BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY I 35 J / XP^LICATIOM rOH rEDEIRAL ASSi.:;TA;,^ CITY OF BOSTON OFFICE OF THE MAYOR J BOSTON- 1 A ,^i K:./"Z'^*''jy CITY HALL. BOSTON KEVIN H. WHITE MAYOR December 11, 1978 Mr. John Corrigan, Director Economic Development Administration Atlantic Regional Office 600 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Dear Mr. Corrigan: The Economic Development Administration is considering an application for a $4.5 million grant by the Massachusetts Prot Authority. I understand these monies would be used to complete the rehabilitation of the Boston Fish Pier begun under the $2 million EDA grant given to the Port Authority last fiscal year. The City of Boston supported the application last year and whole heartedly supports this year's application. Rehabilitation of the Boston Fish Pier is a major project for the City, the state and the region. It would revitalize the fishing fleet thereby reinforcing ship repair activity at the city's nearby Boston Marine Industrial Park. In order to stabilize the present 1300 plus jobs at the fish pier and to insure the creation of some 3000 more (direct and indirect impact), rehabilitation of the fish pier must be completed. The Fish Pier project is an important part qf the Boston Plan. And, as its completion hinges on EDA funds, the city of Boston encourages the acceptance of this application. . Sincerely, Kevin H. White Mayor lOHN JOSEPH MOAKUEY NOJON hammuj. 9th Oiaiwici. MAttSACMtMrrrs COMMITTEE ON RULXS kT LAIteC MAJORITY WHIP Congre^sJ of tfje ®niteb Btatz^ AOMIMirTKATIVS AailSTAMT 23fl C***jt.r ' " '■■■ -■ Boston, .-Ui. 02110 i FORM ED-IOIP (REV. 10-7 81 0MB No. 41-R2791 Approval Expires 9-30-79 PUBLIC WORKS P R EAPPLiCATluN economic development administration No financial assistance may be provided unless this form is completed and filed. 42 U.S.C. 3131(3), 3141(a), 3142; 13 C.F.R. 309.22. OMB Approval No. 80-R0190 FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 1. Type of action ldVW3H ~ Al ■J°!433< PART II - PREAPPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE £lYes - 1. Does this assistance request require State, local, regional or other priority rating? LZj ^^^ 2. Does this assistance require State or local advisory, educational or health clearance? .... [^ Yes 3. Does this assistance request require Clearinghouse review' 4. Does this assistance request require State, local, regional or other planning approval?. . . . F^ Yes 5. Is the proposed project covered by an approved comprehensive plan? [^ Yes 6. Will the assistance requested serve a Federal installation? LZ! "^^^ 7. Will the assistance requested be on Federal land or installation? (^ Yes 8. Will the assistance requested have an effect on the environment? rn Yes 9. Will the assistance requested cause the displacement of individuals, families, businesses, or farms? [^ Yes 10. Is there other related assistance for this project previous, pending, or anticipated? '-^^ Yes ENo ENo i I No ENo CNo ENo ENo ENo □ No CNo 11. a. Is the project in a designated flood hazard area? [j^ b. Is the project site located in a flood plain? [x] c. Is the project safe from flooding? [^ d. Is flood insurance available? [^ e. Has flood insurance ever been purchased? [^ ^,- ./. Has the applicant been the subject of any unresolved issues, or negative determinations issued within the past two years, arising from civil rights compliance reviews, complaints, lawsuits or other allegations of discrimin- ation on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap or age? Yes □ No Yes □ No Yes [^No Yes I i No Yes [x] No XlYes I 1 No PART III - PROJECT BUDGET Federal catalog number (a) Type of assistance loan, grant, etc. (b) First budget period (c) Balance of project (d) TOTAL (e) 1. 11.300 Title 1 Public Works Grant $4,500,000 2. 6. Total Federal Contribution. 7. State Contribution 8. Applicant Contribution . . . ^ 9. Other Contributions 10. TOTALS 5 4,500^00 1 . 125 , 000 ^5,625,000 FORM ED-IOIP IREV. 10-781 USCOMM-DC 52870-P79 O i. a iji-9 i-s -/v. |l I iNawaivis 3AiivyavN wvaooad - ai lyvd A-95 Review As applies to Part I, Item 22B and PART II Item 3 i vj The Commonwealth of Massachusetts OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING JOHN W. McCORMACK BUILDING ROOM 2101 ONE ASHBURTON PLACE BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02108 IICHAEL S. DUKAKIS (6 1 7) 727-5066 GOVERNOR FRANK T. KEEFE DIRECTOR January ^, 1978 Mr. Elliot Friedman Director of Real Estate Development and Property Management Massachusetts Port Authority 99 High Street Boston, MA 02110 Re: A-95 Review/Rehabilitation of Boston Fish Pier - Phase II State Application Identifier: 78121676 Dear Mr. Friedman: Your notice of intent requesting $^^,500,000 from the Economic Development Adminis- tration has been received for review. These funds will provide for the second phase of Massport's rehabilitation of Boston Fish Pier. As the Governor's designated State Clearinghouse, our review follows the guide- lines of OMB Circular A-95. It is designed to provide advisory comments on the con- sistency of your proposal with State plans, policies, and objectives. During our review of your proposal, a summary was published in the A-95 Review Monitor, which is distributed to over fifty State agencies. Any interested agency was provided with the opportunity to evaluate your proposal for consistency with its particular policies and objectives. No comments have been received to date. The Office of State Planning has also reviewed your proposal and as no conflicts or issues were identified, we concur with your application for federal funds. Thank you for your cooperation during this review process. Sincerely, FRANK T. KEEFE Director of State Planning /1ms cc: MAPC K inasgDort ■Mi*>fr. wtrOM. MUtCHumm otw i BOSTON CZNIRAI. CADCO MAMNI TtmUNALS'TOaN MtMOfllAI. SRIOGt-HANSCOM FIIU] CATM,rST POM NfW INSLANO COMMfnCI I Mr. Curt Danforth Page Two January 17, 1973 In summary , the conditions of the EDA grant in two phases in no way seriously alters Massport's plans set forth in the Application for Federal Assistance for Rehabilitation of the Boston Fish Pier (September 1978] . If you need further information, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 'a. Norman Fapamelli ^,__J^» «»»« bam rtw Offlo o< Sun PUsmn for « ii>» rtwik ™«U »• IWpfoU If rw !>»• >«T q»«>nom. pkaM fai *« to cvaua ifM 4AT10!< (FljNOlNC. ETCJ: REVIEW REQUIRED: 2SuKG«>mffta«vlA*4S> n«w«. In vow rcvtev. locia o» in« pn^wijj'i ..\Mnpaiahiiiiv *illl your iyency « planv pnnfrafm. and. I Im^Mf SoiaBwnt aad/or Eiiiimwiuoimi Ifflpaec Ropoct. Yo* arv (i»«* m^uircd 10 ^.ummmi tw lh« Jii««bitity ■j*' (B« ijfnpi'*ai: wwr re**c» iJiouU fmnia om iho aiicqiucr ..( ilx E.IJ. E.I.R. iSk I»u~.) V mdcd iur ii« co tviur evaluate. Sposilic intufmanufr 'il anvt requeued. — ^^^^^ _ Fur voor evaluanoM and .uiiiHiaal J For yw mforauiMiv uHniawu if y Z OdiMi OFFICE OF STATE PLAiNNINC CONTACT PERSON; Curt Dan forth Orrnh^r I. :<»77 I niur rvrws wt»mm»otv and. >f inhfrmdivn .»» an aiiavhnl \ho3. /T ~ Connr mtb pmpuiiL oa coMtnaac CaacHT wMh pfvpMiir unhihuus aiuciivd. X CoMV ciMdmoMUy «tfti prapoul: condtiiuat uucftad. ' Ft«Hfc mora rafannauoa: {^mcmicmm atodMd. ~ Od not coac coMMerrs: r Willi pfopOMl; cipUianna anacfwd. EI^' &LR.: rvpuR found to tn adcywafa oiwwwu lif mtI anadivd. E.LS./ELIL: rvpnt fumd iaftilfqmw aoari inwtonnini aitadMd. RciftiMktcd inturmanDa uucAnL RcqMsmi mfDrmttiioa is wumUMe Pi-CjiC^ . /.e^'SfT^ ^x-y '^'•?^^f■^ ^..m ^r^^^T^ ,.r c>y<-^fcy-' v^V- -^^ /^"^T V REVIEweH IIP OlFKERENT FROM SIC.HATOHY): ROOM 2IOI'ONe ASHBURTON PLACE-BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS-02108- PHONE; 417-7:7.506* 7 < i ai€ Metropolitan Area P^at^^^.irg Council 44 School Street Boston. .Ma^srachuset ts 02108 Cart" B. Johnston (617) 523-2«S* Extcuttv* Director February 2, 1978 Mr. David W. Davis Massachusetts Port Authority 99 High Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 RE- DOC/EDA - Grants S Loans for Public Works S_ ^' S^elopment Facilities - Rehabilitation of the Boston Fish Pier - Boston. ^Q-7Q^ (MAPC #A-78-73; Received January 31, 2.^/^) Dear Mr. Davis; Management and Budget ^^^^J'Ji^^^^^^-ahouse, has reviewed the "aS?e=?SSt;=el ^^rii^ftir/oiTerJariiiancial assistance. Based on the inforraation available to as, we find tJie propos"1n geSrai to be consistent with exist^g plans and policies of the Council. The council has requested that ^- ,^f ^ J ' ,^^1?^^' tSf "" representative from Boston, and 5' ^^^J? their^iviL comments. Rrt^-hon Redevelopment Authority - expeaire z.nsj.j. j.^ ?helr responles^ill be forwarded to you upon receipt. we wish you success in obtaining EDA funding. Very truly yours. Carla B. Johnston Executive Director CBJ/md cc: Mr. Frank T. Keefe Office of State Planning Ms. Gail P. Rotegard MAPC rep.f Boston Mr. Philip Zeigler ^x,„^^+.« Boston Redevelopment Authority Robots. a«» H«nfA.K.n.}„r ?,^^t Vic P-«kl.nt B-^«JDD5«« Robots. a«» H-nfA-K-"-*"' t PART II ATTACHMENTS Item 3: A-95 Review: Please see the attachment to Part I, item 22b for A-95 and related responses. Item 5: Inclusion in comprehensive plans: Rehabilitation of the Boston Fish Pier is considered a priority development project in the Boston Plan, the City of Boston Overall Economic Development Plan, and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. The Office of State Planning supports the Rehabilitation, emphasizing the need for revitalization of the fishing industry in the Economic Development Plan for Massachusetts. i Section 10 Related Funding. 10A. CETA Title I Massport is exploring the possibility of establishing an on the job training program for Fish Pier processsing firms under Title VI of the Comprehensive Employment Training Act. Last year Massport began a CETA Title I program, employing six CETA workers at the Fish Pier. When the workers' terms expired this fall, Massport hired four of them. Massport also applied for an additional six CETA Title I workers. 10B. Phase I of Fish Pier Rehabilitation Phase I of the renovation of the Boston Fish Pier involved pier and site work and exterior rehabilitation of the buildings. However before the pier can resume its position of prominence in the fishing industry extensive rehabilitation will have to be undertaken. The pier will be able to provide the facilities needed by the modern fish processing plants currently envisioned by these private firms - once both phases of renovation are complete. Phase II will include interior work to the buildings, all utilities, and possibily changing the grade of the pier. Phase I cost $2.5 million, with EDA supplying $2 million. I i PART II. 11. The Boston Fish Pier area is considered a flood hazard area (See Special Flood Hazard Area Map attached) and is located on a Flood Plain. After consultation with the regional Flood Insurance Office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Massport has determined that Flood Insurance will be necessary for the Fish Pier Rehabilitation, since the project involves not only pier rehabilitation but the rehabilitation of buildings. The Flood Insurance Office requires a grantee to purchase the maximum amount of insurance or an amount of insurance equal to the amount of the grant, whichever is less. Upon acceptance by the EDA of this project Massport will be able and willing to purchase flood insurance. 12. The Massachusetts Port Authority has had three allegations of discrimination in the past two years, two of which have been dismissed. [Caggiano (State and Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) vs. MPA, 1977, and Hyacinth (State EEOC) vs. MPA 1978] The third allegation [Devereaux (State EEOC) vs. MPA] is now being investigated. < i INS 1^ Part: II H-b I ^ FORM ED. 501 (REV. 7-73I U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT A DMr N I S T R A T I O N OMH Approval Not Required CERTIFICATE OF HON-RELOCATION To be Executed by Applicants for Direct Grants or Supplementary Grants Under Title I and for Public Works and Development Facility Loans Under Title II, Sec. 201. Note-- The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 prohibits ED.A from making loans or grants which will have the effect of assisting an employer in moving jobs from one area to another. An expansion of an exist- ing business to a new location may be assisted if such an expansion will not cause unemployment in other areas where the business conducts operations, or will not enable contractors or subcontractors to undertake contracts or subcontracts heretofore performed elsewhere, the performance of which would result in an increase of unemploy- ment at the previous location of such work. Execution of the following Certificate is necessary for HDA to deter- mine the eligibility of the subject project in this regard. Project Rehabilitation of Boston Fish Pier (Nature of Project) Off Northern Avenue in South Boston, Massachusetts (Location) I certify that I am Executive Director (OliiciBl Title) Massachusetts Port Authority (Applicant) and that the above named Public Works and Development facility project is not undertaken for the purpose of serv- ing an industrial and commercial enterprise which has relocated its operations into the are"a during the past 24 months or for the purpose of assisting, soliciting or otherwise encouraging the relocation of any industrial or com- mercial enterprise, and that the applicant is not presently negotiating with an industrial or commercial enterprise which intends to relocate or to curtail its operations in another location with the intention of utilizing the above named facility when it is constructed. In the event that after the date of exeevition of this Certi^ate and prior to final disbursement, an agreement is reached between the applicant and an\/irvdustrial or cromrjrerc/al enterprise to use the Development facility, the applicant will notify EDA of such asre^m^t and sjitijlit ire name or names of the enterprise involved. Anril 1979 (Date) For Massachusetts Port Authority (Applicant) Note - Section 710(a) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 provides that: "Whoever makes any statement knowng it to be false, or whoever willfully overvalues any security, for the purpose of obtaining for himself or for any applicant any financial assistance under Section 101, 201, 202, or 403 or any extension thereof by renewal, deferment or action, or otherwise, or the acceptance, release, or substitution of security therefor, or for the purpose of Influencing in any way tlie action of the Secretary, or for the purpose of obtaining money, prop- erty, or anything of value, under this Act, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than five years, or both." USCOMM-DC 25027.P74 STATEMENT ON NON-RELOCATION All programs and benefits under the Public Works and Economic Development Act, including loans, grants, techni- cal assistance, and training will be administered with strict adherence to the policy of denying assistance to busi-^ nesses which are seeking to relocate or which relocated in the recent past. ^ Section 2, the Declaration of Purpose of the Public Works and Economic Development Act states that under thepro- visions of this Act new employment opportunities should be created by developing and expanding new and existing facilities and resources rather than by merely transferring jobs from one area of the United States to another. Section 202 (b)(1) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act Provides that EDA financial assistance shall not be extended to assist (1) industrial or commercial establishments relocating from one area to another, (2) expansions which would result in unemployment in any area where the business entity involved conducts its operations or (3) contractors or subcontractors whose purpose it is to seek the transfer of contract work presently performed at another location. It is the policy of EDA to construe the general prohibition against relocation in Section 2 as applicable to all sec- tions of the Act. The specific language in Section 202 (b)(1) provides further guidance to ED.A in carrying out the policy of Section 2 and is used by EDA as a guide in rendering assistance under other sections of the Act. Appli- cants for development facility loans and grants or for supplementary grants must therefore assure EDA, prior to re- ceiving financial assistance, that they are not constructing the facilities for the purpose of serving a relocaten business firm, that they are not then negotiating with a relocating firm, and that they have no intention of using the project to induce industries to relocate into their areas. Similar assurances will be required from industrial and commercial users of development facilities if such facilities are constructed primarily or substantially for their use. i It is not always easy to identify what constitutes the relocation of a business enterprise and its associated jobs. In some instances the movement of machinery and equipment may in practical effect be the movement of the busi ness enterprise. In other instances the business enterprise is more appropriately identified and characterized by a trade name, customer lists, and other intangible assets. EDA will carefully examine all transfers of ownership liquidations and curtailment of operations which bear any relationship to the proposed establishment of a new en- terprise. In all cases, the controlling consideration will be whether the effect is the relocation of jobs from one area to another. Ordinarily the phrase "from one area to another" as used in connection with relocations means from one labor airea to another. Nevertheless, EDA will consider in evaluating a project any adverse effects which may indirect- ly result from a relocation ever though the new location may be wholly within the boundaries of the same labor area or the same redevelopment area or district. The limitation on assisting in relocations is applied both to prospective moves and those made in the recent pa.s-tt For instance, EDA will not assist a relocated industry in a new location even though the withdrawal or curtailment of employment at the previous place of business was substantially completed at the time of the request for assist- ance from EDA. Any such earlier relocation, a part of which was carried out within 24 months prior to an appli- cation for EDA assistance, shall be subject to the rebuttable presumption that the EDA assistance requested is causally related to the relocation. EDA can assist in true expansions through the establishment of new branches, affiliates, or subsidiaries, provided that such expansion will be carried out and operated without increasing unemployment at other places of business of the enterprise. To give effect to this limitation, EDA will inquire into the undertakings and operations of affil- iated enterprises or enterprises under common control with the particular business which is to be benefited by the proposed project. In considering whether a proposed expansion will result in an increase in unemployment at other facilities of a business enterprise, EDA will consider, among other things, traditional as well as current operating levels oJPM employment, changes in demand for worker skills at the existing facilities, changes in capital investment at thr^W existing facilities, and any relationship the proposed expansion may have upon the future prospects for operation of such existing facilities. FORM ED-501 (REV. 7-731 USCOVM-DC 25027-P74 Form ED- 503 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 0MB Approval Not Required (5-75) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION Name of Project Boston Fish Pier Rahabili'cation City and State - Boston, i^ssachusetts Project No. N/A ASSURANCES OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND PUBLIC LAW 92-65 This form applies to: A. all Recipients receiving Federal financial assistance from the Economic Development Administration including: 1. applicants; 2. recipients of Federal financial assistance received from another recipient; 3. subgrantees ; 4. leasees of or operators for a recipient; 5. successors, assignees or transferees, but not ultimate beneficiaries; and B. Other Parties to include any governmental, public or private agency., institution, organization or other entity, or any individual who has a direct or substantial participation in the program or project receiving Federal financial assistance from EDA, such as contractors, subcontractors, providers of employment, or users of the facilities or services. Massachusetts Port Authority Name of Recipient or Other Party (hereinafter called the "Recipient or Other Party") assures that as a Recipient or Other Party receiving Federal financial assistance from the Economic Development Administration, it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 USC 2000d), the requirements imposed by or pursuant to Regulations, issued for the Department of Commerce and designated as 15 CFR Subtitle A Part 8, and any amendments thereto. The Recipient or Other Party further agrees to comply with the provisions of Section 112 of Public Law 92-65 (42 USC 3123), the requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulations of the Economic Development Administration promulgated in 13 CFR Part 311 and any amendments thereto. In addition, Recipient agrees to secure the compliance or to cooperate actively with EDA to secure the compliance by others with the acts and the regulations. Such requirements hold that no person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color, national origin, or sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which Federal financial assistance has been extended. In accord with these assurances and without limiting the above, the Recipient or Other Party agrees that these assurances shall be binding upon them, their grantees, assignees, transferees, leasees, and successors in interest. These assurances shall also be binding through every modification or amendment to this project. USCOMM-DC 59522. P75 •2- I The Recipient or Other Party acknowledges that it has received and read the Department and EDA regulations, and that it is aware that if there appears to be a failure or threatened failure to comply with this part, and if the noncompliance or threatened noncompliance cannot be corrected by informal means, compliance with this part may be effected by the suspension or termination of or refusal to grant or to continue Federal financial assist- ance or by any other means authorized by law. Total number of present employees . This assurance is made and accepted this » 19 7Q for ThP Maq.ciarhnqpf-rc; Vni-r Aiifhnr-jry day of Fphm;PT-y By David W. Davis Recipient or Other Party 99 High Street (Type Name) ExecutiX^ Director ^ (Address) (617) 482-2930 (Telephone Number) (Signature) The Massachusetts ., as Secretary of Port Authority I^ George A. O'Brien body corporate and politic Inc., a ^H?ffiPSK3®KK5{XKMHXXKMX}i)S4 existing by virtue of the laws of the ^gggCSCg^ ComTiorRvealth of Massachusetts ; or as •7 of the State of or as Authorized State Official Authorized Official of the county or municipality of in the State of do hereby certify that the foregoing officer who executed this assurance has full authority to bind the Recipient or Other Party. In witness whereof I set my hand and affix the corporate, state, or municipal seal this day of April , 19 79 '■'/f^^ rjn v^-T (Secretary or other Official) 4 FORM ED-503 (5-75) USCOMM-OC 5S522.P75 0MB No. 41-R2406; Approval Expires August 31, 1979 FORM ED-6)2 (REV. 9-761 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION ASSURANCE OF JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE UNEMPLOYED (See Explanatory Statement on back ol lorm) To be Executed by Business Development Loan Applicants and by Employers who are Substantial Beneficiaries of Public Works Facilities under Title I and II of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rphphi 1 1 ^a^^• nn nf thp Rn.ql-nn Fish Pt pr • Phasp TT rhp prnjpct- involves physical renovation of the Pier, its buildings and utilities to provide facilities for and stimulate expansion of fishing and related industries. PROJECT LOCATION The Boston Fish Pier. Pier ,^.