裔、收入、英语隔离）（可以附上来自 EJ
Maps Viewer 的识别 5 英里半径的地图来代替叙述）
在项目所在地五英里范围内有许多 EJ（环境正义）人群（见随附地图）。这些人群被确定为：少数族
1
裔；收入；语言隔离；少数族裔和收入；少数族裔和英语隔离；少数族裔、收入和英语隔离。
5.在 DPH EJ Tool 中确定全部或部分位于项目场地 1 英里半径内的任何符合“弱势健康环境正义标准”定

义的城市或人群普查区片
马萨诸塞州公共卫生部 (MassDPH)EJ Tool 的“社区脆弱健康”层显示了项目场地附近周围 EJ 人群的现有

脆弱性。波士顿是项目场地一英里范围内唯一一座城市。
波士顿在儿童哮喘、低出生体重和儿童血铅水平升高方面符合脆弱“健康 EJ 判据”。
6.请确定可能影响环境正义人群的潜在短期和长期环境和公共卫生影响以及任何预期的缓解措施
为餐厅坐席放置驳船预计不会产生任何可能影响环境正义人群的短期或长期公共健康作用。对海洋下
的土地（《马萨诸塞州湿地保护法》项下的资源区）的最小影响，将通过实施最佳管理措施来缓解。
7.请确定项目效益，包括 301 CMR 11.02 中定义的“环境效益”，这可能会改善环境正义人群的环境条件

或公共健康
虽然该目没有直接的环境效益，但对环境条件或环境正义人群的公共健康几乎没有影响（若有）。
8.描述社区如何要求召开会议讨论项目，以及社区如何在会议上要求口语翻译服务。请指定如何要求
获得其他便利条件，包括在工作时间后和在公共交通附近的地点开会。
如果您有兴趣对本项目做更多了解，或想安排会谈来讨论本项目，请随时与 Erik Rexford(Epsilon

Associates, Inc.) 联系：erexford@epsilonassociates.com 或 978-897-7100。如果您需要语言翻译服
务，Epsilon Associates 将安排此类服务。
2
環境正義篩查表
專案名稱 Barking Crab
預計在 MEPA 備案日期 2023 年 3 月 31 日
提議人名稱 Poseidon Enterprises
聯絡人資訊（例如顧問） Erik Rexford
Maynard, MA 01754
978-897-7100
有關專案的公共網站或可以獲得專
案相關資料的其他實際地點（如果
有的話）
專案所在的市鎮和郵遞區號（若已波士頓，02210
知）
專案類型*（請列出所有適用項）商業（餐館）
專案地點是否在百年 FEMA 洪災是
平原區地圖範圍內？是/否未知
空調空間的溫室氣體排放量估不適用。沒有提議任何帶空調的空間。
算（點按此處獲取溫室氣體估
算工具）
專案描述
1.提供簡短的專案描述，包括專案場地的總體規模以及擬建建築物和結構的平方英呎（如果知道的話）。
提議人打算在 Fort Point 海峽的現有碼頭上安裝一個約 1,900 平方英呎的駁船。駁船將為位於碼頭附近的 B

arking Crab 餐廳提供額外的座位。
2.列出預期的 MEPA 審查閾值（依據 301 CMR 11.03 條規）（如果知道的話）
301 CMR 11.03(3) (b) (5) – 新的不依賴水的水道許可證
3.列出專案所在州、地方和聯邦預期需要的許可證（如果知道的話）
條件令（波士頓保護委員會）
水道許可證（麻塞諸塞州環境保護局）
一般許可（美國陸軍工程兵團）
1
4.請確定專案場地 5 英哩內的環境正義人群和特徵（少數族裔、收入、英語隔離）（可以附上來自 EJ Map
s Viewer 的識別 5 英哩半徑的地圖來代替敘述）
在專案所在地五英哩範圍內有許多 EJ（環境正義）人群（見隨附地圖）。這些人群被確定為：少數族
裔；收入；語言隔離；少數族裔和收入；少數族裔和英語隔離；少數族裔、收入和英語隔離。
5.在 DPH EJ Tool 中確定全部或部分位於專案場地 1 英哩半徑內的任何符合「弱勢健康環境正義標準」

定義的城市或人群普查區片
麻塞諸塞州公共衛生部 (MassDPH)EJ Tool 的「社區脆弱健康」層顯示了專案場地附近周圍 EJ 人群的現

有脆弱性。波士頓是專案場地一英哩範圍內唯一一座城市。
波士頓在兒童哮喘、低出生體重和兒童血鉛水準升高方面符合脆弱「健康 EJ 判據」。
6.請確定可能影響環境正義人群的潛在短期和長期環境和公共衛生影響以及任何預期的緩解措施
為餐廳坐席放置駁船預計不會產生任何可能影響環境正義人群的短期或長期公共健康作用。對海洋下
的土地（《麻塞諸塞州溼地保護法》項下的資源區）的最小影響，將透過實施最佳管理措施來緩解。
7.請確定專案效益，包括 301 CMR 11.02 中定義的「環境效益」，這可能會改善環境正義人群的環境條

件或公共健康
雖然該目沒有直接的環境效益，但對環境條件或環境正義人群的公共健康幾乎沒有影響（若有）。
8.描述社區如何要求召開會議討論專案，以及社區如何在會議上要求口語翻譯服務。請指定如何要求
獲得其他便利條件，包括在工作時間後和在公共交通附近的地點開會。
如果您有興趣對本專案做更多了解，或想安排會談來討論本專案，請隨時與 Erik Rexford (Epsilon Ass

ociates, Inc.) 聯絡：erexford@epsilonassociates.com 或 978-897-7100。如果您需要語言翻譯服務，Epsilon
Associates 將安排此類服務。
2
G:\Projects2\MA\Boston\6538\MXD\Fig1_EJ_Populations_20230302.mxd Data Source: Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Technology and Security Services
SAUGUS
LEGEND
MALDEN NAHANT
MEDFORD Project Site
1-Mile Buffer
REVERE
ARLINGTON 5-Mile Buffer
EJ Criteria, by Block Group
EVERETT
Minority
BELMONT
Income
CHELSEA
English Isolation
SOMERVILLE Minority and Income
CAMBRIDGE
§
¦
¨93
£
¤
1
Minority and English Isolation
Income and English Isolation
WINTHROP Minority, Income and English Isolation
°
WATERTOWN
Scale 1:105,600 0 4,400 8,800
1 inch = 8,800 feet Feet
£
¤
3
Basemap: World Basemap, Esri
£
¤
20
"
)2 §
¦
¨
90
NEWTON "
)9 "
)
28
BROOKLINE
"
)3
BOSTON
QUINCY HULL
MILTON WEYMOUTH HINGHAM
Barking Crab Boston, Massachusetts

Figure 1
Environmental Justice Populations
Appendix E
Public Benefit Determination

APPENDIX E PUBLIC BENEFIT DETERMINATION
Introduction
The Landlocked Tidelands Legislation (Chapter 168 of the Acts of 2007) names the Secretary of
Energy and Environmental Affairs (the “Secretary”) as the “administrator of tidelands,” and
requires the Secretary to conduct a “public benefit review” for certain projects located on
tidelands and to issue a written determination (the “Public Benefit Determination”) for those
projects. The Secretary must conduct a public benefit review for any proposed project located on
tidelands that also requires an EIR pursuant to MEPA. This section describes how the proposed
Project provides appropriate public benefits and will be adequately protective of the public trust
rights inherent in tidelands of the Commonwealth.
301 CMR 13.00 (the “Landlocked Tidelands Regulations”) establishes the procedures and
standards to implement the requirements of the Landlocked Tidelands Legislation. Under the
Landlocked Tidelands Regulations, in making the Public Benefit Determination, the Secretary shall
consider the following:
“Purpose and effect of the development, the impacts on abutters and the surrounding
community; enhancement to the property, benefits to the public trust rights in tidelands
or other associated rights, including but not limited to, benefits provided through
previously obtained municipal permits; community activities on the development site;
environmental protection and preservation; public health and safety; and the general
welfare; provided further that the secretary shall also consider the differences between
tidelands and landlocked tidelands and great ponds when assessing the public benefit and
shall consider the practical impact of the public benefit on the development.”
The Landlocked Tidelands Regulations require analysis of a project’s impacts on the public’s rights
of access, use and enjoyment of tidelands that are protected by Chapter 91, and identification of
measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate any adverse impacts on such rights.
To assist with the Secretary’s determinations, the following sections address the specific
considerations identified in the Landlocked Tidelands Regulations and describe how the Project
provides appropriate public benefits and is adequately protective of the Public Trust rights
inherent in tidelands.
Nature of the Affected Tidelands
The Project Site is located entirely within tidelands which are subject to licensing requirements
under the provisions of the Massachusetts Public Waterfront Act, M.G.L. Ch. 91, §§1-63 (Chapter
91 and 310 CMR 9.00 et seq.; the Waterways Regulations), as implemented by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (“MassDEP”). These tidelands are categorized as
Commonwealth Tidelands, as that term is defined in the Waterways Regulations.
6538/Barking Crab/PEIR E-1 Public Benefit Determination