^6 is located off Northern Avenue in South Boston, a section of the City of Boston. STATEMENT r The undersigned recognizing the purpose of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 as described on the reverse side of this form, represents to the Economic Development Administration the intention to give pre- ferential consideration for employment, wherever possible, to the long-term unemployed and underemployed residing ^ in the project area, in connection with the above identified project and the undertaking assisted thereby, and that the data submitted herein is correct. EMPLOYER'S IDENTIFICATION NO. X-1 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY DATA CONTROL NO. X-IO Massac PROJECT NO. X-1 3 FIPS CODES A.2S CITY A. 29 STATE A.3t COUNTY DATE B-75 B.77 B-7» MONTH I 0 i4 I DAY [ I I YEAR | 7 | 9| NAME OF APPLICANT OR BENEFICIARY A-38 h<^^tt; Executive Director STREET B-55 99 High Street CITY C.25 ZIP C-60 Boston. S. 1. C. NO. A- 34 STATE C-45 Massachusetts TYPE BENEFICIARY A.78 COUNTY C-SS >o I Suffolk TELEPHONE A. 88 AREA (617) A. 7 1 EXTEN.991 _???_??-^ NO. 482-2930 USCOMM-DC 18 758-P76 9^d-8fi^9i oa wwoDsn i9i-6 -Aaai 3i9-a3 iMaod VS :iTqTipca 39S -53x3x0:0111111 jo aSB^usojad qSxq e paxcq aAHq saaTg ' AxauaosHjiiYOii 1861 P^^ 6Z.6T uaawdsq (-[Btjo^ + OOI) sqoC uoxijoruqsuoo uii9:i :ij:oqs S3pnxoxxi;;sy^ , VT5ID ('ji ^Lse <;lz- fZZL ^^9303 8^G ¥^9I 6ei 95 £8 V60T 913 8^8 snvioi -N 6TI 65 09 8C3 U L91 V 3 3 vei 9^7 88 Sisifto puo •w eo3 3^71 19 6ce 951 esi ^8 15 9e 361 09 Z£T (p»ii!i»''n) sei I z.ei LLZ e ^7^3 83 3 93 851 3 951 (P'lniS-!'"'?) -X ^8ie gi ^€oe ^889 63 ^59 61 61 9€C 9 oee {P»I|!1S) T 961 ^5 6ei 36e ^IT 8^3 I I 333 OOI 331 |03!Ja|3 P"» "'Ml-SpanOj3 pUB (UIJBJ jd33 -X3) sJ3U3pjE3 'sj3SE3j3 puE sj3qsEfli JEO 'siSJoqE^ 33ejb3 :s3pnpu] •3U3Ui3pn( iu3pa3d3pui ou jo 3]un J° uotjBoi]ddB 3q3 3Jinb3J puE sXbp m3J b ui paujES] 3q Xeui jBijl S3tinp XjElusiusp UIJOJJ3J •SuTUiBJi |Bp3ds oa 3jinb3J X]iej3U33 qoiqyu suouBdnooo iBtiuBUJ ui sza^io/f^ - (pa||!)|sun) sjajoqo-] •sj3>iJo« p3jpm^ puB 'sj3)jno3ajEy puE 'sjapp/* '(3iijx3i) sja 4\E3U 'SJ3AIjp JOJOBJJ pUB l^onjj 'U3UjajlJ XjBUOUElS 'SJ3>lJOJ^ ss30ojd DiqdBj3o3oqd '(3onEua3uiEUj puB uononasuoo jdao .X3) sjsiuiBd '(oinB jdaDxa) sj3SE3j9 puE sja^p 'u3ujjoaoui 'sjSXJqE] pUB S3AnBJ3dO 3UIU1 'SJ3UIl]im 's3AnBJ3do 3ulUE3p Xjp pUB XjpunEI '(IB33UJ) SJaiESq 'U3UI3DBUinj 'sjsXp '(XjOlOEJ 3d30X3) S3SS3JJSUJB3S pUE SJ3 JjEIHSSaip 'aaU13jnOJ pUE U3U1 wtiSAipp 'sjn3jjnEqD 'sjsjsEp '(9ui:(JEd puE 3diaj3s ojiib) sjuEpuaijB 's3AnEJado '(•333 's3pE33 3nijuud 's3pBJ3 Sui^jOfli -IB33UI 'S3pBJ3 Saipjinq •sJ3quiti]d 'soiUBqosui 's3SiaiqoEUi •suEioiiiDsp 'sj33U3djE0 ' sjaXBj^ioi jq 'soiuBqosui ojnB) 33013 -a3jddE :s3pnpui 'SaiuiEja p33iuiir] Xjuo 33inb3j puB s3)33/* A3) B UT P333JSEUI 3q UBO qOiq* jaAaj nil^ 33E!p3UU33nl JO sai3np 3dX3 Xjo30bj J3q30 injojjad jo 3uaujdinb3 9uiss3oojd jo ssuiqoBUJ 33BJ3do oqM sJ3>)JO^ - (pa||ii)s-!ujas) saAitoJadQ •Siay\10A p3jpUI>l pUB 'S3SS3J0 -11E3 puE S30YIE3 'sJ3aui3ua Xjeooubss 'SJa^fBUI i3poui pUB aJ333Ed 'S3SIUOI303(oJd 3jn30ld U0I30UI '(JB33U1) SJ3333S qoj •sJ3ABJ3u3 'SUEIDIJ303P 'sJ3333S3dXj pUB SJ03lS0dU100 ' SUOI3 -Bdnoao 3uiuiqoBUJ psj^i^^s 'uauj3iBd3J puB soiuEq33ui 'ju3ui .33EUEUI JO SJ3qU13UI 30U 3IE OqAl U3UipB3| pUB U3U130J plsd XjiTipq 's3pEJ3 Suip^inq 3q3 :sapnpui •3muiBJ3 jo poi33d 3Aisaa3x3 UB 3AI303J X^jEnsn puE 3U3uia3pnl juapu3d3pui 3iqEJ3pisuoo 3spj3X3 •i\ioiii. Jiaq3 ui paApAui sass330Jd 3q3 10 33paj«ou)( aAisusqsJduioo puB q3nojoq3 E SuiAEq ]3A3j ni3|s qSiq XpAi3Bi3j'jo SJ33130» iBnuEjM - (pa||!5is) uauis^joJQ •Sja^lJOi* p3jpui3i puE *SJ03B33dO 3UOqd3p3 pUB qdBj33p3 'S3UE3aJDaS pUE S3SldX3 'sJ3qdBj3ou33S 's3iJ3p SU1AI333J puE 3uiddiqs 's30JBJ3dO 3UiqOEUi 3DIJJO 'sXoq SOIJJO pUB SJ33U3SSaUl '(s3unoo3E puE S]]iq) sJOjo3ipo 'sjaiqsEO 'sj3da3>i5)ooq :sp3pnpui 'ps -pnpui SI S3onpojd 3q3 9ui3JodsUBJ3 JO 3uij33IB q3iM. p3ApA -ui Xi3b3jip 30u Jfjott [EnaBUi suios q3noq3 jEnuBUJUou XpUBUi ^OpSjd 3JE S3I3IAI30B 3qi 3J3qA 'XjpOIJJip JO [3A3J JO SS3I •pJB333 5JJOA 3dX3-iB0iJ3p \\e s3pnpu| . |o3ua|3 puo a3!|jo •SJ3>)JO« p3jput>( pUE 's>|J3p sap pUE U3UIS3JBS 'S303BJ3SUOUJ3p 'U3UJS3[ES puoq pUB 5(0O3S 'sj3>iojq puE s3ua3E ajEjsa jsaj 's33>iojq puB s3U33e 30UBjns -UI 'U3U1S3JES puB sjusSe 3uisi3J3ApB :S3pnpu] -Sunps 333Jip UI X]ijBuiijd JO X]pq« 3ui3e3u3 suouBdnooo - sapc -sj3:fjou pajpui;] pUB (Sa3Uai3S [BOTSXqd 'DlUOaOSp 'paUSp ']B0ip3Ul) SUBpiQq3a3 *sJojBJ3snjji poiuqoas 'sjoXaAjns 'sjubjsissb 3iji3U3i3s 'sj03EJ3do oipEJ 'sj3qdEJ3o3oqd 'sasjnu 'spiE popEUiaqsEUi 'sj33ui3ua jotonl 'spiB 3uij33Ui3u3 'uauisjjBjp :s3pnpnl •3tiiuiEJ3 qo(-3q3-no 3U3]BAinb3 q3nojq3 JO 'S333]p3 joiunj puB S33n3i3sui popqosa XuBui UI p3i3jjo SI SB qons 'uou -EDnp3 poqas q3iq 3Sod jo SJE3X oau 3iioqB qSnojqs p3UiEj -qo 3(JO* p3jput3( pUB SJ3q3B33 'S3SI3U3pS ppos 'suEioisXqd 'S3SI3U3IOS poisXqd 'sja:^jo« suoue] -3J JOqB] pUB pUUOSjad 'S3SI3U3ps pJTl3EU 'SUBpl3BUJ3q3BUl 'suBiJBjqij 'sj3Xmei 'sj33Ui3u3 'sj03ip3 'suEi3n3ip 'sjau3is3p 's3SIUJ3qO 'saSI3JB 'S3O33iq0JE 'SJ03b3iaBU pUE S30]ld 3UB^dlIt 'sJ03ipnB puE s3UE3unooDE -.sapnpui •punoj33)DEq 3]qBJBduio: B SpiAOJd 03 SB JUnOUIB pUE pUl^l qons JO 33U3IJ3dX3 JO UOI -EnpBjS 333JIOD J3q3i3 3uiJinb3J suoijEdnDoo - louoissajojj •SJ3:^30M p3JpUI5^ pUE 'sJsXnq pUB S3U33b 9u -SEqOmd '3U3UJ39bUEUI jo SJ3qU13Ul 3JB Oq* U3U13JOJ p3IJBp« *s3uapaa3uij3dns puE sja3BUBUj 3U3ui3JBd3p 'sJ33BUBai jubjc '3U3UI33eubui sppiui 'saAi3no3xa 's|Bpi}jo :s3pn]oui -suor -BJ3do SjUijij B JO s3SBqd [Epads JO s3U3ui3JBd3p pnpiAij -ui 333Jip puE 'sspipd 3S3q3 JO oonnoaxa joj Xjijiqisuodi -33 IP-J3AO 3SI3J3X3 'sSIOIJOd pEOjq 33S Oq/tt puUOSJad 3AI -BJ3SiuiujpE 3ui3inb3J suouBdns^o ' sj96ououi puo s|o!3!j^( saijoeaio^ qof )0 uoj(dN39 '■'% ■uuoj STq3 UI sjsaddi 31 SB a3uanb3s 3uibs aq3 ui uaAi3 si aouBuijojui auiB 3q3 papiAOjd 's3no3aijd 9uiss330jd E3Ep sb p333iuiqns 3q Xbo s3Jod3^ •uoi33npojd3j ui p33uEqo X]piJ3jBUi 3q sou ppoq: 3Z1S 3q3 'psjiiujqns aJE uijoj siq3 jo saidoo paonpoidaj j] ■• •sXaAJtit 3U3u)U33AOQ JO asodjnd aq3 JOj ]u3uiXoiduj3 o) luanbasqn: uouBuuojui qons 3ui33q3B3 uiojj sJ3Xoidui3 3pnp3Jd 301 op SMBj Ji3q3 3Eq3 p3siApB 3ABq s3i3i]BOO] pUB sajBSj qon> \\e ui sai3iJoq3nB 3U3U]30joju3 'jaAamoH •jUEOiiddE ub j< Ul3lJO pUOUBU JO 'jOpD 'p33JO '30BJ 3q3 3uipjB33J UOI3EU130 -UI 3uauuiXofjujaajd 3uiiaq3E3 uiojj j3Xoidm3 ue jiqiqojd ssil -jBOOi pUE S33E3S JO jaqujnu e jo smbj uouEUiuitJDsipuuy 1 •3ui3nopq sb X3iunujuioo 3q3 ui pspjESaj si jo '9uo| .3q 03 sjBaddB aqs JO 3q qoiq* 03 dnoj3 Xjijouiui 3q3 ut papnpui 3q Xbui 33XoiduJ3 uy •p33Bjtioou3 30U si Xjinbui 303Jip Xq 33Xoidui3 UE JO X3i3U3pi oiuq3a JO ppsj 3q3 oj SB UOI3EUJJOJU1 3ui3piJ3 "uiSiJO qsiUBdg jo uBOi'y ojjanj 'UBDIX3f\ 'UBOUauiy UI3Bq JO 3SOq3 SUE3UJ UEOIjaUJy P3UIBU -jus-qsiuEdg UIJ33 sqx :uonB0iji3U3pi dnoj3 X3IJOUI^^( •[ I ivaaNao Exhibits La. Need for Rehabilitation lA. Attachments 1. Letter of Interest IB. Description of Project IB. Attachments 1. Work Description 2. Resolve #1 - 1976 Act and Resolves of the General Court of Massachusetts. 3. "The Fishing Industry in Massachusetts report prepared for the Massachusetts Port Authority, November 1977. 2. Employment Effort of Pier Rehabilitation. Attachments 1. Boston Fish Pier Employment Survey. 2. Letter from L. Nealon , President of Seafood Workers Union . 3. Massachusetts Port Authority Non-discrimination Equal opportunity and affirmative Action Policy and Program . Statements of Overall Economic Development Programs. Boston Plan Boston Overall Economic Program Metropolitan Area Planning Council's Overall Economic Development Plan. Economic Development Plan for Massachusetts. (5 EXHIBIT IV-la Boston and the New England region are in need of jobs. Growth of the fishing industry can help fulfill this need while allowing the inner city and the region to take advantage of the opportunities for expansion afforded by the 200-mile limit. Fishermen, boat owners, processors, packagers, transportation firms, retailers, restaurants, and consumers would all profit from fishing industry revitalization . Processing firms are anxious to begin modernizing their operations in a rehabilitated Boston Fish Pier. Private investment in the area stimulated by this development will amount to $60 million of investment. Numerous firms have contacted the Port Authority expressing interest in leasing space at the fish pier. However, because of the imminent plans for rehabilitation Massport has not leased space to them. Any improvements made would only be destroyed when rehabilitation work begins. Also, new tenants occupying now vacant bays would only make the provision of "swing space" during rehabilitation more difficult. Boston is the historical center for the fishing industry and, more importantly, is located at the region's transportation center for both truck and air shipments. There is a firm foundation for substantial industrial growth at the pier. But the facility must be improved and modernized to realize its potential. Private industry's willingness to invest, however, depends on Massport's ( ability to finish construction on the Fish Pier, which in turn depends on the EDA's financing of Grant II for the project. Forty fishing firms currently operate at the pier and n Northern Avenue. (See Attachment IV-2). The decline of the past years is just beginning to reverse as these firms formulate plans for the renovation of their stores. New container izat ion options for air freight will enable fish processing companies to greatly expand their markets. Previously it cost 55-60 cents per pound to ship fish to the West Coast. Now, however, a processor can use LD3 containers to send 3,000 pounds of fish at one time at a reduced cost of 20 cents per pound. Using LT2 containers reduces the cost further to 14 or 15 cents per pound when shipping 8,000 to 10,000 pounds of fish. Some firms are now considering shipments to Europe by air as catches there decline due to the 200 mile limit, and the West Coast market is opening up to Boston based firms. The expansion of firms on the Boston Fish Pier will result in additional employment opportunities in a city with a high unemployment rate and a scarcity of blue-collar jobs. New entrants tend to be minorities, and a CETA program is in existence at the Fish Pier and expanding to bring in more unemployed. Growth in fishing and fish processing will also result in related growth in sectors which service this industry and in the marketing and distribution sectors of { the economy. In addition, the city and region will benefit from the rejuvenation of the fishing fleet and pier in ways that cannot be quantified. IV - lA ATTACmiENTS Outlined below are recent requests for space on the Fish Pier that the Massachusetts Port Authority has received. Names of the dealers are omitted. Type of firm Space Requested Type of Use Lobster dealer 14,000 sq. ft. Will use this out- let in Boston as a distribution center . Lobster dealer undetermined Interested in retail arran^^ement on the Fish Pier. Shellfish dealer undetermined Interested in opening a distribution center in Boston. FRESH! GOLDEN EYE SEAFOODS February ) 3, I979 Mr. EI 1 lot Friedman Massachusetts Port Authority 99 High Street l^ith Floor Boston, MA 021 10 Re; Boston Fish Pier Dear Mr. Friedman: I am submitting a lease request for approximately 900 square feet on the Boston Fish Pier. This space would be utilized for the purpose of buying, selling, storage and distribution of fresh fish products. This facility will not be used for fish processing and the floor space will require an area suitable for a storage cooler, staging area and an office. Our Company, Golden Eye Seafoods, is a packer/processor of fresh fish and scallops in New Bedford. If any further information is required Tn order to proceed with a lease request, please contact me at this telephone number: 1 -61 7-996-332I . Sincerely, Stephen J. President SJB/aml c\^6-33AI GOLDEN EYE SEAFOODS • POST OFFICE 30X 231 • FAiRHAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02719 • TEL. (S17) 993-9964 < EXHIBIT IV-lb The Boston Fish Pier has served as the center of the region's fishing industry since its construction in 1912, providing employment for over 1,000 workers and a source of fresh and frozen fish for New England and the nation. The pier is 1200 feet long and 310 feet wide. Four buildings remain on the pier: Buildings 1 and 2 house the majority of the fish processors in the area. The New England Fish Exchange is located in Building 3 at the end of the pier. Building 6, at the Northern Avenue end of the pier, is unused except for the boilers which provide steam for heating and hot water to all buildings of the facility. The Fish Pier was acquired by Massport from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Acts of 1956 as one of the "port properties". The pier was operated privately until 1972. In that year the operators of the pier, the Boston Fish Market Corporation, sold the lease to the Massachusetts Port Authority. Until 1977 landings at the Boston Fish Pier had declined steadily since peak years in the late 1930's when annual landings were over 300 million pounds. By 1961, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce landings at the pier had fallen to 1 17 million pounds and the port of Boston ranked tenth in the list of "Landings at Certain U.S. Ports". The year 1977 marked a turning point for the New i England fishing industry. In 1978 landings had increased to 27 million pounds, a 20X increase from 1977 landing totals of 22 million. Furthermore, even during the so called "lean years" for New England fisherman Boston fish processors were handling a great deal of fish. In 1978, trucked-in fish exceeded fish landed by boat in Boston: 46 million pounds of fish were brought in over the road. This makes the total fish processed at the pier 73 million pounds. The New England fishing industry is at a turning point. Industry and government experts expect that during the next five to seven years the fishing industry's decline will be reversed due to five factors: 1 . The enactment of a 200-mile fishing zone: The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 established a limited fishing zone of 200 miles off the coasts of the United States. Fishing within the zone is regulated by the U.S. Government. Limited species may be fished by foreign boats only if U.S. fishermen's catch falls below quota and total catch may not exceed quota. Thus the bill protects the U.S. fishing industry from excessive competition on the part of foreign subsidized boats and protects the fish stocks from long range population depletion. During the six month period after implementation of the limit, Boston fishermen reported an increase in their catch of 25J to 30% over the same period last year, as reported by the National Marine Fisheries Service. 2 . Boston Fish Pier's location near fish and labor supply and transportation networks lj^nking_ it with expandi n_g markets: Situated near the productive Georges Bank, which is expected to yield increasing fish catches during the coming years, the Boston Fish Pier is the ideal location for fishing industry redevelopment. Pier processors will be able to draw on Boston's large blue collar labor force as their processing plants expand. From Boston's prime location in the center of regional truck routes and only minutes from Logan airport, the firms can take advantage of the expanding markets for fish. The potential for increasing shipments to the Midwest, the West Coast, and abroad is great given the new types of containerization available which allow processors to reduce the cost of shipping fish. In 1977, fresh fish exports provided the sixth greatest tonnage value for all air cargo exports at Boston's Logan Airport. One company on the Fish Pier estimates that their firm's air shipments of fish will increase 40-60% during the next two to three years. 3. Private and public interests in fleet modernization; For many years the government has endeavored to provide programs to aid the fishing industry, establishing such programs as the I960 Fleet Improvement Act which provides loans for fleet construction. In spite of these efforts, the industry continued to decline the 200-Mile Limit seems to have turned this trend around. According to Marine n Fisheries Service economist, John Rittgers, more than 30 new vessels were added to the fleet in 1977. Three fishing vessels have been added to the Boston Fleet this year. 4. Private interest in investing in fish processing expansion: Private firms have expressed interest in expansion and development at the fish pier. These firms havee already invested $1.9 million in capital improvements that they expect will increase their gross revenues by more than $23 million annually by the third year. Future renovation of the Fish Pier is expected to have a significant impact on the area. Private revenues leveraged by the facility could potentially total 60 million. The Boston Fish Pier is the logical location for development of the added facilities necessary for revitalization and expansion of the Massachusetts fishing Industry. Rehabilitation will be significantly less costly than new construction and will entail only temporary, rather than permanent, relocation as the bays are prepared for each firm. More importantly, expansion of the fishing industry at the Boston Fish Pier provides development of a regional and national industry in an inner city urgently in need of jobs. If the fishing industry in Boston is to take advantage of the 200-mile limit and renewed interest in fishing, rehabilitation of the pier is essential. In 1976 the 200-mile work group - an ad hoc group assembled by the Lt . Governor to study the problems of the fishing industry and its prospects under the 200-mile limit administered a questionnaire to Massachusetts fishermen, fish processors, fishing cooperatives and fish marketing organizations. Of the 500 questionnaires distributed, 67 were returned from 18 Massachusetts ports and harbors, Boston included. In this questionnaire Boston fishermen and processors stated that the absence of mechanical equipment to unload a catch was a serious problem. The respondents also felt that a cold storage and freezing facility would be very important if Boston is to serve as a major landing port. In ranking facility needs, Boston questionnaire respondents gave highest priority to new processing plants. Feelings about the Fish Pier are summed up in the words of one respondent, "The present Fish Pier, with reasonable maintenance and sprucing up, is more than adequate for expansion from the view of boat owners. However, the pier processing facilities are a disgrace and must be improved and expanded to cope with additional landings in the future." Last year, the Port Authority applied for and received an EDA Title I grant. These monies will be used to carry out phase I of the rehabilitation of the fish pier and will cover some pier and site work, improvements to the exterior of buildings 1, 2, 3 and the Power Plant, selected interior improvements, and some smaller items of architectural survey and boring work. The monies from the grant being sought now will be used to complete sections of the work begun under phase I. i The two phases of this project are intricately interrelated. It would have been much more economical and efficient to plan for and carry out construction in one phase. This has proven to be financially infeasible for Massport and the EDA. However, it is important that the two phases be as contemporaneous as possible. This rehabilitation cannot be done without help from the Economic Development Administration. The pier has suffered from several decades of neglect and will need extensive work to be modernized. In light of the arguments presented above, Massport urges the EDA to approve this application for Title I monies to rehabilitate the Boston 'Fish Pier as expeditiously as possible. WORK DESCRIPTION AND ESTIMATED COST The Fish Pier is 1200 feet long and 310 feet wide. Four buildings remain on the pier. Buildings 1 and 2 house the majority of the fish processors and wholesalers in the area. The combined total floor area of these buildings is 212,000 square feet. Building 3 (20,000 sq.ft.) at the end of the pier houses the New England Fish Exchange. The Power Plant is a six story building at the Northern Avenue end of the pier. A number of physical improvements, have been implemented in Phase I of this work, aimed at revitalizing the Boston Fish Pier and the Boston fishing industry. What follows is a summary of proposed improvements for the various project components that will complete the revitalization begun in Phase I and a brief description of conditions and needs. Additionally, there is a summary of construction costs reflecting realistic estimates of the dollars needed to proceed . -1- I. Site Work and Utilities: A. Regrading and repairing of Pier Surfaces Remove existing cobblestone and asphalt surface and regrade interior street to approximately six (6) inches below existing elevation. New base coat and chip asphalt paving on interior street. Grade and pave archway areas from street to new apron surface. Include catch basins. New concrete paving on apron area and raise apron elevation approximately one foot above the existing elevation. Reinforced, acid and waterproof, 6" concrete, 6" gravel base. (New concrete surface to be extended to all first floor and loading dock areas of Buildings 1 and 2. See specifications for Buildings 1 and 2). B. New Utilities Major utility repairs and replacement, including fresh water, treated salt water, heat, electricity and sewage, are essential for the proper functioning of the Fish Pier. The system renovations proposed are briefly as follows : Utility Tunnels Most of the utilities servicing the Fish Pier are located in a system of excavated spaces under the first floors of Buildings 1, 2, 3 and the Power Plant. Since these tunnels have no concrete walls or floors, corrosion -2- and water seepage are serious problems. No drainage is provided except percolation through the earth floor. Pipes and conduits are corroded and leaks exist in the pipes. Electric wires hang loose from the ceiling of the tunnel and repairs to the electrical system are dangerous because of water in the tunnels. Major improvements must be made to these tunnels. Salt Water Distribution and Treatment A supply of salt water is necessary for the cleansing of the pier and its apron. But problems occur with the distribution system during low tide. If salt water is not available, FDA sanitary regulations require that the pier be shut down. Installation of a new pump and a chlorination treatment system are proposed. Also a return line and separators for treatment of washdown salt water. Fresh Water Distribtution Fresh water is distributed to the buildings from the city water main on Northern Avenue, through the utility tunnels. The valves of the water lines and the piping within the buildings need to be replaced as well as sections of the primary line. -3- Sewage System: Sanitary/Storm All plumbing fixtures and floor drains at the pier are connected to the municipal sewage system. No adequate separation of storm sewer from sanitary lines exists. The sanitary lines, as a result, require frequent flushing due to the large amount of fish scales and trimmings which are admitted into the system through the floor drains. Obstructions have been noted in the sewage lines and in connections into the main municipal sewer line. In addition, fill underneath many of the sewer pipes has washed away, causing many pipes to crack and pollute the harbor. These sanitary and sewage lines must be separated, requiring considerable reconstruction and replacement of lateral and main sewage and sanitary lines. Gas Distribtuion Gas will be available to the Boston Fish Pier area but the existing lines are not adequate to supply the proposed new gas fired heating system. A new main distribution line will be installed in the pier street with necessary laterals to all buildings. C . New Heating System Heating All buildings on the pier are now heated through a central boiler system, consisting of two high pressure steam -4- n boilers. They were designed to generate high pressure steam to operate turbo-electric power generators and steam-operated refrigeration equipment (both of which are out of operation). These boilers are presently being operated at greatly reduced pressure generating steam for hot water and heating only. This reduced pressure operation diminshes the efficiency of the boilers and results i significantly higher operating costs. In addition, the existing system supplying the various tenants is not metered individually. Tenants are billed on the cube footage of the area they occupy. This system has outlived its functional life. The boilers and piping must be replaced with a new system that would include individual metering to tenants to regulate fuel consumption and to charge tenants equitably. Proposed are individual, gas fired heating units for each dealer and packaged roof-top gas fired units for the third floor office space. Buildings 1 and 2. Separate gas fired units are proposed for Building 3- II . Core and Shell Construction Improvements to Buildings 1 ,2 ,3 and Power Plant Construction improvements include all work required to rehabilitate and upgrade the interior and exterior of the basic buildings not included in Phase I: structural elements, repointing of brick at first floor and replacement of doors and lighting, sub floors, major interior walls, -5- stairs, rough utility distribution and any attendant demolition. The result would be a finished building shell ready for finishing and occupancy by tenants. Core and shell construction does not include any finishes, construction or mechanical equipment particular to a specific tenant's needs. Building 3 includes all work not done in Phase I. Truck dock canopies attached to Buildings 1 and 2 are also included in the core and shell construction as necessary improvements to the exterior of the buildings. For sanitary reasons the FDA has recommended that those areas adjacent to the building where the loading and unloading of fresh fish takes place be provided with canopies. The primary use intended for Buildings 1 and 2 is continued and expanded fish dealer and processing on floors 1 and 2. Floor 3 will provide new rental space for office use. The two archways in each building will be utilized to provide major access to the 3rd floor tenant spaces. New ground floor lobbies will include elevator and stair access to the third floor. Construction improvements outlined below include all exterior work required to rehabilitate and upgrade the exterior of the building not included in Phase I. -6- A. BUILDINGS 1 AND 2 Exterior 1. Replace windows and doors. All of Floor 1 and parts of Floors 2 and 3 not included in Phase I. 2. Repair door lintels and window lintels and sills. 3. Patch, repair, and paint stucco, all sides, 2nd and 3rd floor areas. 4. Clean and repoint brick and stone work with epoxy grouting where possible and reconstruct where necessary. 5. Resurface and flash roof areas not included in Phase I . 6. Remove exterior concrete stair from two archways. 7. Remove all wood structures from two archways, 1st and 2nd floors. 8. New exterior lighting at all overhead doors, entrances to archway area, and general lighting of outside areas. Interior 1 . Floor 1 : a. General demolition. remove all existing concrete stairs. remove all existing partitions between party walls. clean existing utility tunnel and remove all existing pipes, conduit, etc. -7- miscellaneous demolition and cleaning, remove tile block party walls as needed. b. New concrete floor, including loading docks, 6 inch gravel and 6 inch reinforced, acid and waterproof concrete. Extend floor drain. c. Dock levelers, 6 ft. length x 5.5 ft. width with 12 inch differential capacity. (Installation by tenant, as needed). d. New steel pan concrete filled stairs, 52 total . e. Patch and paint all masonry ceilings. f. Clean and repoint any interior brick work. g. New utilities. h. Rough-in utilities (plumbing, electrical and heating) . i. New masonry party walls as needed. j. Install cross or K-bracing where required. 2. Floor 2: a. General demolition. remove all existing concrete stairs (65). - remove all tile block party walls as needed . - remove all existing partitions between party walls. - remove all existing toilet rooms and fixtures . -8- miscellaneous demolition and cleaning. b. Level and resurface all concrete floors. c. Fill old stair openings in floor (3^) d. Patch and repair masonry ceilings and party walls that remain. e. New masonry party walls as needed. f. Install cross or K-bracing where required. g. Rough-in utilities (plumbing, electrical and heating) . Floor 3: a. General demolition remove masonry party walls as needed. - remove all partitions between party walls. - remove all existing toilet rooms and fixtures . remove vent areas above 2nd floor toilet rooms . miscellaneous demolition and cleaning. b. Level and resurface all concrete floors. c. Fill all stair openings in floor (66). d. Install egress stair at ends of each building and at the middle of each Building section to third floor to ground floor - (10) 3 floors. e. Install elevator and stair core at each archway (4), include 3rd and 1st floor service with lobby area at ground level in arch. -9- f. Rough-in utilties (plumbing, electrical and heating) . g. Install sprinkler system. B. Building 3: Exterior floors 1 and 2: 1. Replace all windows and doors, replace or repair raullions and glass at north and south entrances under arch. 2. Clean and repoint all brick. 3. Patch and repair stucco. M. Repair and replace copper on parapet, and clean pediment stone work. 5. Repair entrance stairs and sidewalks. Interior 1. Clear out existing partitions. 2. Remove existing toilet room fixtures and strip walls. 3. Repair water damage from roof leaks. i\. Repair and paint walls in atrium, corridor and stair areas. 5. two new fire stair and enclose each stair with fire rated wall and door. 6. New toilet rooms. 7. Install new elevator. -10- C. Power Plant Building: Interior : 1. General demolition: a. remove boilers and demolish smoke stack and coal hoppers. b. remove interior walls and partitions except concrete wall between boiler room and rest of building. D. Truck Dock Canopies These consist of an eight foot projection from the building facade over the truck docks and along the full length of the street side of Buildings 1 and 2 excluding archway areas. A cantilevered light weight metal frame with a transluscent covering is proposed . -11- III. INTERIOR RECONSTRUCTION OF FISH PROCESSING AND FISH INDUSTRY RELATED AREAS: BUILDINGS 1 , 2 AND 3 Interior reconstruction of fish processing and fish industry areas includes necessary improvements and renovations to create efficient and functional fish processing facilities and related office and service areas. Reconstruction would specifically include alteration or rebuilding of non-load-bearing partitions, doors, freezer walls and insulation, surface finishes, toilet rooms, mechanical rooms and service. It would not include special equipment and machinery such as refrigeration units, fish processing equipment, gurry tanks. Relocation Construction will be phased to allow for continuing operation of the fish dealers during the construction period. Given that many of the existing bays are vacant, rehabilitation can be phased to reduce relocation expenses. Every effort will be made not to relocate a tenant to a temporary location before they are moved to their permanent rehabilitated location. There may, however, be circumstances where this is unavoidable because of construction cost and staging problems. -12- Relocation costs vary greatly according to size of dealer and special equipment (refrigeration, freezing, processing) used. Every effort will be made to avoid relocating dealers with large amounts of freezing and processing equipment. These will be given relocation priorities to avoid unnecessary moves and minimize relocation costs. A. Fish Dealer Areas, Floors 1 and 2, Buildings 1 and 2 Schematic Design Drawings for fish dealer areas were prepared during Phase I for Buildings 1 and 2 and are the basis for the following Outline Specifications. Drawings are enclosed. TENANT FINISHES, FISH DEALERS Reconstruction will include alteration or rebuilding of non-bearing partitions, doors, freezer walls and insulation, surface finishes, toilet rooms, locker rooms, mechanical rooms and service. It would not include special equipment and machinery such as refrigeration units and fish processing equipment. Floor 1 1. Install cooler/freezer walls, insulate walls and ceiling, install ice bin and insulate. 2. Install two sliding doors. 3. Epoxy paint on all masonry finishes. 4. Plastic tile wall covering in all processing areas . -13- 5. Install office, including walls with glass panels and doors. 6. Toilet room with ceramic tile wainscot and floors and fixtures. 7. Furred pipe space for utilities. 8. Electrical service. 9. Heating and ventilating. Floor 2 1. Office area with suspended acoustic tile ceiling, vinyl asbestos tile flooring and base, interior doors and partitions. 2. Locker area with suspended acoustic tile ceiling, vinyl asbestos tile flooring and base, interior partitions and doors. 3. Mens' and womens ' toilet rooms including plumbing fixtures . 4. Paint all walls. 5. Electrical service. 6. Heating, ventilating and air conditioning. B. Office Space Floor 3, Buildings 1 and 2 Office Tenant finishes will include the following: 1. Drywall finish and paint on all exposed surfaces. 2. Toilet rooms' walls will be finished with ceramic tile and plaster. 3. Doors, including door hardware. 4. Partitions within premises within office space, doors included in partition walls. -m- 5. Suspended acoustic ceiling. 6. Floor finishes. 7. Lighting. 8. Electrical and telephone service. C. Building 3, Office Space Alternative Proposed future use of Building 3 is commercial - office space on floors 2 and 3 and alternative commercial or office uses on floor 1 . Office use is proposed for these floors and a square foot cost taken from the outline specifications for Office Tenant Finishes for Floor 3, Buildings 1 and 2, above, and based on the actual areas of floors 2 and 3 was used to determine the total cost shown in the Construction Cost Summary. CONCLUSION The projects outlined here will vastly improve operations at the Fish Pier. Present facilities are detriorated, dangerous and unsanitary. Upgrading the Fish Pier will encourage fish processors and dealers to expand and will attract new business and employment to the Pier. All work described above has been coordinated with the work already in progress under EDA Grant y/01 -01 -01 7^49 . -15- COST SUMMARY ^, 6(^l-ears, and the cralalag of a sufficient: nunber of persons Co vorJc as £isher=«t, deck h««u! and variou, other occupations. Said Authority shall also consider „ «aalnatioa of various species and where th.y ar. landed to determine th. effects that such spec'ies would have if landed ac th. Boston Tish W.r « various other Massachusetts ports. Said Auchorlcy shall also consider th. demand for processing facilities both n«, and rehabilitated, ^ .cco«Hodat. th. increased fresh fish to b. landed ac the Soscoa 7ish Sfe a. well a» available traln*l p.rsonn.1 to pcocas» It. «iload It and p^.p«:, it for ,hlp=«c. said .Wthorlty -hall also consider th. econonic ■ tep«c th^ac th. r.o hundred =11. ll«ic «y bav. on th. increased distributl offresh fish ouc of the various Massachusetts ports as «.U as the dlserlbudon t«^.u«i presently «»ploy.^ and what fom such techniques H 1272A aay Cake ia Ctte fucuce; Said Authority shall also eonsld«r che passible effect and impact of any oil spills or related d^siages vichin the cvo hundred aile Unit u?on Che fishery facilities located at the various ports of the cocsor.veaich. Said Authority shall also consider chapter eleven hundred and four of the acts of nineteen hundred and savency-one, relative to extending the lateral boundaries of the coosonvaalth dravn seaward Co a distance of r-'o hundred olles. Said Authority shall also consider any issues it deess necessary in order to properly evaluate the Ifflpaec of Che new federal cvo hundred aile fishing llmlc. Said Authority shall report Co che general court the results of its investigation acd study, and Its recoccendaclons, if any, together with drafts of legislation necessary Co carry its recozsendatlons into effect, by filing the sace vieh the cleric of che house of representatives froa eiae to tlae, but shall file an annual report no later than the last Wednesday of Dacesber, nineteen hundred and seventy-seven. House of Representatives, February , 1977. Passed, . Sp«*k*r. In Senate, February , 1977. Passed, , 1977. Approved, , President. Governor. THE FISHING INDUSTRY IN MASSACHUSETTS (Report prepared for the Massachusetts Legislature by the Massachusetts Port Authority November, 1977) 9^1 \^ J TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface I . Description of the Massachusetts Fishing Industry A. Fish Harvesting 1. Location 2. Fishing Fleet 3. Operations 4. Fishermen 5. Prices B. Imported Fish C. Fish Processing 1. Fresh Fish Processing 2. Frozen Block Processing D.. Marketing and Distribution II . History of the Massachusetts Fishing Industry A. Pre-1900 B. C. 1900 - 1945 1946 - I960 1. Growth of Imports 2. Subsidization of Foreign Fleets 3. Decline in Tariff on Imported Fish 4. Fish Stick Revolution D. 1961-1976 1. Growth of Foreign Fleets on Georges Bank 2. Decline in Fishing Stocks 3. Impact on Domestic Fleet 4. Government Efforts to Aid the Domestic Fleet III. Fishing Ports in Massachusetts The Boston Fishing Industry 1. Trends 2. History and Development 3. Fish Pier Operations and Economic Impact Other Massachusetts Fishing Ports -2- 1. Gloucester 2. New Bedford - 3. Provincetown 4. Chatham 5. Other Ports Fairhaven IV. The 20Q-Mile Limit A. Background B. Description C. Impact of the 200-Mile Limit 1. Immediate Impact 2. Long Range Impact 3. Impact of the 200-Mile Limit on the Boston Fish Pier V . The Fishing Industry; Prognosis for the Future A. Role of Foreign Fleets and Investors B. Ability of the U.S. Government to Enforce the 200-Mile Limit C. Ability of the Domestic Industry to Respond to 200-Mile Limit Potential 1. Vessel Financing 2. Fresh vs. Frozen Fish NOTES -3- Preface With the Management Act limit which it interest in the impact of the Boston and in passage of the Fishery Conservation and of 1976 and implementation of the 200-mile mandates, there has been a resurgence of fishing industry. Recognizing the potential 200-mile limit on the fishing industry in Massachusetts in 1976, the Massachusetts legislature passed a bill directing the Massachusetts Port Authority to prepare a study "relative to aiding the stability and expansion of the seafood industry in Boston". The Authority was directed to consider: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) the effects of the 200-mile limit on fisheries fished by Massachusetts fishermen, particularly those from the Boston Fish Pier; the demand for new fishing boats; the demand for additional fish processing facilities to handle the increased fish landed at the Boston Fish Pier; the posible expansion of presently underutilized species; the possible impact of offshore oil on Massachusetts fishing. In undertaking this study we have recognized that there is a large volume of work ongoing in this area; particularly on the part of the 200-Mile Fisheries Work Group coordinated by the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. Rather than duplicate the work of other groups we have compiled and summarized ongoing research and survey efforts to provide the interested reader and policy maker with a complete introduction to the fishing industry in Massachusetts and the issues it faces. The extensive bibliography will allow those interested to pursue particular subjects in more detail. of of by the staff the supervision Gail Monahan was data collection, and while an intern at This report has been prepared Massport's Planning Department under Planning Director, Catherine Donaher. principally responsible for interviews, writing the first draft of the report Massport. Anne Aylward edited and wrote later drafts of the report. We are grateful to members of Massport's Marketing and Maritime Departments for their comments and suggestions. We are particularly grateful to Hugh O'Rourke, Executive Secretary of the Boston Fisheries Association, for his willing contribution of time and information and many helpful suggestions. -4- I . Description of the Massachusetts Fishing Industry What is commonly referred to as "the Massachusetts Fishing Industry" is in fact an extremely complex and highly fragmented sector of the economy - an array of inter-related parts each with its own actors and issues. In this section the various components of this complex industry and their operations are described. There are two basic components of the fishing industry which must be considered: harvesting and processing. While the two are historically closely linked, their relationship has changed significantly in the last twenty years. During this period the total employment in fish harvesting and fish processing has remained relatively constant in Massachusetts (about 5,000 jobs); however, an increasing proportion of these jobs-, has been in processing rather than in fish harvesting. The link between these two sectors of the industry, and the link between the domestic and foreign fish harvesting operations are important aspects of the fishing industry. Traditionally, there has also been a close geographic link between harvesting and processing fish. However, this link has become weaker as the share of U.S. consumer seafood caught by the U.S. fishing fleet declined. U.S. processors now handle primarily imported fish trucked from Canada or shipped as containerized freight through U.S. ports. If this switch to foreign imports continues processors may move closer to foreign suppliers or regional distribution centers, the historical geographic link between harvesting and processing may disappear and seriously effect the employment and economic balance in smaller fishing ports. A. Fish Harvesting (1) - Location ; New England's coastline parallels the southern end of a continental shelf which extends for one thousand miles along the Northwest Atlantic Coast from Newfoundland to Long Island. Eighty species of edible fish and shellfish can be found in the waters within three sailing days of the principal ports of New England. Eight or nine species of groundfish (those which feed on the ocean floor) have historically made up the bulk of the catch. Most important ar^ haddock, flounder, cod, ocean perch, whiting, and hake. Georges Bank, part of this continental shelf, is one of the most productive fisheries in the world. The fish on Georges Bank are a renewable resource that can provide high protein food as long as the resource is well managed. However, the commercially important species on the Bank are presently over ^ exploited , having been over fished for a decade or more It is expected that effective enforcement -5- of the quotas established under the 200-mile legislation in 1976 will allow stocks to regenerate. limit (2 of the Bedford vessels five to The typ between horsepo caught such tr ) - Fishing Fleet : 404 fishing vessels operate out major Massachusetts ports of Boston, Gloucester, New , Provincetown and Chatham. 80j of U.S. fishing are individually owned and operated, ns . They are old ships, averaging 28 ical Massachusetts vessel is a moderate 65 and 100 feet in length and powered 845J are under years of age. sized trawler by 300 to 700 wer engines by domestic The great majority of the groundfish fishermen on Georges Bank is captured by awlers. (In 1974 the proportion was 93J)- The cost for a new trawler is $500,000 to $1,000,000. High profit boats, at present, are generally moderate sized vessels which can be operated by small crews, achieving nearly equivalent revenues to the larger trawlers at a lower cost. Due to depleted fishing stocks, the larger vessels frequently are forced to returng to port before capacity to prevent spoilage of their catch. Various sources rate the useful life of a fishing vessel differently: the Internal Revenue Service allows depreciation over ten years; banks will mortgage new vessels for upwards of twelve years; federal guarantors will allow fifteen years for mortgage amortization; and the shipping industry estimates a twenty year life-span for an adequately maintained vessel. Constant refitting may stretch this to thirty years at most. This creates an atmosphere in which individual owners must choose, after some years in the industry, either to re-invest in a ship at high expense or to leave the industry. Figures show that whatever the dynamics, the fleet remained stable throughout the last decade (1965-75) and that fleet expansion did not occur in anticipation of the 200-mile limit. However, the increased catch since March 1st has resulted in a sharp increase in boat construction. In October 1977 Forbes Magazine reported that 35 new commercial fishing vessels are being built for the New England fleet, at least three times as many as have entered the fleet in the past two years. The vessels being constructed^^Qare two to three times as large as the traditional trawler. Large trawlers (120 feet and up) are generally owned by fleet owners. In Boston (which has historically accounted for the greatest number of large trawlers in Massachusetts and New England) those fleet owners have been large fish processing firms. As these firms have switched from fish caught by domestic fishermen to fish imported from foreign vessels, large trawlers have also declined from 59 in 19^7, -6- FIGURE 1 lARCE MOOSRN STEilN TRAWLER Source: Effects on Camnercial Fis&ihg of Petroleim Develotinieiit off the ^iortheaste^l JJnited States, jvood^ hole uceanofflraphic institute, i^pru. ly/o. FIGURE 2 QtuunTRftve ■ COOENO • BULtHOW 1^^^ ^. 109 tea WINQ -^•'j' MOUTH i,\_ X ^il~£7 j,f ■♦eAO»»OPt WIT>t FLOATS Fv j^_ . „^> area in the past. Another area of potential growth is the development of a U.S. market for presently underutilized species. For example, the New ™^_,_^j ^j _, _. - _ « ^_ _j_-j ... J 1__.-__ --mmercial get species - e for presently underutilized species. For example, England Fisheries Program is aimed at developing co markets for "underutilized" species . The target s -13- Ill, History of the Massachusetts Fiahing Industry 33 Fishing is one of the oldest Massachusetts industries. The early exploration and development of the region were spurred by the value of this natural resource. However, in a time of rapid social and economic innovation, the fishing industry has maintained many of its old ways. Fishing technology has changed little since the turn of the century when otter trawling replaced line trawling. Processing technology has seen few changes since the development of filleting and fast freezing in the 1920's. Even as the domestic market for fresh and frozen fish products has grown, the capacity of the New England fishing fleet to fill the needs of the market has decreased. Problems of increased labor and operating costs for the boat owner, the difficulty of obtaining financing, and the 1792 law which requires those landing at U.S. Ports to purchase expensive American built vessels, all were disincentives to investments in the domestic fleet, and to investment in new technology. While New England fishermen continued to fish in the traditional manner, other countries (principally Japan, East and West German, Russia, and Poland) developed modern fleets. Fish processors, especially those with high volume business, found that domestic fishermen were no longer able to meet their needs and turned to cheaper foreign imports. The large volume of lower priced foreign imports has, in turn, further depressed the domestic groundfish market. This trend towards increased value of imported fish, particularly by the frozen fish processors has gathered speed in the last decade. At the same time, the volume of fish caught by foreign fishing vessels on Georges Bank has increased correspondingly. This long term decline of the New England fisheries is not due to any one factor but rather to a series of circumstances. The decline is not a recent phenomenon, but is part of a trend which began 100 years ago as described below. A. Pr?