Purpose and Effect of the Development
The Proponent intends to install an approximately 1,900 sf floating barge on the Fort Point
Channel at an existing dock facility operated by the Proponent. The barge will provide open-air
dining for patrons of the Proponent’s restaurant operating at 88 Sleeper Street.
Enhancement to the Property
In addition to providing improved public access to the Fort Point Channel watersheet, the
Proponent intends to improve public access signage at the Project site and will work with the
MassDEP to ensure that safe and unobstructed public access to all publicly accessible spaces is
provided.
Benefits to the Public Trust Rights in Tidelands or Other Associated Rights
The Project will not interfere with landside pedestrian movement or waterside navigation, nor
will it prevent public access of waterfront or waterfront open space. The Project will improve
public benefits in tidelands and, as a Facility of Public Accommodation, will:
♦ Increase public access to the Fort Point Channel watersheet.
♦ Improve public access facilities and amenities.
♦ Activate Commonwealth Tidelands for public use.
Community Activities on the Development Site
The Proponent’s restaurant is an institution in the Fort Point Neighborhood and the Project will
provide additional family-friendly opportunities for residents and visitors to dine on the
waterfront and access the Fort Point Channel watersheet.
Environmental Protection and Preservation
The Proponent intends to expand their restaurant operations while avoiding or minimizing
potential adverse environmental and community impacts to the greatest extent feasible. Any
such impacts will be mitigated in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal
environmental protection regulations.
Neighborhood and Site Resiliency
Impacts from the Project’s installation and operation, and impacts to the Project associated with
climate change and weather-related events are not anticipated to have an impact on the
surrounding community. As a floating structure, and given the intended useful life of the barge,
sea level rise is not anticipated to adversely affect its operations. The barge will be located within
an operating docking facility that is continually maintained to provide safe dockage for
recreational and commercial vessels.

General Welfare
The Project will protect the general welfare by complying with applicable local, state, and federal
environmental protection standards.
Conclusion
The modest expansion of the Proponent’s restaurant meets the requirements of the Landlocked
Tidelands Legislation and regulations by providing appropriate public benefits, and adequately
protecting the public trust rights inherent in tidelands as described herein. Additional restaurant
seating at Project Site will increase the vibrancy of the surrounding area, which will be an
improvement over existing conditions.


Popular Boston Restaurant Seeks To Expand Outdoor Seating With Floating Barge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Popular Boston Restaurant Seeks To Expand Outdoor Seating With Floating Barge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proposed Environmental Impact Report

Submitted Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act

2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 2-1

3.0 TRANSPORTATION 3-1

4.0 CLIMATE CHANGE 4-1

5.0 WETLAND RESOURCES 5-1

6.0 TIDELANDS 6-1

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 7-1

8.0 PUBLIC HEALTH 8-1

9.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 9-1

10.0 MITIGATION AND DRAFT 61 FINDINGS 10-1

6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR iii Table of Contents

1.2 Project Site

1.3 Project Description

6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 1-1 Project Description

Basemap: USGS Quaderangles, MassGIS

Poseidon Enterprises Boston, Massachusetts

Poseidon Enterprises Boston, Massachusetts

1.5 Permitting Requirements

1.5.1 State Permits

1.5.2 Local Permits

6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 1-4 Project Description

Poseidon Enterprises Boston, Massachusetts

2.1 No-Build Alternative

Given the associated cost of this alternative, it has been rejected.

2.3 Preferred Alternative

Table 1-1, below, summarizes the impacts of the alternatives considered.

6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 2-1 Alternatives

Vehicle LUW LSCSF (SF)

No-build 9,736 356 0 0 6,4802 8,778 7,980

Alternative 1 11,236 410 0 45.01 45.01,2 10,709 9,730

1. Estimated square footage new piles beneath building/deck.

6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 2-2 Alternatives

3.2 Trip Generation Methodology

3.3 Mode Share

Table 3-1 Mode Shares

Land Use Walk/Bike Transit Private Vehicles

3.3.1 Pass-By Trips

6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 3-1 Transportation

3.3.2 Project Trip Generation

Table 3-2 Project Trip Generation

Land Use/Direction Walk/Bike Trips Transit Trips Auto Trips

Existing In 427 296 178

Proposed In 493 341 205

6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 3-2 Transportation

6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 3-3 Transportation

4.1 Climate Change

4.1.1 Extreme Heat Events

4.1.2 Increased Precipitation

6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 4-1 Wetland Resources

6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 4-2 Wetland Resources

5.2 Wetland Resources

5.2.1 Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage

5.2.2 Land Under the Ocean

6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 5-1 Wetland Resources

a) Bottom topography which will result in increased flooding or erosion caused by an

6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 5-2 Wetland Resources

a) Alteration in water circulation;

b) Destruction of eelgrass (Zostera marina) or widgeon grass (Rupia maritina) beds;

c) Alterations in the distribution of sediment grain size;

e) Alterations of shallow submerged lands with high densities of polychaetes, mollusks or

6538/Poseidon/Proposed EIR 5-3 Wetland Resources

6.1 Massachusetts Public Waterfront Act (Chapter 91)