-;9QQ The export of fish from New England to the markets of Europe began to decline about 1830 and by 1880 had ceased altogether. It has been suggested that this was the result of the demands of a rapidly growing American market as well as price competition from European fish. In the late 1800'3 the American market for New England's fish (primarily salted) shrank as fisheries on the West Coast and in the Great Lakes region grew and as beef and other meat products became readily available, replacing -14- fish as a primary protein source from salted to fresh fish and national to a regional market. B. iqQO-iq4'5 This resulted in a shift a shift in focus from a Major technological changes took place early in the twentieth century which transformed the fishing industry in New England. The introduction of otter trawlers, steam powered vessels which trawl with a net rather than with lines, dramatically increased each vessel's catch of fish. It became economical to make shorter trips, allowing the sale of fresh (rather than salted) fish. Steam-powered vessels reduced the significance of the sea distance from fishing ground to port and commercial advantage shifted to ports which were also market and transportation centers such as Boston. In 1922 Clarence Birdseye of Gloucester developed a process for quick freezing fish that immediately replaced salt curing as the means for preservation. Quick freezing used in tandem with the technique of filleting fish developed in 1921 revolutionized the fish business, giving rise to entirely new markets which had been beyond the reach of fresh fish. For example, an extensive market was created in the Midwest for "ocean perch" a marketing term for frozen red-eye fish fillets. Innovations were also taking place in the processing of fish. In 1921, Dana Ward, a Boston fish dealer, introduced the process of filleting. At the outset, haddock provided The years of World War II were profitable for the New England fishing industry. With the fishing fleets of most other Atlantic fishing nations out of action because of the war, and as a result of war-time food demands, the fish was unlimited. Government contract buying of fish during the war resulted in a price stability never experienced by the industry ' previously without a guaranteed government market. C. 1946-1961 In 1943 American production of groundfish fillets exceeded imports by five times. By 1974 the imports from foreign suppliers were I3 times greater than the American catch. This dramatic shift can be explained by the events of the igUO's and 1950's. -15- Government contract buying of fish ended with the war and wild price fluctuations resumed with the disappearance the guaranteed government market. Fishermen were once again dependent on highly elastic consumer demand. Prices dropped 20J as operating cots soared as a result of post war inflation. In an effort to stabilize prices in the late 1940*3 the Atlantic Fishermen's Union used a variety of approaches directed at constraining the supply and forcing dealers to raise fish prices. Responding to dealer protest, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts determined that the fishermen were in violation of the state's anti-monopoly act. Fishermen were told that they must bargain with the boat owners instead of the dealers. The dealers were thus insulated from price confrontations with the fishermen's union . (1) Growth of Imports During the late 1940 's a growing volume of fish began to enter the New England market from Canada and Iceland. The pre-war market dominance by the domestic fishing fleet vanished. Pre-war domestic fishermen had supplied 95J of the domestic market. By 1948 their market share had slipped to 11%. During this period the market itself had doubled as a result of population growth, improved transportation, and expansion of the sale of fish by supermarkets. U.S. consumption again doubled from 1950 to the early 1970's. As fishermen attempted to limit the supply in order to get better prices, processors were trying to increase their output to meet the growing demand. During that period the catch of the domestic fleet remained relatively constant (2 to 2.5 million metric tons). The response of many processors was to turn to imported fish - either by buying into the Canadian processing industry with its lower wage non-unionized labor, or by buying imported fish to process at domestic plants. Imports have risen from 25? to 60J of U.S. consumption. As a result a huge^trade deficit of over $1.5 billion annually has developed.-^ As domestic firms turned to foreign sources of supply, they isolated the domestic fleet from the volume fish market and further narrowed the market for the domestic catch. (2) Subsidization of Foreign Fishing Fleets During the post-war period Canada, Japan and the nations of Europe were placing a high priority on the regeneration and modernization of their fishing fleets. Enormous government subsidies were invested in both fishing and processing equipment. Ironically, while the American fleet remained unsubsidized, much of the foreign investment was supplied by Marshall Plan funds from the U.S. Treasury. Subsidy of foreign fleets by their home governments has continued . -16- Thi3 subsidization resulted in rapid development of modern fishing fleets. The fleet subsidies and lower wage rates of foreign fishermen produced fish at prices considerably below those of the domestic fleet. A 1972 U.S. government study estimated that New England fishermen would have had to receive annual subsidies of the following dollars to equal the subsidies received by the foreign fleets: Norway Canada Denmark Japan Iceland $99.0 $22.8 $11.8 $2.1 $1.0 million million million million million 36 The impact of these subsidies on New England fish prices is severe. A 1977 study estimated that subsidies on fresh fish fillets imported to the United States fcom Canada range from 22.9 to 32.8 Canadian cents per pound. (3) Decline in Tariff on Imported Fish Tariffs (customs duties levied by government on some items imported into this country) have historically been used as a tool to protect domestic industries against low priced foreign competition. Until 1939 the tariff on imported groundfish served as this type of barrier to foreign countries. The duty ($.0-25 per pound) effectively added 40J to the cost of foreign fish. In 1939 the rate was reduced to the level of $.018 per pound for the first 15 million pounds or 15J of U.S. consumption for fish from Canada. This agreement was extended to other nations in 19^8 and the rate of $.025 was "bound against increase". However, by this time the price of fish had increased substantially and the $.025 tariff added only ^2% to cost, while the $.018 tariff added only 9%- Whole fish and frozen blocks of fish may be imported duty free. Processed fish, fresh or frozen, is subject to the tariff. These tariffs are presently being reviewed. (4) "Fish Stick Revolution" The other major development during the 1950*3 was the introduction on the domestic market of frozen fish sticks and other convenience frozen portions of fish, both for home consumption and for fast food chains such as McDonalds. This market was even less profitable for the domestic fleet than the frozen fillets already being processed. However, the demand was readily met by foreign fleets which supplied the frozen blocks of fish needed for the new products. These blocks were first imported in 1953. By the end of 1954 blocks represented 40j of the total groundfish imports. -17- The importation of frozen blocks has continued to grow, increasing ten times by the mid-sixties while frozen fillet imports only doubled. Combined, these imports left groundfish caught by the domestic fleet supplying only 105^ of the domestic market. D. iq6l-iq77 The trend of the 1950's accelerated during the 1960's as foreign fleets began to fish Georges Bank. From 1962 to 1972 total catch in the Northwest Atlantic doubled. Domestic fishermen, however, saw their catch decline by over 5051. Haddock, the specialization of the Boston fleet, was particularly affected. Domestic catch fell from an average annual catch of 138 million pounds from 1951-1962 to 16 million pounds in 1975. The Massachusetts commercial fleet declined from 408 trawlers in 1962 to 3^3 in 1970 while the number of wholesalers and fish processors fell from 236 in I960 to 201 in 1973. This trend was somewhat offset by growth in the frozen fish processing industry. ( 1) Growth of Foreign Fleets on Georges Bank Prior to I96I most foreign fishermen had fished on 'the Grand Banks. Georges Bank, a smaller fishing ground 50 to 200 miles due east of Cape Cod, had been primarily the domain of American fishermen. Scarce resources on the Grand aomaxn 01 American ixsnermen. oceirue r^auui-ues uu uub ui ciuu Banks led to exploratory voyages by foreigners to Georges Bank in the late 1950's. At this time Georges Bank offered Soviet fishing trawlers were sighted off Cape Cod for 'irst time in I96I. They were followed by Polish, East The American fish processors, no longer dependent on the domestic fleet, were able to expand and profit from cooperation with foreign fishermen. For example, Gorton's -18- of Gloucester contracted for Polish caught fish (even conducting an on-vessel training program for Polish fishermen). These fish were transhipped through the French held islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon to be processed in Gloucester. In 1974 Gorton's purchased a total of six million dollars of Polish fish. 5.75 million dollars worth of fish was landed at the Boston Fish Pier during the same period . Another example of this domestic/foreign cooperation was the 1970 contract between W.R. Grace Company and the Romanian fishing fleet under which Grace agreed to purchase the entire catch of Romania's new fleet of factory ships. The contract provided for delivery of two million dollars of frozen cod in 1972 and up to ten million dollars of fish by 1975. The cod was to be delivered to St. Pierre and Miquelon for transhipment to Gloucester. Financed by this contract, the Romanians purchased a fleet of ten new stern trawlers from East Germany and Poland to operate in ^direct competition with the under-financed American fleet. It is instructive to compare these European fishing vessels with the typical trawler fishing from Boston which is 65 to 110 feet long and weighs an average of 150 tons. The fishing motor vessel Westermunde of the West German fleet (described in detail in a recent Atlantic article) is a combined stern trawler and processing ship, 311 feet long and 3556 tons. She is capable of catching and processing 250 tons of fish a day and has a crew of 60-70, half of whom are workers in the processing factory. The ship's highly automated processing operation includes cutting tables with continuously adjusting fillet knives which turn out 50-80 fillets a 9jnute. The ship makes four voyages of 2-3 months each year i^ (2) Decline of the Fishing Stocks The most significant problem faced by New England fishermen today is the decline of fish stocks. Landings of fish and shellfish in New England have declined by more than one-half over the past fifteen years from U73 million pounds in I960 to 150 million pounds in 1975. This decline, which began in the 1930*3, accelerated rapidly during the last decade with the arrival of the foreign fishing fleets on Georges Bank. Initially the foreign countries fished only for herring and other species New England fishermen did not harvest. With continued expansion of the foreign fleets and construction of larger and more efficient vessels, few stocks of fish remained unexploited. By the mid-1960's, in order to harvest enough fish to maintain efficient -19- FIGURE 8 HADDOCK CAUGHT BY U.S. A^ro SOVTET FISHING FLEETS 320- i SV 3d 35t laod di U 6J M 1943 SA 67 M 49 l$70 7X 72 73 74 73 7» 77 Source: David Boeri and James Gibson, Tell It Good Bye Kiddo operations, the foreign fleets began to compete directly with New England's offshore fishing vessels. (Fig. 8) the stoc vess had annu sust exce 1965 late low stoc illu tota tons The most dramatic example of this is haddock. In 1955 Soviet fleet began fishing the already heavily fished ks of haddock, traditional specialization of the Boston els. For many years prior to 1965 New England fishermen harvested an average of 120 million pounds of haddock ally. This is considered to approximate the maximum ainable yield (the amount which may be caught without eding the nature reproduction rate of the fish) . In the Soviet began to pulse fish the haddock. Nine years r the haddock stock had declined to such a critically level that a zero quota was established to protect the k from extinction. |,,Thi3 progression is graphically strated in figure 8. Today scientists estimate the Ij-^haddock stock left on Georges Bank is only 7>000 Although the catch of the domestic fleet has been declining over a period of forty years, its negative impact on profits occurred much more recently. This is because with technology improving, demand growing, and prices rising, each trip brought higher profits. Although their total annual catch was less, it came at lower costs and with higher absolute profits. Thus, the industry had no pressing economic reason to be concerned until landings by effort began to show diminishing returns. Dependent on a resource not only limited in supply but -subject to sudden, unpredictable fluctuations, fishermen traditionally have seen little need for stock regulation and management. As they perceived the situation, fish abundance or scarcity was due to the vagaries of nature rather than to of .S. of as the man's abusive actions. Although the possibility overfishing had been noted as early as 1918 by the U Commissioner of Fisheries, and the actual effects overfishing were becoming apparent by mid-century productivity declined, the warnings went unheeded until late 1960's especially significantly depleted. By then, many of the most valuable stocks, haddock iia>nd yellowtail flounder, were (3 ) Impact on the Domestic Fleet As the fishing industry has declined, banks and corporations have been less willing to finance new fishing vessels. The average vessel in the domestic fleet is 28 years old, underpowered, undersized and ill-equipped to compete with the foreign fleet. The prohibitively high insurance rates results in most vessels presently being uninsured. A 1792 law (46 U.S. Code 25) protects the U.S. -20- fishermen by requiring any vessel landing United States to be domestically built, foreign fleets to tranship their catch via Canada fresh fish This L^w in the causes (4) Government Efforts to Aid the Domestic Fleet A number of government efforts designed to aid the domestic fishing industry have been enacted in the last 20 years. These have included providing loans for fishing vessels (1960*3 Fleet Improvement Act), establishing regulations on haul and gear of foreign vessels (ICNAF regulations), and funding pier and harbor facilities. -21- IV Fishing Ports in Massachusetts The fishing industry (including harvesting, wholesaling and processing) is a major economic force in New England's coastal communities. Such concentration makes these communities especially vulnerable to changes in the industry. The overall decline in ground fishing has exacerbated unemployment in coastal Massachusetts. The major fishing ports in Massachusetts are Boston, Gloucester, New Bedford, and Provincetown . A. The Boston Fishing Industry The Boston Fish Pier is the center of fish unloading, processing and distribution activities in the Boston metropolitan area. The pier itself deals almost exclusively in fresh fish: of the fifteen finfish dealers on the pier, ten deal in fresh fish only; of the five dealers that handle frozen fish onlyg two attribute over one-third of the output to frozen fish. Frozen fish processors are located nearby along Northern Avenue. A survey undertaken in. March 1977 indicated employment in processing firms of over 1000 people . Boston historically has specialized in haddock, cod and flounder. While these remain the primary species, Boston fishermen and processors have expanded their scope in recent years, taking in other species such as pollock and hake. (1) Trends The landings at the Boston Fish Pier have steadily declined since its peak years in the late 30*3 when annual landings were over 300 million pounds. By 1961, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service of the United States Department of Commerce, landings at the Port of Boston had fallen to 117 million pounds and ranked tenth in the list of "Landings at Certain U.S. Ports." By 1965, Boston ranked eleventh with 104 million pounds landed and by 1970, Boston was in sixteenth place with only 32 million pounds landed. By 1976 landings had fallen off to 23 million pounds. Boston's fishermen feel that this decline is primarily attributable to: 1) The lack of modern trawlers and equipment 2) The depletion of Georges Bank fish population by foreign vessels. -22- Figure 9 FISH LANDINGS (In Thousands of Pounds) lean Boston Fish Pier New England 1950 I960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 197U 1975 1976 170,000 lbs. 108,000 115,000 116,000 105,000 106,000 101,000 88,560 77,016 59,563 45,708 32,157 32,048 21,772 23,685 25,165 21,994 23,316 1,007,000 852,000 702,000 451,000 489,000 452,000 497,483 544,119 Source: National Oceanic 4 Atmospheric Administration Fishery Statistics of the United States^ Annual -23- i Recently, significant fleet expansion has been planned for the U.S. Forbes magazine reported that thirty-five boats are under construction for the New England fleet, and even more vessels are being refitted for use. Therefore, the problem of vessel shortage may well be alleviated in the near future. Processors have expressed interest in investing at the Boston Fish Pier if some government funds can be secured for rehabilitation, which would add modern processing facilitites. On the fish supply side, the title of "declining industry" is slightly misleading in the case of Boston fish activity. In Boston during 1970, 32.2 million pounds of fish were landed by fishing vessels while 49.9 million pounds of fish were trucked into the city, resulting in area Fish Pi^iy processors handling over 80 million pounds of fish. The 200-mile limit has increased landings in recent months. ( 2 ) History and Development Twentieth century expansion of Boston's fish business began in I9IU when the Boston Fish Pier, then the world's most modern, was opened. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts built the pier at a cost of 3.5 million dollars under terms of a I9IO agreement with the Boston Fish Market Corporation, a company which the Boston fish dealers formed to acquire a new location for the industry. Their old facilities on "T" Wharf, which they had occupied since 1884, had become unsanitary and inadequate. The corporation spent a million dollars to construct buildings on the Fish Pier and rented space to its dealers. In 1913 the nation's largest icing and cold storage plant was erected on the pier with the Boston Fish Market Corporation holding controlling interest . The improved facilities, combined with techno- logical advances, enabled landings to rise from less than 100 million pounds in 1914 to a peak of nearly 340 million pounds in 1936. In I9I6 fish dealers on the pier combined into two competing holding companies, the Bay State Fishing Company and the Boston Fish Pier Company. Both holding companies made enormous profits during the First World War. In I9I8 the Commonwealth of Massachusettts and the United States Government prosecuted this duopoly for promoting monopolistic practices and restraining trade. Seventeen prominent fish merchants wergg found guilty and received fines and prison sentences. The -24- legacy of this court industry. of today. decision is the highly fragmented Prior to World War II, the Port of Boston clearly dominated the New England fishing industry. Development of the ocean perch market brought Gloucester to the fore in 19^4, but by 1964 long-term growth in New Bedford coupled with a decline in the other two ports had given New Bedford a slight edge in terms of total fresh fish landings. During 1964, landings of fish and shellfish in Massachusetts ports amounted to 410 million pounds, with 33 percent landed in New Bedford, 31 percent in Gloucester, 26 percent in Boston, and the remaining 10 percent at all other Massachusetts ports. Principal species landed were flounder in New Bedford, ocean perch in Gloucester, and haddock in Boston. In the 1970*3 Gloucester has taken the lead and has become a major center for frozen processors . The Pier was operated privately until 1972. In that year the operators of the Pier, the Boston Fish Market Corporation sold the lease to the Massachusetts Port Authority. The Pier is 1200 feet long and 310 feet wide and holds four buildings: Buildings 1 and 2 house the majority of the fish processors in the area. The New England Fish Exchange is located in Building 3 at the end of the pier. Building 6, at the Northern Avenue end of the pier, is unused except for the boilers which provide steam for heatingcQand hot water to all five buildings of the facility. Boston is the hub of the regional transportation network and has deep water and pier facilities able to handle any refrigerated cargo ship or fishing vessel. Its location is ideal for receipt of imports from Canada, Iceland and Northern Europe. (3) Pish Pier Operations and Economic Impact The overall decline in the industry has been reflected in a decline in the size of the Boston fishing fleet. In 1965 there were 59 fishing vessels operating at the Fish Pier. In 1976 there were fifteen. The two newest boats w^,e built in 1968 at a cost of 1.8 million dollars each. Fishing boats are generally berthed at the northern end of the pier when unloading. Lumpers (longshoremen) and fishermen unload the boats. An auction is held every week day morning at 7:15 in the New England Fish Exchange. All fish landed at the pier -25- are sold at the auction, at prices set by the New England Fish Exchange. Price bidding appears to 'be competitive, although the distribution of each day's catch appears to be subject to some preagreement . Processors on or near the pier, along with other buyers who own a seat bid for the fish. Boston buyers do not bid for entire boatloads, as in New Bedford, but for smaller quantities of specific species. Fish are sold in units called scales (1,000 pounds). The processors on the pier buy a large portion of the daily landings, some fish is trucked to processors on nearby Northern Avenue; and the remainder goes to large retail establishments. After the fish is sold at the auction it is packed into carts at dockside and the carts are weighed and towed by small tractors to the processors. Fish processors on the pier and on Northern Avenue have filleting operations that produce fresh and frozen fillets. Fish landed at the Fish Pier was once the primary supply for these processors. Landings at the pier are no longer sufficient to meet the needs of the domestic market and thus the processors. Less than half of all fish processed at the Fish Pier is landed by boat. The rest is imported fish brought in "over the road" from Gloucester and Canada. Frozen fish processors on Northern Avenue receive an even greater part of their supply as imports than do processors of fresh fish. This fish is imported in frozen blocks, either through the ports of Boston and Gloucester, or by truck from Canada. B Other Massachusetts Fish Ports The other three major fishing ports in the Commonwealth are Gloucester, specializing in ocean perch, silver hake and sea herring, New Bedford, specializing in yellow flounder and scallops, and Provincetown which brings in flounder, cod, and scallops. Descriptions of these ports and others in Massachusetts are eocjcerpted from the 200-Mile Work Group's Fish Report: e:^erpted (1) Gloucester whose fleet has traditionally concentrated on fishing of ocean perch, silver hake and sea herring, harbors a fleet of 10-20 off-shore trawlers plus 60-65 small trawlers, draggers, gillnetters and line trawlers. Gloucester is a major port of entry for imports of frozen fish blocks and has become a very large frozen fish processing center. With increased catch under the 200-mile jurisdiction, the frozen fish processing industry could be expected -26- to rely more heavily on domestic landings for supply. The refrigerated warehouses on the Inner Harbor have a combined capacity for storing 100 million pounds of fish. This should adequately serve the possible growth in Massachusetts landings Gloucester's second waterfront urban renewal project, covering 43 acres at the head of the North Channel, envisions new wharves and piers for the fishing fleet and a new fish processing and cold storage plant. Further redevelopment along the harbor could provide additional docking space for the fishing fleet and space for expanded processing operations. (2) New Bedf ord-Fairhaven has a fishing fleet composed of approximately 155 otter trawlers and 16 scallopers. The fleet has traditionally concentrated on flounder and sea scallops. Frionor Kitchens is the only large frozen fish processing plant in New Bedford. The processing of fresh fish is the mainstay of the New Bedford fishing industry. Over the past several years substantial improvements to the harbor facilities for the New Bedford fishing industry have been undertaken and are nearing completion. The fresh fish processing industry has been relocated in the new South Terminal with its 1600 foot 2U acres are still unoccupied and could provide space for expansion of the fish processing industry. In addition, the New Bedford Redevelopment Authority is rehabilitating four piers (Leonards Wharf, Homers Wharf, and Piers No. 3 and U) for use by the fishing fleet. These improvements ensure that New Bedford will be in a position to take advantage of opportunities open to the fishing industry under extended U.S. jurisdiction . (3) Provincetown ' s fleet is composed of 2 scallopers, 5 line trawlers, 3 gill netters, and 20 otter trawlers and fishes primarily for flounder, cod and scallops. The Provincetown Cooperative Fishing Industries handles most of the catch in processing facilities concentrated on MacMillan Wharf. Provincetown has no capacity to repair or over-haul vessels. Any increase in commercial fishing vessels using the harbor as a home port or landing area would result in competition with recreational craft for mooring and berthing space. (4) Chatham has a fleet of some 40 line trawlers. Most of the catch is handled through the Chatham -27- Seafood Cooperative. Any increase in the fleet in Chatham would aggravate competition with recreational craft for mooring and dock space. (5) Other Ports serve as harbors for smaller fishing craft, as well as single, larger fishing vessels. These ports include Beverly, Ipswich, Manchester, Marblehead, Rockport, Saugus, Cohasset, Scituate, Marshfield, Duxbury, Plymouth, Wellfleet, Hyannis, Menemsha, ' Vineyard Haven and Nantucket. Fishing vessels in these ports must compete with recreational boats for mooring and berthing space, especially during the busy summer boating season. New mooring facilities for the fishing fleet must be built or a mooring allocation system giving preferential treatment to fishermen be instituted if these harbors are to accommodate any substantial increase in the size of the fishing fleet. -28- 1 V THE ?nn Mir.E limit 53 A . Background Fish resources of the sea until recently were considered inexhaustible. During the 1950's many marine biologists suggested that fish protein was the answer to the world's food problems. As late as I960 this seemed to be true. Until then the United States and Canada had shared Georges Bank with relatively little competition. But as the foreign fleets in these fishing grounds increased, American fishermen began to be crowded out of their traditional fishing grounds by high technology fishing vessels. In 1972 foreign vessels from sixteen nations accounted for more than 80% of the catch on Georges Bank. During this period, foreign catch quotas (outside the U.S. 12-mile territorial zone) were set and monitored by the International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF). Criticized for weak enforcement, ICNAF began to provide some controls in the last three or four years of its existence. By 1974 all ICNAF signatory nations (the Communist block included) allowed boarding and complete inspection and thereafter began to adhere to annual catch quotas . In the late 1960's and early 1970's U.S. fishermen appealed to Congress for legislation to help them compete with the highly subsidized fleets of other nations. The "200-Mile Limit Bill" was introduced in Congress in 1973 by Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts and Senator Warren Magnuson of Washington. Three years later the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 was passed. On March 1, 1977 the 200-Mile Limit, established by this act, gave the United States control of ten percent of the world's fisheries by authorizing a 200-mile "fisheries economic zone" around the U.S. and its territories. B. Description The law authorizes U.S. fishermen to harvest all the fish they need up to an "optimum yield". If there is a portion of the optimum yield which cannot be taken by American fishermen (based on historic catch levels) it will be allocated to foreign nations with whom we have treaties governing fishing. Permits are granted to countries that have traditionally fished in the area, have shown cooperation with the United States, and have contributed to fisheries research. Overfished stocks such as haddock, cod, and yellow tail flounder are now virtually closed to foreign fleets, but foreign fishermen may continue to catch fish such as dogfish, hake, and squid (which find a market in foreign -29- countries but consumers ) . are considered less desirable by American Decisions on the size of the annual quotas and what portion of a fishery, if any, will be open to foreign fishermen, are made by the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils. The New England Fishery Management Council has twenty-one members. Seventeen are voting members. Of these, eleven are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce from lists submitted from the five New England coastal states, five are the directors for fisheries of each of the coastal states (or their designees) and one is the Regional Director. In addition there are four non-voting members. They include representatives of the Department of State, the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Marine Fisheries Service. At present there is one vacancy on the council. Implementation of the plans developed by the New England Regional Fishery Management Council is carried out by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce in cooperation with other federal agencies. She may call upon the Secretary of State for assistance in international negotiations, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for scientific and economic information and the Coast Guard to enforce fisheries regulations at sea. The costs of administration are to be offset by fees for the permits issued to foreign nations. C. Impact of the 200-Mile Limit (1) Immediate impact; Although fishermen and other experts anticipated that the full impact of the 200-mile limit would not be felt for three to five years, there appears to be surprising immediate impact on the domestic fishing industry. For example, after years of decline the New England fleet's catch for the first part of 1977 was 25J above last year's levels, according to a Wall Street Journal article of July 1977. Landings in Boston were high in July, dropping back when the cod fishery was closed in August. Foreigners are pressing domestic fishermen to contract for supplies of American caught fish or to contract to catch ^portions of the stock allocated for the domestic fleet. Besides attracting foreign processors, the 200-mile limit is also stimulating investment within the U.S. fishing industry itself. The National Marine Fisheries Service reported that its guaranteed loans for fishing vessels in Massachusetts totaled $21 million in the just ended fiscal year compared with $8 million in fiscal 1976 and $5 million in fiscal 1975. The Newport Shipyard of Newport, Rhode completing its first fishing vessel since the -30- Island is 1940*3 for deliveryccto Gloucester and beginning work on additional vessels . The increase in catch by the domestic fleet and limited foreign catch under the 200-mile limit has caused some problems for processors of fresh and frozen fish. The frozen fish processors have experienced some dislocation of their operations as a result of catch limits placed on the foreign fleets. On the other hand, U.S. fresh fish processors lack the capacity to turn out frozen fish in the volume that the large food product companies require and thus are unable at present to fill the gap left by the foreign fleets. The inability of the processors to absorb today's rising catch for processing, either as fresh or frozen products, has forced fish prices down. (It should be noted, however, that lower seasonal prices are also common in the summer) . While there was immediate enthusiasm among fishermen about the positive impact of the 200-mile limit, by early summer the Fisheries Management Council cautioned that New England fishing vessels were landing substantially over the projected catch for species such as haddock and cod and that it might be necessary to cut off fishing in these species before the en4g0f the year to conform with the Management Plans' quotas. By September these predictions were proved accurate; the cod fisheries were closed because quotas had been reached. This has caused considerable hardship for fishermen. Compromise regulations have been proposed and are being considered by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. (2) Long Ranee Impact While there is general agreement that it will be three to five years before the full impact of the 200-mile limit is felt, no one in the fishing industry or the government and research groups considering the issues knows quite what will happen in the long run. The most comprehensive assessment of the impact of the 200-mile limit on the New England groundfish industry is a study done for the New England Regional Commiasion by the Coastal Rescources Center of the University of Rhode Island. The study projects a 40$ increase in employment for the fishing industry for New England and a 10% increase in employment for the Boston fishing industry. It is assumed that the federal government will provide some financial assistance to the fishing industry and that domestic fishing will take over part of the catch going to foreign vessels. In addition the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management staff predicts that New England landings will double over the next five years. This assumes a 25$ reduction of foreign fishing. The doubling will result in a catch of 925 -31- million pounds lead to the Massachusetts processing and MCZM states that the 200-mile limit could creation of 5,000 to 10,000 jobs in alone in the ^^^■^ decade, in marketing, boat construction. These CZM projections are based in part on a survey of New England fishermen undertaken in 1976 by CZM staff. Fishermen were asked their opinion on the impact of the 200-mile limit and marketing development efforts for underutilized species on the fishing industry. Generally the responses indicated that fishermen were optimistic about the future of the industry. It was agreed that there would be an increase in domestic fish landings. However, it was not agreed by how much these landings would increase. 2Q% replied that landings would increase by between 50il and lOOj and 2656 expected an increase over 100?. A small group (12%) felt landings would not increase. 3^% believed landings would only increase by by 50% or less (i.e. to the levels experienced in the early 1960*3). The fishermen did agree that the 200-mile limit would not bring immediate results. 47/t said landings would increase over a four to five year period while 33% believed results would not show for six years or more. When asked if fishing boats would be replaced by new ones 53% replied yes, 47% replied no. 62% felt replacement vessels would not be larger than those in the current fleet. The fishermen also saw improvements in harbor facilities as being crucial to increases in the fleet and future landings. Boston fishermen cited the main barriers to establishing marketing and processing development as 1) the need for pier or dock improvements 2) the need for sufficient landings to justify construction of processing plants, and 3) the need for demand to justify construction of ice plants. One individual commented that "Local processors cannot afford to build adequate processing factories because of Boston's It^h taxes. State, federal (or city) aid must be provided". The MCZM study makes several assumptions. First foreign fleets will not be entirely excluded from U.S. fishing grounds under the 200-mile limit. Although they have been excluded from catching most groundfish (the fish harvested by domestic fishermen) they are still permitted to fish in our waters and have been allocated certain tonnages for other species of fish; including mackerel, herring and -32- i squid ( 3 ) Impact of the 200-Mile Limit on Boston Fish Pier the The facilities on the Boston Fis.h Pier must be rehabilitated if Boston is to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the 200-mile limit. Massport, as the present owner of the property, plans to undertake this project with the support of the City of Boston using federal funds. The renovation of the Fish Pier will provide modernized facilities for the fish processors presently located there and will encourage the growth of the fresh and frozen fish processing industries in the Boston metropolitan area. The expansion of the Boston fishing industry is expected to generate many new jobs in fishing, processing and wholesaling. The number of individuals employed as fishermen and crewmen is expected to practically double (from 75 to I38). Employment in fish processing plants and support industries is expected to increase from approximately 1,100 to 1,925. Several frozen fish processors on Northern Avenue are presently developing expansion plans. The continuation of this trend of increased investment can only mean additional jobSj-pfor Boston and renewed prosperity for the fishing industry. -33- V THE FISHING INDUSTRY; PROGNOSIS FOR THE FUTURE While the implementation of the 200-mile limit on March 1, 1977 has signalled new potential for the New England fishing industry, particularly for the fishing fleet, many issues remain to be faced. These issues include: the role of foreign fleets and investors, the ability of the government to enforce the 200-mile limit, domestic industry to respond to the 200-mile limit, the need for more active and frozen fish, the impact of off-shore of the U.S. Government. the ability of the potential of the marketing of fresh oil, and the role A . Role of Foreign Fleets and Investors In response to the limitations of foreign fleets under the 200-mile limit, foreign factory ships are now eager to contract with domestic fishermen. William Gordon, Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, reported that in the first four months after the implementation of the 200-mile limit more than thirty delegations from Japan, Poland, West Germany, and Italy visited New England in search of fish. Other foreign companies have begun to explore investment in processing plants in New England. One such pLajit has been constructed in Everett by an Icelandic company. The National Marine Fisheries Service conducted hearings in August 1977 to determine U.S. government policy regarding joint ventures of this type involving foreign investment. There is considerable divison among the various factions of the fishing industry on this issue. The domestic processors are concerned that if U.S. vessels off-load their catch at sea to foreign processing ships U.S. processors will lose business and jobs. U.S. fishermen, on the other hand, point out that for years U.S. processors from foreign vessels without regard If foreign processors offer higher state it is the right of the U.S. the highest bidder. The issue is complicated by the fact that, at least in the short run, U.S. fresh fish processors cannot assure the domestic fleet that they will have the capacity to handle the volume of fish being caught. At least twice in the first four months of the 200-mile limit New Engla^ boats have been turned away because of lack of capacity. An additional factor in this complex situation is that the present quotas were based on estimated capacity of the domestic fleet. If foreign vessels are permitted to catch portions of the domestic quota not being caught by American fishermen it is feared that over-fishing will once more be the result. have been buying fish for the domestic fleet, prices, some fishermen fishermen to sell to -34- National Marine Fisheries has promised on joint ventures by the fall of 1977. a formal policy Meanwhile, nearly fifty other nations have followed the lead of the United States and Germany and have established 200-mile fishing zones. Japan, West Germany and the Soviet Union countries which have had substantial fleets on Georges Bank in recent years, have suffered substantial dislocation of their fishing industries. Fish ggices in Japan have risen sharply in the last six months. Up to 5,000 fish processing workers in Germany may lose their jobs; and the Soviet Union has embarked on major diplomatic efforts to secure ac^ss to fishing grounds off the coasts of Africa and Asia. B . Ability of U.S. Government to Enforce the 20Q-Mile-Limit The continued presence of foreign fishermen on Georges Bank will inevitably present problems to the management of our fish stocks. "The most unavoidable complication is that of by-catch. Whenever a catch is made, fish are unintentionally captured in the net. Thus, cod, haddock, or pollock may be landed even when a foreign trawler fishes for herring. Another problem involves enforcement. All catch regulations have to be enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard. The area which the Coast Guard must patrol has been enormously expanded, and administrative and funding problems may delay the institution of adequate enforcement procedures . The effectiveness of the 200-mile limit depends on governmental policy, the stance that the State Department takes toward its enforcement, and the extent to which subsidization is provided to the fishing industry. Both the State and Defense Departments originally opposed the passage of the 200-mile limit law, arguing that exclusion of foreigners from U.S. waters might jeopardize carefully developed international relations. So far, cases involving possible violations of the law have been handled very carefully. Suspect vessels have been allowed to be searched by Coast Guard patrols only with explicit permission from the State Department and if there is concrete proof that the law has been * violated . No general policy for enforcement of law has yet been developed. At present, events in international politics appear to affect decisions on individual cases. For example, the Coast Guard was ordered not to seize the first three Soviet vessels it wanted to detail during March because the delicate SALT talks with the Soviets were just beginning. It must be remembered that regulation is being imposed upon U.S. groundfish stocks because of the threat of -35- overfishing not only by foreign fishermen, but also by domestic fishermen. Thus, the quotas upon the endangered species are rather stringent, and will continue to be until •the Regional Management Council feels the stocks have recovered. For example, after only four months of the 200-mile limit the 5,000 metric ton quota for cod in the Gulf of Maine was reached, and the fishery was closed for the balance of the year. C. Ability of the Domestic Industry to Respond to 20Q-Mile Limit Potential The National Marine Fisheries Service has estimated that if foreign imports were kept constant, domestic catch of groundfish would have to in&aease by 250$ to meet domestic demand for fish by 1985. With foreign imports cut back the demands on the domestic fleet will be even greater. This raises a number of significant questions regarding the capacity of the domestic industry to respond. (1) Vessel Financing: There is nearly universal agreement that if the domestic fleet is to compete effectively, considerable investment must be made in upgrading the New England fleet. Whether or not new vessels are added immediately (and this is an area of uncertainty), it is essential that loans to fishermen, boat owners and processors be readily available at reasonable interest rates. Only an improved fleet will be able to increase the catch substantially and fish at a level competitive with foreign fleets. (2) Fresh vs. Frozen Fish; In recent years the domestic fleet has focused primarily on catching fish for the fresh fish and frozen fillet market. Foreign fleets have been the primary providers of the frozen blocks which = r>a t-ua «o,^ material of the frozen fish processors. '*" force processing to catch fish for the frozen block market. This investment would be the type of vertical integration which presently exists in the Canadian fishing industry where the same corporation controls the catch, processing and distribution of fish. Thus, if the various components of the domestic fishing industry are to fully benefit from the potential of the 200-mile limit the fish processors, boat owners and fishermen must all be willing to adjust to the realities of the modern market and available technology. Available fleet I i n^ n 5.1 n &_3.Il4_^iiAJll± d_i r ^5.^^ j.ill£_ c. j,i JL c.i t.i_ a, r. e._^ o t. li necessary components of a revitalized fishing industry. -36- NOTES 1. Coastal Zone Management Office, Review of Current Status and Future Prospects for Massachusetts Commercial Fisheries. Draft 1975. 2. Mayor's Office of Commerce i Manpower, Background Materials on the Boston Fishing Industry. December. 1973. Section 3- 3. Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Fishing and Petroleum Interactions on Georges Bank, prepared for New England Regional Commission, March, 1977, Page 2. 4. King, Maxwell, "Down To the Sea With Money", Forbes Magazine 10/15/77. 5. Lieutenant Governor's 200-Mile Work Group, Massachusetts Fishing Industry. Draft Report. May 13, 1977, Page 3. 6. New England Regional Commission, Op. Cit. Vol 1,. 7. David Boeri and James Gibson, Tell it Good-Bve Kiddo: The Decline of the New England Off-shore Fishery^ International Marine Publishing Company, Camden, Maine, Page 7. 8. Alan J. Brown, Op. Cit. Pages 145-148. 9. Lieutenant Governor's 200-Mile Work Group. Op. Cit. 10. King, Maxwell, Op. cit. 11. 200 Mile Work Group, Op. cit. 12. New England Regional Commission, Op. Cit. Vol. I, Page 3. 13. Mayor's Office of Commerce and Manpower, Op. Cit. Section 2. 14. Boeri, David and James Gibson, Op. Cit. Page 38. 15. Wall Street Journal. "^Bon Voyage: After Years of Decline, United States Fishing Industry is Beginning to Boom", July 25, 1977. Page 1, by Neil Ulman. 16. Boeri, David and James Gibson, Op. Cit. Page 55. 17. Ibid, Pages 79, 80. 18. Mayor's Office of Commerce and Manpower, Op. Cit., Section 1, Labor and Resource Problems. 19. National Marine Fisheries Service, Fishery Market News -37- Report Statistics. B-94. 20. Boston^ Globe. "Fishermen Grapple with Drop in Prices", Paul Langner, July 1977- 21. Brown, Alan J., Op. cit . , Pages 159-160. 22. Much of the material in this section is based on material from Alan J. Brown's thesis "Future Prospects for New England Domestics Imported Fish Processing and Handling Facilities" Chapter V, Fish Processing and Handling Methods. Pages 193-205. 23. King, Maxwell, Op. cit. 2M . New England Regional Commission, Op. Cit. Vol. II, Page 153. 25. Correspondence with Hugh O'Rourke, Executive Secretary, Boston, Seafood Council, July 27, 1977. 26. Boeri, David and James Gibson, Op. Cit. 27. Greenbaum, Daniel, "Fishing Prospects for Boston", Massachusetts Port Authority, internal memorandum, April 2, 1976. 28. Mayor's Office of Commerce and Manpower, Op. Cit., Section I. 29. Boeri, David and James Gibson, Op.. Cit. pp 59-60. 30. Quoted by Frederick Bell, The Economics of the New England Fishing Industrv, Research Report No. 31 to the Federal Reserve Bank, 1966. 31. New England Regional Commission, Op. Cit. Page 85. 32. New England Regional Commission, Op. Cit. Summary and Conclusion, pp. vi-x. 33. Much of the material in this section is derived from Tell it Good-Bve Kiddo by David Boeri and James Gibson, Chapter 6. 34. Mayor's Office of Commerce and Manpower, op. cit., Section 4, Historical Highlights of the Fish Pier. 35. King, Maxwell, Op. Cit., 36. John Vandruska, "Comparison of Government Assistance for United States and Foreign Fishermen with Special Reference to New England and ICNAF Convention Area", File Manuscript No. 99, March 1972. 37. University of Rhode Island Department of Resource Economics, -38- 38 39 UO 41 42 43. 44, 45. 46 47 48 49. 50 51 52 53 "Subsidies to Canadian Groundfish Industry: Background Information For Countervailing Duty Assessment". Kingston, Rhode Island, 1977, Page 8. Midshipman William T. Rogerson, Jr., "New England Fishermen, Imperiled Species", U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings , December, 1973, Page 46. William W. Warner, "The Politics of Fish: At Sea with the International Fishing Fleet", Atlantic Monthly. August 1977, PP 35, 36. Boeri, David and James Gibson, Op. Cit. Page 24. Ibid, pp 120-122. Harvard Workshop in Community Development Finance, Fishing Boat Production at the Boston Marine Industrial Park - a marketing and financial feasibility study, January 20, 1977, page 35. Interview with Dr. Vaughn Anthony, Woods Hole Oceangraphic Research Center, October 15, 1976. Ibid, Page 34. Rogers, Jr., Midshipman William T., Op. Cit. Page 47. Mayor's Office of Commerce and Manpower, Op. Cit., Section 3, The New England Fishing Industry. Charles T. Main, Design Criteria Report for the Fishing Industry on the Boston Fish Pier and Northern Avenue Study for Massachusetts Port Authority, July 28, 1972. Mayor's Office of Commerce and Manpower. Op 3, "Boston's Fishing Industry". Cit. Section Ibid, Section 3, "Historical Highlights of the Fish Pier". Ibid, Section 3, "The New England Fishing Industry. Mintz Associates, Boston Fish Pier Feasibility Study. study prepared for Massachusetts Port Authority, September 15, 1976, Page 37. Correspondence with Bob Dunne, New England Fish Exchange, January 13, 1977. Report of the 200-Mile Fisheries Work Group, Op. Cit., pp. 27-28. Much of the material in this section is based on "A View of the 200-Mile Limit" by Mary Cerullo, as it appeared in AQuasphere Spring 1977, pp 12-22. -39- I! 54. Warner, William W., Op. Cit . . Page 41. 55. Wall Street Journal, Op. Cit., Page 15, Col. 4. 56. Ken 0. Botwright, "New England Fishermen Pour Millions into New Boats", Boston Globe, July 1977, Quote by Thomas Harris, Vice Chairmen of Regional Fisheries Management Council. 57. John H. Fenstewald, "Beyond the 200-Mile Limit, The New Englander . Page 23. 58. 200-Mile Fisheries Work Group Report, Op. Cit. Page 26. 59. New England Regional Commission, Op. Cit., pp. 133, 135, 139 and Massport Survey, December 1977. 60. Wall Street Journal, Op. Cit., July 25, 1977, Page 1. 61. Hearing on Joint Ventures, held by NMFS, August 8, 1977. 62. Katheryn Tolbert, "United States 200-Mile Zone Lifts Price of Fish in Japan" The Boston Herald American, June 23, 1977. page 43. 63. Wall Street Journal, Op. Cit., 7/25/77. 64. National Marine Fisheries Newsletter, July 7, 1977. "Cod Fishery in Gulf of Maine Closed", Vol. I. 65. Daniel Greenbaum, "Fishing Prospects for Boston", Op. Cit. -40- BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Boeri, David and James Gibson, "Tell it Good-Bve. Kiddo"; lil^_IL^5.I.in ff_o.X_ih e._^e.w_Kii^la.rid._5.ilX5.1lo.r.e._£i3.h e.i:x , International Marine Publishing Co., Camden, Maine. 2. Bell, Frederick, W., The Economics of the New England Fishing Industry; Th9 Rglg 9f T ectihoJ^ Offi Q aj CnahK? ^pd Government Aid. Research Report No. 31 to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1966. 3. Brown, Alan J., Future Prospects for New England and Imported Fish Processing and Handling Facilities, MIT Sea Grant Report 75-7, 197U. 4. Cerullo, Mary, "A View of the 200-Mile Limit", Aouasphere, Spring, 1977. 5. Crestin, Dave, paper for use in Joint Ventures Hearings, NMFS, August 8, 1977. 6. Devanney, John W., Fishermen and Fish Consumer Income under the 2Q0-Mile Limit. MIT Sea Grant report 75-20, January 15, 1977. 7. Fenstewald, John H., "Beyond the 200-Mile Limit", The New Englander f January 1977. 8. Gates, John M. and Virgil J. Norton, The Benefits of Fisheries Regulation; A case Studv of the New England Yelloy Tail/Flounder Industry. Sea Grant Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, 1974. 9. Harris, Inc., Frederick R., Economic Feasibility Studv of the Boston Fish Pier for Massport Authority, 1968. 10. Harvard Workshop in Community Development Finance. Fishing Boat Production at the Boston Marine Industrial Park; L Marketing and Financial Feasibility Studv. January, 1977. Report for the Massachusetts Land Bank and Boston Economic Development and Industrial Corporation. 11. King, Maxwell, "Down to the Sea with Money; Forbes Magazine. October 15, 1977. 12. Main, Charles T., Inc. Design Criteria for the Fishing Industry on the Boston Fish Pier and Northern Avenue, studv done for Massachusetts Port Authority, July 1972. 13. Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, Review of C^rr^nt St^atM? and Fu.&..y.Iie._£r..a.g..ajg..S.^.3-Jl.ari_llaj.3.a^liaj.e.t.^^ Commercial Fisheries. Draft, 1975. -41- 14. Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, Coastlines . Marc Kaufman, Editor, Boston, Mass. 15. Massachusetts Office of State Planning, Offshore Oil Development; Implications for Massachusetts Communities. ^prepared under a grant for Office of Coastal Zone Management, November 1976. 16. Mayor's Office of Commerce and Manpower, Gerald W. Bush, Director, Background Materials on the Boston Fishing Industry, December, 1973. 17. Mintz Associates, Inc., Economic Feasibility Study of the Boston Fish Pier for Massachusetts Port Authority, 1976. 18. Rathjen, Warren F. and Paul M. Earl, Five Year Plan for £iL J.^II.al 0 H— aX-^Jl-g— Jle w_.SLil&laiI.l-£l.§. Jl-arl-S-a— B-S^-e V -g. 1 o P m e q t Program^ for National Marine Fisheries Service, January, 1977. FTS: 837-9290/Commercial (617) 281-3600 X290, 268. 19. Rogerson, Midshipman William T., New England Fishermen - Imperiled Species", U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings. December, 1973. 20. Two Hundred Mile Fisheries Work Group, Massachusett 3 Fisheries . 1977. (Contact Office of Lieutenant Governor Thomas P. O'Neill, for more information.) 21. United States Department of Commerce, A Marine Fisheries Program for the Nation. July 1976. 22. United States Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Fisheries of the United States. 1976. Current Fishery Statistics No. 7200, April, 1977. (Has a useful list in the back with information on publications, government offices and programs involved in fishing.) 23. United States Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Policy for Canada's Commercial fisheries; A summary. May 1976. 2U. United States Department of Commerce, NCAA, NMFS, Atlantic Fisheries; Atlantic Groundfish Plan: Notice of Approval. Implementation and Emergency Regulation. March, 1977. 25. United States Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, News releases available from NMFS office at 14 Elm St., Gloucester, Mass. 01930 Tel. (617) 281-3600. 26. United States Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Market News Branch, Fishery Market News Report available 10 Commonwealth Pier, Boston, Mass. 02210, (617) 542-6070. -42- 27. University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, Fishing and Petroleum Interactions on Georges Bank. Vols. I 4 II prepared for the New England Regional Commission, March, 1976. 28. University of Rhode Island, Department of Resource Economics, Subsidies to Canadian Fisheries Groundfish Industrv; Background Information for Countervailing Duty Assessment . Kingston, Rhode Island 02881 29. University of Rhode Island, News and Information Services Christi Dover, News Releases. 22 Davis Hall, for further information call (401) 792-6271. 30 Vondruska, John, "Comparison of Government Assistance for United States and Foreign Fishermen with Special Reference to New England and ICNAF Convention Area" File Manuscript No. 99, March 1972. 31. Warner William, 1977. "The Politics of Fish At Sea with the International Fishing Fleet", Atlantic Monthly. Autust 32. Wood Hole Oceanographic Institute, Effects on Commercial Fishing. 33. Articles from the Boston Globe, Boston Herald American, and Wall Street Journal. -43- EXHIBIT .IV-2 The Boston Fish Pier is situated at a prime inner city waterfront location. While commercial development of the pier would probably be financially more profitable for the Authority than rehabilitation for fish industry users; it would not be as great an impetus for regional employment. Massport's conviction to its public mandate of stimulating commerce and employment and its commitment to the existing port industries, led the Authority to propose rehabilitation of the pier for fish industry expansion. In the next five to ten years Boston's waterfront will be experiencing considerable development. In the project area: that part of South Boston near the Fort Point Channel (see map IV-2 attachment) several hotels are slated to be built as well as housing in some of the warehouses. The Boston Marine Industrial Park lies immediately south of the fish pier properties. The site for the new Children's Museum and the Transportation Museum is immediately adjacent to Commonwealth Pier. Planning is ongoing for the Seaport Access Road and for rebuilding the bridge over the Fort Point Channel. In summary, the character and condition of this area of Boston will be changing considerably in the near future. Renovation of the Fish Pier should be undertaken in time to profit by the new interest in fishing generated through the 200-mile limit. f For example: Just last August a contract was signed between New England Fish Co, (NEFCO) and Mitsubishi Corp of Tokyo for the largest export deal in American fisheries. The agreement, which commits NEFCO to greater efforts in frozen crab, salmon and bottom fish, will result in major exports to Japan and will have a positive impact on the U.S. balance of trade as well as the development of revitalized U.S. fishing and seafood industry. Significantly, the deal occured simultaneously with and is closely related to Congressional Bill 95-35^, which clarifies and expands the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Specifically, the bill restrains foreign fish processing vessels from buying U.S. caught fish before U.S. processors. As more foreign countries are affected by unilateral fishing zones such as ours and Canada's, demand for U.S. fishing products will rise. Boston, with its proximity to the Georges Bank fisheries and Logan International Airport is in an excellant position to take advantage of this demand. Rehabilitation of the Boston Fish Pier will stablize the 1300 existing jobs at the pier, provide 75-100 short term construction jobs, and create an additional 820 long term jobs in fishing, wholesaling and processing. Using a 2.5 multiplier (such as that used in the ports of Boston, Baltimore and Portland) 2,050 new jobs would be created in New England by indirect impact, for a total of 2870 new long-term jobs. I i Employment opportunities created will be greatest in the unskilled blue-collar labor market and will provide relief to a labor force that has faced steadily decreasing employment opportunities in the City of Boston and in the region. In the last 20 years Boston witnessed a 52% decrease in blue-collar jobs, from 107,524 in 1946 to 53,236 in 1976 while the number of white collar and professional jobs has remained fairly constant. During the same period, the state of Massachusetts lost 23% of its blue collar job market while a net gain of 19% was experienced nationwide. Unemployment statistics clearly reflect the hardships faced by Boston's blue collar labor force. Blue-collar workers faced the highest unemployment rate in the city, an average of 14.5% as compared to 9-4% for white collar jobs and 6.1% for professional workers. The renovation of the Boston Fish Pier will, by stimulating the growth of the fishing industry in the area, provide currently unemployed low-skilled workers with new jobs and the opportunity to learn new skills. What might be less clear to those unfamiliar with the industry, is the recent influx of minorities. The fishing industry is highly fragmented. Family business abound and past hiring concentrated among relatives. Recently, however, the industry has been hiring an ethnically diversified group of employees. 76% of the individuals who joined the Seafood Workers Union during the past 3 to 4 years are members of minority groups (See IV-2 attachments) i John Nagle and Co. (a pier fish processor) reports that during a temporary expasion 5 years ago, 45 new workers were brought in for short term employment; all of whom were non-white . To encourage employment of minorities and previously unemployed individuals the Massachusetts Port Authority has hired six CETA workers to perform pier maintenance. When their terms ran out this winter (they started last fall) the Authority hired four of them. The Port Authority recently completed another application to CETA for additional workers. This program will provide unemployed individuals with an opportunity to acquire maintenance and perhaps even fish processing skills. Their work is important not only for Massport but also for any subsequent employer. TV-?. ftTJftr.HMENTS 1. Boston Fish Pier Employment Survey. 2. Letter from L. Nealon, President of the Seafood Workers' Union. 3. Massachusetts Port Authority Non Discrimination, Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Policy. BOSTON FISH PIER £MPL0Y:-!ENT SURVEY Massport conducted an employTnent survey in December, 1977 to which 49 wholesalers, retailers, and support industries responded. In January, 1979 another survey was taken on the Fish Pier. Although significant increases (167o) 'in employment were expected in the future, net total of employees did not change. Actual total employment figures are slightly higher than those reported below, as* several small and one medium sized firm did not respond. On The Pier Name of Firm Address Ntimber of Emolovses Point Judith Shellfish Co. Am.ericah Transport Avenue Fish Co., Inc. Blue Sea Fish T. J. Busalacchi. Cram Seafood D 5e F Fish Go. Great Atlantic Fish Corp. Harbor Lobster Corp. F. E. Harding John Nagle & Co. New England Fillet Co., Inc. No Name Restaurant O'Donnell-Usen Co. Puritan Fish Co. A. F. Rich Co. Seaside Fisheries, Inc. Super Snooty Seafood Corp. Bart Tribuna Co., Inc. Augustine Daley New England Fish Ex. 6 Fish Pier Fish Pier 19 Fish Pier 18 Fish Pier 22 Fish Pier 3 Fish Pier 32 Fish Pier 41-45 Fish Pier 15 1/2 Fish Pier 16 Fish Pier 33 Fish Pier 39 Fish Pier 15 1/2 Fish Pier 1 Fish Pier 21 Fish Pier 2 Fish Pier 1 Fish Pier 29 Fish Pier 40 Fish Pier Administration Bldg, Administration Bldg. Off The Pier 6 4 9 18 6 7 17 45 7 32 34 15 36 30 16 10 25 16 19 3 3_ Sub total 358 Abramo Fish Co. B & M Fish Co. Boothbay Fisheries Boston Bonnie Inc. Boston Commission Co. Boston Fuel Injection Brilliant Seafood, Inc. John Burns Co . Fulham & Maloney Globe Fish Co. G. P. Hale Co. , Inc. R. S. Hamilton Co. JAS. Hook Co. Jimmy's Harborside Restaurant Klaus en -Getsby John Mantia & Sons 145 145 280 280 263 253 280 253 145 145 148 15 Northern Northern Northern Trilling Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Ave. Ave Ave. Way Ave, Ave, Ave. Ave , Ave , Ave . Ave . Ave. Ave. 242 Northern Ave. 237 Northern Ave. 236-237 Northern Ave. 12 10 2 82 3 16 92 1 8 25 9 6 11 181 6 15 Name of Firm McFisheries New HamDshire Fisheries F. J. O'Hara Paul ' s Lobster Pier Fish Co. Pier Sheet Ttetal Sea Frost Fish Co. Shamrock Fisheries Stavis Seafood Turner Fisheries Westerbeke Fishing Gear Wharf Forging &. VTelding Yankee Lobster Total Fish Processors Fishermen Massport Employees Address Number of Employees 255 Northern Ave . 23 269 Northern Ave . 19 211 Northern Ave . 5 150 Northern Ave . 15 145 Northern Ave . 11 215 Northern Ave . 7 145 Northern Ave . 14 280 Northern Ave . 15 148 Northern A.ve . 13 1 Fish Pier Rd . 28 Fish Pier Rd . 4 20 Ramp Rd . 8 272 Northern Ave . 14 Sub-Tot; al 655 1013 75 15 Grand Total Employees 1103 ^^t^'% % Sea ^ooJ WoJzen^' Q^Hixut Jdocai 2 - 9.JI.A. - S^fUU i572 9 SOMERSET AVENUE - WINTHROP, MASS. 02152 Telephone.- 846-7200, 7201 73 "i^^^ February 8, 1979 Mr. John Corrigan, Regional Director Economic Development Administration Atlantic Pvegional Office 600 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Dear Mr . Corrigan : I am pleased to report that minority membership in the Seafood Workers' Union is growing by leaps and bounds. Minority members in the union presently comprise 27 percent of the total. Over the last four years, 38 percent of new members enrolled have been minorities. In addition, we will be considering the acceptance of an Icelandic firm, which is presently composed of 26 percent minorities in the middle of February 1979. Sincerely, / ' ., / e^' L/--V>.-^-^'^'^t_ ^. ^^..-J^cLl-.^T t/Xit'l^^-'^-^'-' U^M-^iC MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY NON-DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY It is the policy of the Massachusetts Port Authority to assure through affirmative action that its facilities and economic opportunities are available to all persons without unjust discrimination. In its personnel practices, the Massachusetts Port Authority shall not discriminate against any person with respect to hiring, discharge, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, ancestry, national origin or other arbitrary classification. As an integral part of this policy, the Authority affirmatively seeks to improve and increase employment opportunities at all salary levels for groups now underrepresented in its workforce. Numerical goals and timetables for participation by minorities and women in the Authority's employment opportunities are therefore adopted as part of this policy. The Authority is presently developing comparable provisions for attaining and assuring equal employment opportunity for other underrepresented groups. In addition, the Massachusetts Port Authority takes a special interest in those neighborhoods and communities most directly affected by the operation of the Authority's facilities, and seeks to assure the fullest range of employment opportunities for their residents . All phases of full time, part-time, temporary and seasonal employment are covered by these policies. The Authority is equally committed to equality of economic opportunity in its relations with its concessionaires, lessees, suppliers, contractors, consultants and all others who benefit through economic relations with the Authority. To the full extent of its legal powers, the Massachusetts Port Authority seeks to conduct all its business with attention to affirmative action goals and to require enforceable equal opportunity undertakings from all those with whom it does business. In achieving equal opportunity goals and timetables, the Authority also adopts and adheres to non-discrimination affirmative action guidelines and provisions established by the Federal government and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Finally, the Authority's policy also requires the non-discriminatory treatment of all persons with respect to services and facilities provided to the public it serves. The policy of the Authority is therefore to take affirmative action to prohibit discriminatory treatment of any person or organization in the services or opportunities offered at all Authority locations. Every Massachusetts Port Authority employee has a duty to ensure the implementation of this policy. All employees shall receive a copy of this policy. Appropriate summaries of this policy shall appear in Authority publications. The Massachusetts Port Authority stresses that each of its employees is expected as part of his or her job to advance the equal opportunity goals of the Authority. GOALS, STANDARDS AND TIMETABLES A, Equal Employment Opportunity Because the composition of the Authority's present workforce shows the under representation and under uti 1 i zat ion of women and minorities, the Massachusetts Port Authority is establishing goals, standards and timetables in its effort to achieve the speedy elimination and remedy of those patterns. The Authority's employment policy goals are applicable to the internal affairs of the Massachusetts Port Authority and apply to all terms and conditions of employment at the Authority. These goals are based on the demographic characteristics of the cities of Boston, Chelsea, Revere and Winthrop. 1. Minority Employment: The Authority's goal is to achieve 20% minority representation among the employees at every level of the Authority. 2. Female Employment; The Authority's goal is to achieve 40 % female representation among the employees at every level of the Authority. 3. Residents of Areas Particularly Affected by the Authority's Operation; Almost 30% of the Authority's employees are residents of East Boston, South Boston, Chelsea, Charlestown, Revere and Winthrop. The Authority does not set a numerical employment target for the residents of these impacted communities, but it is the Authority's goal to increase the availability of Massachusetts Port Authority employment for residents of these neighborhoods at all job and salary levels and to take affirmative steps to upgrade the level of employment that they hold at the Authority. It is recognized that the pool of applicants for some job classifications is likely to be limited. However, it is the Authority's consistent objective that all job and salary levels reflect the specific goals indicated. 4. Massport Contractors, Concessionaires, Lessees, Suppliers and Others With Whom It Does Business; To the full extent of its powers the Authority requires of those with whom it does business appropriate affirmative action employment goals comparable to its own targets. 5. Rates of Goals Achievement - Establishment of Annual Goals; It is recognized that rates of progress toward achieving equal opportunity goals will be regulated by many interrelated factors such as fluctuating rates of employee turnover which, in turn affect other personnel activities including opportunities for new hires, promotions and transfers. An analysis of each of the Authority's job classifications shall be conducted and will consider anticipated expansion or contraction and turnover of and in the Authority's workforce. This information will form the basis for determining annual goals for hiring, transfering and promoting women and minorities within each unit and/or facility by job classification . The personnel department, department and division heads, and unit managers will be involved in the annual goal setting process. The Executive Director and the Compliance Officer shall review and revise these annual goals as necessary in order to ensure that annual goals are significant, measurable and that they demonstrate deliberate progress toward the employee goals of 40% female and 20% minority. Among other factors to be analyzed in establishing annual goals are: the availability of minorities and women having the requisite skills; the existence of training institutions capable of training persons in the requisite skills, and the degree of training the Authority is reasonably able to undertake as a means of making all job classes available to minorities and women. After analyzing such factors, if goals for certain units or job classifications are not established or are reduced in scope, the reasons will be detailed. The Authority's goals and timetables shall provide the ability to expand or contract, accelerate or decelerate in relationship to these factors as they influence opportunities to meet goals. It is, however, reasonable to establish as benchmarks that within those job classifications with a 20% annual turnover rate that minority employment goals can be fully achieved within 5 years, that more than one half the goals for employing women can be achieved in the same period of time, and the full goal for employing women can be achieved in 8 to 10 years. Semi-annual reports to the Authority's Directors should demonstrate significant and measurable progress toward achieving equal opportunity goals. The preceding goals apply not only to entry level jobs but also encompass opportunities for employment at every level. The numerical goals of this Affirmative Action Program are meant to be used as management objectives and are not intended to be used to discriminate against employees or applicants who are not of a particular class. The goals, as presented, should not be regarded as maximum quotas; rather the stated goals represent minimum target levels of participation by the groups to which the goal is applied. The goals are not meant to impair lawful rights under existing collective bargaining agreements, but the Authority is committed to promote equal employment opportunity through its own participation in the collective bargaining process. All Authority employees, present and future, are expected to carry out their job responsibilities at reasonably established standards of performance and productivity and to comply with the Authority's policies, rules and regulations. The failure of any employee to meet designated job responsibilities will be subject to established disciplinary procedures. B, Equal Economic Opportunity The Authority has adopted the following goals as its Affirmative Action Program to be brought about through the exercise of its lawful powers in its relations with its concessionaires, lessees, contractors, suppliers and others with whom it does business . 1. Lessees and Concessionaires: The Authority will make substantial affirmative efforts to contact and encourage qualified minority and female entrepreneurs to participate in its lease and concession opportunities. In the granting of leases and concessions, or the approval of sub-leases, it is the Authority's goal to achieve not less than 20% participation in leases and concessions by minority and female entrepreneurs, measured by dollar volume excluding rentals and fees paid by airlines. Determinations of the timetable for meeting this objective will be based on a study of the Authority's non-airline lease and concession dollar volume and the turnover of such leases and concessions. Goods and Services: A substantial proportion of Massachusetts Port Authority contracts and purchase orders for goods and services will be let to qualified minority and female contractors. The goal is not less than 20% of the dollar volume of contracts and purchase orders for goods and services, excluding such items as the public utilities. Affirmative steps will be taken by the Authority to include and encourage minority and female businesses as bidders for the purchase of all goods and services. In order to achieve its affirmative action goals the Authority shall utilize such special modifications to conventional bidding practices as are permitted by law. Construction Contracts: The Massachusetts Port Authority will assure, to the full extent of its powers, that every construction contract including maintenance and repair work let by the Authority or by its contractors, lessees or concessionaires, will include provisions meeting or exceeding the requirements of the Supplemental Equal Opportunity Anti-Discrimination and Affirmative Action Program as appproved by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. For its own contracts, the Authority will seek to achieve a goal of not less than a 20% ratio of minority employee person-hours in each job category. The Authority will make affirmative efforts to increase the bidders lists to include qualified minority and women contractors. As with goods and services, the Authority shall utilize such special modifications to conventional bidding practices as are permitted by law in order to achieve its affirmative action goals. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION It is an integral part of the Massachusetts Port Authority's affirmative action policy to solicit, consider and implement new techniques and procedures for attainment of equal opportunity goals. The Authority encourages members of the communities of which it is a part — including its employees and potential employees, and all those with whom it does business or might do business--to bring to the attention of the Authority those ideas, innovations, proposals and suggestions which will assist the Authority and its staff in reaching the goals set forth in this policy. REVISED DRAFT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT and f AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM for the MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Date of Revision Jiine, 1978 Section I Policy Statement Nov., 1976 adopted by Members of the \/r^^^arhusetts Port Authority i This Equal Employment and -^'^.^'^^;lC°\Ul 0^--^'^ eveloped in accordance ^th the -°l-X';^^T^Hrs of the Massachusetts nd Affirmative Action P°>^=/;/;^=^ I'JUu federal and state laws =ort Authority and in accordance witn app Deluding: ■ ,., M.O... Chapter ^S'^'^ ^^^ ^ ^rZ - ^t-ro^^er .'. lV^enrdrd\-:.w|^fj^Or-U^^ BuUedn 75-14; Title 29 °^ "SCS ^.tle 9. P ^ ^^ ^0 Titles VI &C VII, Civil Rights ^^^^^^^cl^^ J Ex ecu Orders 11246 and 1137.5 Omce of Federal Contract Compbance, i DRFINITIONS^ Racial Groups 1. White - all persons of Indo-European descent 2, Minorities • 77^ - all persons of AfHc.n descent as well as those Hentified as Ta^aican. THnidadian. ^.est Indian and Cape Verdean, f .. Hi^p^ - all persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican or other Latin American heritage, • ,^ all persons who are known as such by c. Native American - aU person virtue of their tribal associations. d. Asian -American - all persons oi Japanese, Chinese. Korean. or Filipino descent, e. Oth^r - an persons of Aleut Ks.imo, Malayan. Thais and other nonwhites not specifically noted above. J» «J MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY non-discrimination; equal opportunity and AFFIRlvlATIVE ACTION POLICY U U th. policy of the Massachusetts Port Authority to assure through affirmative ,. that its faciUties and econo^c opportunities are avaiUhU to aU persons without ust discrimination. Xn its personnel practices, the Massachusetts Port Authority shall not .iscri^nate .nst any person .ith respect to hirin. .ischar.e. or terras, conditions or privileges employment on the grounds of race, color. reUgion. se.. ancestry, national origin o. er arbitrary cUssiHcaHon. As an integral part of this policy, the Authority amrmative .s to improve and increase employment opportunities at all salary levels for. groups no. ^Irrepresented in its worHorce. K.unerical goals and timetables for participation .y .rities ana women in the Authorityis employment opportunities are. therefore, adopted part of this poUcy. The Authority is presently developing comparable provisions for taining and assuring e,ual employment opportunity for other underrepresented groups. m addition, the Massachusetts Port Authority ta.es a special interest in those .ghhorhoods and communities most directly affected hy the operation of the Authority-s duties, and see.s to assure the fuUest range of employment opportunities for therr ssidents. All phases of full time, part-time, temporary and seasonal employment ar. cover. y these policies. I ■05 4e ' ■ -f^o/l ho PQualitv of economic opportunity in Its I The Authority is equally committed to equality o L„3^.Usconce3siona.«s. U.sees. suppUe.s. co.t.ac..s. c.ns.Uan. and ,,, .,a. po.e.s. tHe MassacHu.e.s Po. A..H0.U. see.s .0 co..uc. aU U3 .u.nes. ,, .„en.o. to am..,a.ve ac.o. .oaU and to .e^.i.e an.o.ceaUe e,.al oppo.^U. ^dertaWngs from all those with whom it does business. X. achieving e.ual opportunity goals and timetables, the AuthoHt. also adopts .. .dhe.es to non-discimination a.H.mati.e acHon guidelines and provisions estaUishe. , the Federal government and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Finally, the Authority's policy also requires the non-discriminatory treatment ,.U persons with respect to services and facilities provided to the puhHc it serves. I poUcy of the Authority is therefore to ta.e afHrmative action to'prohihit discri^inato • =,Hnn in the services or opportunities offered at all treatment of any person or organization m the.servi Authority locations. • , . Every Massachusetts Port Authority employee has a duty to ensure the implement Of .is policy. All employees shall receive a copy of this policy. Appropriate summarie ■uv oKor,.. The Massachusetts Port Authority of this poUcy shall appear in Authority publications. The M 1 ... is expected as part of his or her job to advance fee stresses that each of its employees is expectea p . ■equal opportunity goals of the Authority. * * ^ _ y 1-2 \JS ,!!«"' iye! isK • GOALS,_STANDAMSAm.j:i^^ ^ , .^T,^ workforce shows the under- Because the composition of the Authority's present worWo ...mentation ... un.erutiU«tion o. ^ .n. minorities, the M.ss.chusett ort 1.., . estahiishiu. ..s. st.na.ras ... t^.-s in its e.ort to .c.e.e ,ea.eUmin.tion.naremed.o. those patterns. ^^ ^^^ ^^,_, ,„.,„ • ^e Authority's employment policy goals are appUcaUe to ^ „W to all terms and conditions of employment ,nhe Massachusetts Port Authority and apply to all te ., a on the demographic characteristics of the c.txes ,, the Authority. These goals are based on the dem g P ,f Boston. Chelsea. Revere and Winthrop. • ' . .^^ , 1 -^ ^« arhieve 20% mirLorxty 1 . Minorit^BBPloi^ ^^ Anthorit/s goal .s to .. y ..<. at every level of the Authority, representation among the employees at every A . . ■ 1 •; = fn achieve 40% female f , „^. The Authority's goal IS to actiieve 2 - Female Employment:, The Aumo y ^ oo. at every level of the Authority, representation among the employees at every . , , A ffected by theAAithoritYls_Opera^:On^^ « -J .... r^f Areas Pn r'^'-'^T^T^Y Aiieccea oy »-^^t . 3 _ Residents oi Ared.& jto- . .^ost 30% of the Authority's employees are residents of Kast Boston - south Bosto. Chelsea. Charleston. Revere and .inthrop. .He Authority .„l- tareet for the residents of these does not set a numerical employment target ^pacted communities, hut it is the Authority's goal to increase the availaUUty of Massachusetts Port Authority employment for resident, of ^^ ' 1, and salary levels and to take affirmative ste these neighborhoods at all job and salary c^f fTiafc they hold at the Authority. to upgrade the level of employment that they 1-3 i It is recognized that the pool of appUcants for some job classifications is likely to be limited. However, it is the Authority's consistent objective that all job and salary levels reflect the specific goals indicated. 4. - Massoort Contractors. Concessionaires. Lessees. 5upgliers.^5dOthers With Whom it Does Business: To the full extent of its powers the Authority requires of those with whom it does business appropriate affirmative action employment goals comparable to its own targets, 5,.- Rates of Goals Achievement - Establishment of Annual Goals; It is recognized that rates of progress toward achieving equal opportunity goals will be regulated by many interrelated factors such as fluctuating rates of employee turnover which, in turn, affect other personnel activities ^ including opportunities for new hires, promotions and transfers. Au analysis of each of the Authority's job classifications shall be conducted and will consider anticipated expansion or contraction and turnover of and in the Authority's workforce.. This information will form" the basis for determining annual goals for hiring, transferring and promoting women . and minorities within each unit and/or facility by job classification. The personnel department, department and division heads, and unit manager 111 be involved in the annual'goal setting process. The Executive Director and the .mpliance Officer shall review and revise these annual goals as necessary in order to Ire that annual goals are significant, measurable and that they demonstrate deHberate iress toward the employee goals of 40% female and 20% minority. 1-4 (V ■ Among other factors to be analyzed in estabUshing annual goals are: the LlabiHty or minorities and women having the requisite skills, the e^stence or raining institutions capable of training persons in the requisite s.iUs. and the degree ,£ training the Authority is reasonably able to undertake as a means or making all job ,U3ses available to minorities and women. Alter analyzing such factors. IT goals for :ertain units or job classifications are not estabUshed or are reduced in scope, the reasons will be detailed. The Authority's goals and timetables shall provide the abiUty .expand or contract, accelerate or decelerate in reUaonship to these factors as they ,1. Tt;, however reasonable to estabUsh as benchn influence opportunities to meet goals. It is, however, re that within those job classifications with a 20% annual turnover rate that minority employment goals can be fully achieved within 5 years, that more ^an one haU the .^s for employing women can be achieved in the same period or time, and the full goal for employing women can be achieved ir> 8 to 10 years. Semi-annual reports to the Authority's Directors should demonstrate significant and measurable progress toward achieving equal opportunity goals, . . The preceding goals apply not only to entry level jobs but also encompass opportunities for employment at every level. The numerical goals of this Affirmative Action Program are meant to be used as management objectives and are not intended to be used to discriminate against emplo or applicants who are not of a particular class. The goals, as presented, should not be regarded as maximum quotas; rather the stated goals represent minimum target levels of participation by the groups to which the goal is applied. ,-* 1-5 ^ The goals are not meant to impair lawful rights under existing collective ll 'L*rgaining agreements, but the Authority is committed to promote equal employment jpportunity through its own participation in the collective bargaining process. All Authority employees, present and future, are expected to carry out their job responsibilities at reasonably established standards of performance and productivity and to comply with the Authority's policies, rules and regulations. The failure of any employee to meet designated job responsibilities will be subj ect to established disciplinary procedures. B, Equal Economic Opportunity The Authority has adopted the following goals as its Affirmative Action Program to be brought about through the exercise of its la-wful powers in its relations with its concessionaires, lessees, contractors, suppliers and others with whom it does business. 1. - Lessees and Concessionaires; The Authority w^ill make substantial affirmative efforts to contact and encourage qualified minority and female entrepreneurs to participate in its lease and concession opportunities. In the granting of leases and concessions, or the approval of sub-leases, it is the Authority's goal to achieve not less than 20% participation in leases and concessions by minority and female entrepreneurs, measured by dollar volume excluding rentals and fees paid by airlines. Determinations of the timetable for meeting this objective will be based on a study of the Authority's non-airline lease and concession dollar volume and the turnover of such leases and concessions. I 1-6 ' Z. . Goods and Sarvicas. A substantial proportion of Massachusetts Port ' Authority contracts and purchase orders for goods and services will be let to quaUfied minority and female contractors. The goal is not less than 20% of the dollar volume of contracts and purchase orders for goods and services, excluding such items as the public uUUties. Affirmative steps wiU be taken by the Authority to include and encourage ■ minority and female businesses as bidders for the purchase of all goods and services. In order to achieve its affirmadve action goals the Authority shall utiUze such special modifications to conventional bidding praclices as are permitted by law. 3. . ^^..t...Hon Contracts: The Massachusetts Port Authority wiU assure. to the fuU extent of its powers, that every construction contract including maintenance and repair work let by the Authority or by its contractors. . lessees or concessionaires, ^vill include provisions meeting or exceeding the requirements of the Supplemental Equal Opporb^ty Anti-Discriminaaon and Affirmattve Action Program as approved by the Massachusetts Commiss ^ Against Discrimination. For its own contracts, the Authority will seek to achieve a goal of not less than a 20% ratio of nrur.ority employee person-hour in each job cafegory. The Authority will make afErmaave efforts to increas ^ the bidders lists to include quaUHed minority and wom'en contractors. As w ' ^ goods and services, the Authority shall utilize such special modifications to conventional bidding practices as are permitted by law in order to achieve it affirmative action goals. 1-7 EQUAL O rppnT^TTTlvnTY AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION It it an integral part of the Massachusetts Port Authority's affirmative action licy to s olicit. consider and in,ple™ant new techniT3ortumfcies for training and :lasses in the labor force m^y increase if better jobs and oppor ♦. fV,orr, Therefore annual intermediate target" goals will be promotion become open to them, inereiore, cii^ developed for every department and for each under-represented/underutiUzed group in =ach job category. The annual minimal goals will be developed for hiring, training. ;ansf erring and promotion. /omen a lot umover TT_1 ■ . I^Each department and unit manager shall participate in assessing factors such as iticipated turnover and training possibilities and use this data to set targets (subject review and revision by the Compliance Officer). All phases of full-time, part-time, temporary and seasonal employment are covered ^ the policy as well as contracting, construction, leases, collective bargaining greements, purchasing and other similar Authority activities. All employees shall eceive a statement of the Authority's Affirmative Action Program and all supervisors/ ivision heads shall receive a copy of this doc\iment. Employees who are operationally esponsible for the success of this Program will submit quarterly status reports to the Compliance Officer on the progress or lack of progress of each division in meeting fSrmative action goals and objectives. Compliance with this Program will be monitored I eriodically by the Compliance Officer as well as on a semi-annual basis by the Executive )irector and Board of Directors and at such other times as may be deemed appropriate. At the same time the Executive Director and the Compliance Officer accept the ■esponsibility for the development for centralized administrative procedures which will Lssist each supervisor in carrying out her/his responsibilities in the area of equal imployment opportunity and affirmative action; it shall, however, be understood that )nce the procedures are adopted, the burden for achievement of the Authority's i£firmative action goals rests equally with each supervisor/division head. The achievement of afjQrrnative action goals and objectives by department directors ind unit supervisors will be reviewed as a component of the annual performance review. U-2 ^Jtl c I, ^ The Compliance Officer of the Massachusetts Port Authority shall have "sign-off" powers over all transactions which affect affirmative action at the A.uthority. Such sign -off authority (as established in Executive Order 74, as imended by Executive Order 116) includes authorization to proceed on all personnel 3iatters, and shall also include review of the execution of leases and contracts, both /endor and construction; collective agreements; and other related matters. No ictivity in which the Authority is engaged which involves the expenditure of money or the hiring of personnel will be excluded from this review and authorization. II-3 f, f 4 Section III _ • rA^r^^zchusetts Port Authorit •:r^J.^r..^^r.t'. ' Evaluation of Procedixres, I 0^ 4iier teir IDOI . ■^% A. Employment This section addresses and presents an overview of actions which are planned , have already been implernented by the Authority to renaove barriers to the employment : women and minorities. The identification of internal factors which tend to operate as .rriers to achieving long-range and intermediate yearly goals is an on-going process, herefore. all aspects of the employment process, including recruitment, selection and lacement procedures are continually examined by the CompUance OfEce and Personnel epartment to ensure compliance with the Authoritys AffirmaHve Action Program and ith federal and state statutes and judicial mandates regarding equal employment pportvmity. . The current policy on personnel procedures has been reviewed and revised slecessary under the direction of the Compliance Officer and Personnel Director to ,nsure that all employment policies and practices stated therein are in conformity with "deral and state statutes and ju^cial mandates regarding equal employment opportunity, .ny provisions ,s, of the poHcy or personnel procedures which are found to be in conflict ^th the poUcies or intent contained in this Affirmative Action Program are referred ■according to the level of action required, to the Personnel Director. Director of Administration and/or Personnel Co^ttee for appropriate corrective actions. 1. . Tob Analysis :.T,d Classification Studies ' ^ ^ • • - ■ a. - T.b Analysis Study - An analysis of all Job classes for which perso are employed by the Massachusetts Port Authority has been undertaken. * This analysis consisted of reviewing and revising as necessary all current position descriptions to ensure that, for each job classification, the job descriptions accurately reflect the acb^l tasks to be performed --^ -- ^„„,;■,^.T1t from one facility to another. 1 actus com job 2,' Ma rei As openings occur, both the description of duties and requirements for employment are re-evaluated for currentness, job relatedness and validity. Based ^n these descriptions and evaluations, job requirements which are directly related to actual tasks to be performed have been established. b. . Job Classification Study - The Authority's Personnel Committee reviews completed job descriptions and requirements and makes recommendations regarding job re-classification where deemed advisable. 2. - Recruitment and Outreach In order to upgrade the quality of applicants and to assist in the process of making Massporf s workforce representative of the population it serves, an aggressive recruitment program directed primarily at the minority and professional female communities has been undertaken by the Authority. The components of this program include: advertising in certain selected publications; an aggressive public relations •campaign designed to clearly demonstrate the Authority's commitment to achieve measurable increases of female and minority participation in its workforce; contact with female and minority recruitment organizations and other similar mechanisms, a. - TT^ternal Recruitment - A study of recruitment resources, including executive search firms for members of protected classes and impacted communities has been made and a list of such organizations and media resources was developed and is kept up to date. The Authority's Personnel Department notifies recruitment sources of anticipated and current job openings. Help wanted advertising includes the minority news media, and media of the impacted communities on a regular basis, and states that the Authority is an -Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer. M/F" . TTT-2 MCI ".jse jno lii np Any contract or communication that the Authority makes with a recruitment "BJurce will be free of implied or explicit preference for a particular race, sex or age jroup. All "help wanted" advertisements, posters or other notices w^ill be prepared in m uncomplicated, easy-to-read format. Whenever possible, advertisements sent to ■lispanic recruitment sources v/ill be sent in Spanish and English- Recruitment also includes contacts with other state and city agencies, particularly hose with similar job requirements, to obtain the names and addresses of female and' ninority job applicants. Those qualified applicants, who are identified through these itate and city agencies, will be contacted to determine availability and interest. Notices of job openings are mailed to the organizations listed in the Appendix; jmployment openings that have qualifications calling for specialized professional or Mmical skills and knowledge are also referred to an executive search firm (see ippendix) as w^ell as professional and trade associations, b, - Internal Recrviitment - Bidding - Competitive opportunity must be granted to both internal and external candidates for job openings if affirmative action is to take place at all job and salary levels; therefore, external recruitment activities are timed to coincide with notices of current job openings which are posted at all Massachusetts Port Authority facilities for seven (7) working days. These external activities include, but are not limited to sending notices to female and minority organizations and newspapers as well as using other appropriate recruitment mechanisms. in-3 f a . Selection of Employees - The detailed hiring process is presented in Section IV t* a. - During the selection procedure applicants will be kept informed regarding the status of their application. b. - The Authority maintains a retrieval system for minority and women applicants only for the purposes of this Affirmative Action Program. These Hies are not to be used in any discriminatory manner. Records of applicants from impacted communities are also kept in a similar File. c. - If the applicant is not hired, the personnel officer shaU refer back to the protected class or neighborhood retrieval system as future openings occur giving persons in that file first priority on openings in the order of their date of application. I a, - Interview and Evaluation - During the initial stages of the selection process, appHcants reached by the foregoing recruitment methods should be evaluated separately from other job seekers. This additional step in the process is intended to faciUtate affirmative action and equal employment in the selection process. , » Procedural/Monitoring of Interviews Reporting forms or other procedures have been developed to identify and analyze barriers to affirmative' action. These key steps will be monitored with records * » indicating the effect of each activity by race, national origin and sexr in-4 i Ui-3 ll# P ■ a. - Recruitment sources b, - Application forms and pre-employment inquiries c, - Job descriptions (for job-relatedness) d, - Tests (for disparate impact; requests average test scores for each group) (validated for job relatedness) e, - Interview procedures and results f, - Physical examination g, - Reference and security checks h, - Job assignment 5, - Retaining Protected Class Employees Although many of the procedures in this section have been followed on an irLforma' basis, by March, 1978 the following efforts shall be made standard procedure to encourage the successful and continued employment of protected class members: a, - The Authority shall emphasize its firm commitment to its Affi-imative; Action Program in orientation sessions conducted for all new^ empioyt: b, - Follow-up counseling interviews between the Massachusetts Port Authority's Compliance Officer, (or designee) and employees who are members of protected classes shall be conducted periodically in order to determine if any employment adjustnaent problems have developed and to deal with such problems as they arise. c, - Starting immediately exit interviews shall be conducted under the direction of the Compliance OfEcer with all terminating and dismissec protected class members to explore reasons for leaving or dismissal and to make recommendations to management to correct and/or remei I w aa' B. Placement Placement includes: transfer, promotion, training, demotion, lay-offs, recall and ■ termination. . . 1, _ Transfer and Promotion In addition to setting yearly targets for the hiring of protected class members, each department unit of the Authority shall set targets for upgrading members of protected classes. These intermediate goals are particularly important in achieving the long-range objective of equal employment in all job classifications. a. . Remedial Action File - The Authority will establish a "remedial action file", of its present minority and female employees who wish to be included in such a file and who may be eligible for promotion to one or more positions within the Authority. The "remedial action file" will be established by September 1, 1978. During the compilation of this file, the Personnel Officer will interview and review the records of J 0ch minority and/or female employee who wishes to be included and to: 1. - Update records on the individual's qualification, education, experience, seniority and performance on the job. 2. - Identify iiidividuals who appear to be working in jobs that are below their abilities, 3. - Provide each individual with an assessment of his or her opportunities for advancement, the pre-requisites for such advancement and an estimate of the probability for such advancement becoming a reality. y III-6 Hie' u |:r< 4ie: «l The Authority will consult the "remedial action file" when it plans to fill a vacant sition, particularly when the vacancy occurs in a classification where minority persons i^ women are under-represented, . . . Training and Education The Authority recognizes that its Affirmative Action Program must contain a aining component to provide skills that are essential to jobs where women and minorities e vmder-represented and to compensate for deficiencies in experience and/or education at resulted from past discrimination. The Authority will, therefore, make full use of the various training programs railable to it to help meet its objectives for hiring and promoting minority persons and ,men. Where no training program exists for the varied job classes, the Authority will sek to promote and develop such programs in-house or in cooperation with other state, rderal or local agencies and organizations. jj f Because many of the positions (other than entry level) at Logan Airport require a ,ass n drivers license, a pilot training program in trucking and plow operation was itiated in 1977 and will be expanded in the Spring of 1978. Upon successful completion • this program an officer of the Registry of Motor Vehicles tests our employee -candidate ir the class II license. During 1977, the Authority also participated in Northeastern University's Women's areer Project (WCP), a program designed to provide job specific courses and supportive anseling to prepare course participants middle-level management positions which had been irgeted by the Authority. in-7 "mi 1^ Two positions were targeted and comxnitted to the WCP: one for an internal andidate in the Accounting Department and one for an external candidate to be laced in the Community Affairs Department. The internal candidate assumed her ew responsibilities in August, 1977, Representatives from the Personnel and ompliance Departments will be meeting with the WCP in February of 1978. to iscuss future participation by the Authority in the Program, In 1977, the Authority also participated in the YWCA's Non- Traditional ccupations for "Women and committed five (5) summer job slots to program iraduates in the Bxiilding and Field Maintenance Departments. In 1978, we "jicipate a continuation of our participation in this program. From Janxiary to June 1978, the Authority will be implementing a two year nanagement training program which will involve 5 to 8 positions w^hich will provide . ixposure for candidates selected to at least four different operating and administrative iepartments. The Authority's Human Resource s Manager holds primary responsibility or the design and implementation of this project and will work closely with the Complianc Dffice in selecting trainees. Other plans include meetings with the Boston OIC to explore the possibilities of I joint training program with that organization, ■ a. - Internal Training - The Authority will ensure that all initial training A and job familiarization procedures for each department are provided in -^ a non-discriminatory manner. Where it is indicated that this initial on-the- job training and orientation results in a high turnover rate among protected ^ classes then new methods and procedures shall be developed. ., b. - External Training and Education Programs - In addition to making full use of the outside training programs available to it, the Authority shall ensure that any skills, training or educational program to which the Authority provides resources (financial, materials, or personnel) is in compliance with the Authority's Affirmative Action Program, Authority employees, particularly women and minority group members, shall be made aware of educational opportunities and the Authority's policies on education benefits and leaves. c, - Training - Affirmative Action Program - Training for management and supervisory staff shall acquaint them with the Authority's Affirmative Action Program, This training will include techniques designed to increase the sensitivity and awareness of the Authority's management and supervisory staff to the issues inherent in the implementation of an Equal Employment/ Affirmative Action Program and shall provide the basis for its practical application in "on-the-job" sitxaations. It is anticipated that this sensitivity training will be provided lay an outside consultant/ trainer. The cost for this will be included in the Compliance Office budget which will be presented to the Board of Directors in Jtme, 1978, If approved and after a consultant/ trainer has been identified and selected, it is expected that the training will begin by October, 1978, Such training will also include an explanation of: Tn-9 i! 1. - All provisions of the Authority's Affirmative Action Program. t 2. - The legal basis of an Affirmative Action Program. 3. - Supervisory responsibilities related to affirmative action. 4, - The legal options available to a person making a complaint of alleged discrimination. A trailing program for all the Massachusetts Port Authority employees has beea .tabUshed to explaa the purpose of the Affirmative Action Program to stress the uthority's commitmentto this program, to answer any questions that employees may we regarding the program's intent and to explain individual employee afflrmative ction responsibilities and benefits. All Authority employees at Logan Airport received this training in sessions JP between April to July, 1977. Sessions for employees at Hanscom Field, the •obin Bridge and Port division are planned for the same period during 1978. In order to encourage employees to increase their taowledge and skills and hereby gain eUgibiUty for possible promotional opportunities, the Compliance Officer A „r,«-n ^pnuest regarding educational and training r designee shall counsel employees upon request regarai g ,ppor^ties available in the community. A special effort shall be made to encourage nembers of protected classes and impacted community residents to participate in iurther education and training programs. in-10 ,r.' ,&f A A i . Affirmative Action Grievance Procedure ■ • \ w A grievance procedure shall be developed by .April . 1978 under the direction of e Executive Director and Compliance Officer and will be reviewed by the Aatbority's ersonnel Committee. The purpose of this procedure is to provide an orderly, timely ad equitable means of investigating and resolving internally and informally, whenever racticable, complaints relating to alleged discriminatory policies or practices. The rocedure shall not cover any other matters and shall be the exclusive internal rocedures available to Massachusetts Port Authority employees, tenants, concessionaire ad to the general pubUc for resolving complaints regarding alleged discrimina-fcioo. Such procedures shall in no way be designed to supersede or replace exisfcing emedies available to employees, tenants, concessionaires or the general pubKc under nl rights statutes or collective bargaining agreements. I. - Collective Bargaining Agreements Every agreement between the Authority and its collective bargaining units has een examined for poHcies or procedures which may result in equal employment/ fErmative action barriers. Between January 1976 and December 1977, all agreements ave come before the Authority for re-negotiation. The CompHance OfGce has provided ew and/or revised clauses to the Audiority's negotiating team for inclusion in tke new . greements. Every agreement now includes an affirmative action/equal employment lause covering all procedures of the agreement. Contracts with coUecdve bargaining mts shall be continually reviewed and revised wherever current provisions are ic ^tified as barriers to equal employment. in- 11 .; lirt 5. - Other Terms and Conditions of Employment I ^ There shall be no unlawful discriminatory practices by the Massachusetts Port Authority with regard to any terms and conditions of employment including )ut not limited to those which have been heretofore discussed. I» in-12 f !) Section IV Hiring Process As Reviewed and Approved By The Authority's Personnel Coirunittee I* >' I 4 Hiring Process Massachusetts Port Authority rojected Goals Each Division/Department/Unit Manager ^vxll project annual affirmative action hiring goals for each job category when developing their overall hxrxng pro- jections for the year. The afErmative actxon harmg goals will be reviewed and revised as -"".^^^J ^ Compliance Director to assure conforxmty with the Authority's affirmative action goals and tmaetables. Hiring Process _ Job Vacancies - Openings I, - Job Descriptions It ResponsibiUties /Procedures Whenever a vacancy occ-urs or a new position is crea it must be reported directly to the Personnel Deparh The Personnel Department will notify the CompUancc Office with information concerning: whether or not t job (s) will be filled and when; the estimated potenti. for neighborhood preference and affirmative actxon giving consideration to current levels of under - representation or under -utiUzation in the unit; obligations under collective bargaining agreements; and availability of affirmative action and neighborhoc candidates for the position (s). Job descriptions for new positions or those not previously described should be prepared by the appropriate unit supervisors with the assistance of the Personnel Department. In preparing the des- cription, the Director of Administration and/or the Personnel Director may involve other department managers outside of the proposed positions direct reporting relationship if the job functions °^ that position cross departmental lines of authority. The. descriptions of duties and requirements for ^ employment will be evaluated for currentness. job r elatedness and validity. IV- 1 i Hir^Pg Process ,- Job Descriptions - Job Requisitions - RecrToitment and General Advertising lit ResponsibiHties/Procedures^ t. ij v,« A^-rfdtlv related to actual Requirements should be direcciy re ^^^„t wi" review descriptions lor vaiiaity _ tL= Personnel ConWttee will "-=-/" = "P^°" of °11 new job Sties .nd all position. '^""^P'""''^ OX ail new jL. por inXorination. with starting salaries over $12, 000_. i ^ ^^h purposes, copies of descriptions will be shared wi Board Members. Pursuant to action by the Personnel D^P-^::^^"^ in addition to the approval required of '^l^^^l'^^' Director or SecreUry/Treasurer. the CompUance Office initials and records the job opportunity. Internal and external recruitment acHvities wiU be sled so that all interested candidates are tao^ To toe Authority before the -1"'^°- j"°"" f,\ begun. Internalefforts consist of bxd postuigs at Authority facilities. External recruitment will involve adverKsing ^ ="=1" frrspapers and other pubHcaBons which are -dely read 'by members of !^/^J^;-;/:;:lrtr:"lffected .-•ommunities and residents ol comriiiixij. . . TyTeTuthority's operaBons. Radio and telev.s.on l^edia for^s will be utilized when appropriate for advertising job openings. Recruitment efforts to fill job openings which have Lspo^sibiHties that may impact on ^°- "^^ , aff«:ted by the Authority's operations, should include :f^:e leisures to draw on the resources o£ those , communities to identify candidates. Job notices wiU be sent to recruitment sources such rninority and female community and profes sional "^ . ,H-o.^3 in accordance with existing policy. - organizationa, m accoj^'-i , , r , ^:; fRnnlt ih Search firms will be utilized as needed for difficult t . fill positions. ..Recruitment will also include con^ct ^r^^ther state and city agencies P^-'-^^^^L.tn' ^ ^th similar job requirements. Active — -^^f " ;^ograms will be carried out at secondary schools. Wor colleges and colleges. Tt.. current pool of appHcations and resumes will also be used. IV-2 Im t Hirinc Process , - Initial Screening I. - Selection Interviews r^ lit 11, - Job Award Recommended Responsibilities /Procedures Bids, applications and resvimes including those already on file will be evaluated. Qualified and qualifiable applicants may be interviewed by Personnel. Reasons for disqualifications will be specified when necessary. Candidates successfully passing through initial screening will participate in the interview process for final selection. The bid; applications and resumes of those screened out will be reviewed by the Compliance Department. All candidates will be informed about the steps in the Authority's selection process. These interviews will be conducted by unit supervisors/managers with the job opening and/or th Personnel Department, The top 5 candidates will be identified and assessments toward final recommendai will be made. The \m.it. Personnel and Compliance Departments will participate in the assessment in order to make a recommendation for award which ha: included affirmative action and neighborhood preference considerations. Training sessions will be developed for all Authority interviewers concemir areas of sentivity in regard to equal employment opportunities and affirmative action. - A compliance review form listing all candidates, also naming the successful candidate (s), is prepared by the Personnnel Department and all candidates are notified concerning the outcome of the process. Payroll changes and/or additions to the payroll forms are authorized by Personnel and are signed off by the Compliance Department, j For professional and admirdstrative positions, the resumes of the top 5 candidates (ranked in. order of choice, if possible) will be provided to the Personne Committee as part of the back-up material. IV-3 m •a- "rJ ea rr a *r3 M n C O 3 o f-u ^t rr C- •< o C3 ^r "3 " — i-i 300000 O 3 H "-"i rn i-» o 3 H- n f-» o N o o »-» ra >-• c^ n c- H* c =:• e» H- o cr rr 3 o on 3 5 ° 1 > a 0?fIfIKG(S) FTLLEB ^ o o >• C3 = P3 O 2: M 2 > c ►-; cr n o O r-f 13 '^ rr 0 H a H- rj 0 *< 0 C-*3 — 3 n ri Ln c: 0 3 M» 0 fJ H- nj 0 rr H n oca; D :t y^ >^ 0 0 c rr 0 H- C 3* 3 0 rr □ 0 C3 t-*- • a 0 i: c- p- n rr 0 0 3-3-3 • /-• — tS t3 0 X 3- <^ "3 rr V-* H- C 3 3 3 ■ 3 H- 0 rr I *< rr cr C3 H-*< -3 O "3 3 n; »-• a Q o -3 o 3 C3 3 rr n 3 O i-n l-» 9 H. o to 1 *< C3 cr s: H- o 3- o 3=3 O rr (-' O H- I-: Ml < 3 n re a .Q P »"! P i: I CD < H- p 0. >-» O c - %u ra "3 CO I H- C* P 0> rr tn H- rr o 3 ^ a C - P H* H H- (0 ,«-n o ^^ g re 3 p. n> a •t >- rr a * ^p^ •3 i-n J-* H- v^ U )-^ h-* 3 a P M-a a 3 v-^ P Q 0 3 0 C3 0 W rr m 3 O •3 D r> rn 0 3 3 yr\ □ C- CT H- P- 0 rr rr 0 P p- H- H» 0 3 O 3 0 *a r-n • 0 f^ rr < n 0 P P 3 0 3 rr P C3 H- 3 P n J-VS •-( vJ D 0 0 rl < 3 rr >: T f:> C3 to C-- 27 1— » — > rr 0 ^ 0 »-• H- n »-» ►t3 ca h- f3 •n 1 3 Q 0 0 0 vr 3 •-3 H- 3 f? •-n f& zz. «< J-* 0 en o pj 2: n z n s/- A tU 0 C3 C3 0 =? > •a ■<^ M •>■ H- 53- P 0 3 ^-s t^ cn 0 «— » •=1 ?3 0 Fl ■ H 0 g 0 a g PI 2: a F3 0 1 1 ?i > c= ». JO p: en 2: 0 en M 1 t — > K ^^ JO S3 cn "">. C en ►^a 10 JCJ 1-4 2: t3 1 2: n ?3 1*3 0 2: en t^ •-3 2 IC=3 Jfr: >oil \x=: > ►=: F3 173 r- ir=3 n — 1 12: > > n 1 10 2: 2: 0 1 ir=: a a s: I I. hi f^ 1 I 2: a r* I 1 d > M »-t H > 1 1 0 w 2: J 3: en 0 1 i 1 n ! O »-r» >• fJ-O 3 rr rj P C H* P O Vi h^ O r* 3 O e-b a P^ O H- rr p 3 O ^' o < C »< H- H- to r-. C < (O P^ o 5 rr CU P ^ 3 rr a ca O O en M 3 rr P r: Sd 3 t=l P 0 J-« ?a c: »-« w g X rt rr 2: ta H rt 3 P »- ^ A rt en rs X ra o '^ p o 3 o ■ — ^ H-' a •-J H- o C3 "^ 2 3 p. Q 3 3 rJ O O P . P Q I-" O rr; cc c i • o c 3 n 3 • o " ^ E 2 03 a X • a o U1 (^ 2 CD - r f^ 2 2 r* N» 2 2 3 » 3 a n 3 • V 71 ■J a 3 a •A o o ^ »j s o -J • <« '>J _j 3 ,j O OD *• 2 2 2 0) o 3 ft = i ' i ~ i 3 m a a 3 •< a" - 2 a 3 a '•3 •«1 o 3 s> a jfe . • -J *. , o -o % -J — ^ 2 Projocled Maaaporii Employee Profile 1/1/79 2 ::Si 2 • 2 •:- 1 -•"■* 2 • 2 — ?~i n 3 n .3 •;- % "a n ■ 3 a o o *- 3 0 : fl| i ( H 1 M O 1 3 -C 1 rt 1 1 (0 CO ►1 •a <-t n ft o o o • 1-4 CO H i-t O z CO c < rolo ra ra n H pa zr|ra cn rt > »-^ 3 O O n > 09 T3 O rr •X 3 o o o o NJ II I D i-t» Kj >- r- f o ^- M "^ P3 O ^J CO >rj ca li •-i I I M CD n N> I I ■!'!■ I I i I I \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I. 1 • K^ VO U) I I 1-n I I 03 fO o > f w #. CO c 3 s n s rr ►»3 ra ra 3 D 3 ' n Q I'l [^ H ra .Tj =. 3 - P =? - : 15 lis g "« o 3 P3 > 2 2 ij a D P3 I I I I I rr ro 3 U 3 O ro jo o o o > •-3 M O o J 1 ^ I Ui N N. 1— — I CO N» —J :i I I i: I I ! I JM ■ I ! ' ' I i 1-1 * • ill o- I It t : i . 'I ! i I j I I I" I I ! 03 - I I 'I 'I '! en I c 1 I I 11 3 3 3 I 3 H Mi' ■I M >! M > I I I I I NJ I t I < ■I- 2 3 tl • w s o 3 1 > c- 2 t=J I CI I V I> ►a ta n TT H- 3 0? O D ►1 D>. 03 n o ft) r| O O 3 CO •. 0 5 O )-1 ■ w " n o c 3 . 3 3 g s 3: »-J . O- p ^11.1^ 1-^ • 3 rr. • • 01 o CO c ■a ro < H- cn o >-i CO >■ > C- D 3 3 rs •I >-3 33 O n rr — 1. O 3 v: 3 fv o D rr C9 C3 C M •-« o en c CO c ■a fO e > 3. P3 >J3 c -3 "I O 3 P3 O fB u 3 3: fix r> o o o o <>^ vo o • u ^ ro V-n 03 I— I cx o r^> I' * o Cl 3: 3 o is H i-r» 'a > ^ o J. w M O CO f::^ > till i I I >- I 2 3 > v.\ () i n o rr O ^ :^ I) 2: o a o 01 3 3 re 3. rr I c: CO ra |o M Q 3 H r> o O |rr 3 CO c ■3 to 3 o > 3 b 0) rr O w i-n fo i-tj o u (T) 3 00 (D 3 ra 3 O o n o ^ a> o C» 1^ 0 2 na > r- r-- o « O CO >=J I I I I I t w >-■ I ►— I KJl 3 > r , .1, II I v*> 3* Xi 3 H n €1 i •I) II tn ^ o n W •rr 3^ — 00 H H >-3 H 1-3 en > 3 u h- ra H* 1-' O 0 < /^ 0 0 o 0 0 f3 CD P i-n 73 3 ro ro rr rr "< 1-^ M M 1-' H' 1— 0 m 3 D • o o 3: 0 0 • 1-' H" H^ >-' J-' )-' "-I S rr ?3 P .-r • rr rr fO »-i »-| M 0 CJ • 1-^ (73 "< ^ • M I-' M fD 0 r" CO 0 0 rr 3 01 0 u H- ■a K M ^ Q. P t-t C3 f-n »-r, £U D rr 7=r n C3 J H- •^. O ra -2 ^ C 3 • rr <-n r-n •-1 73 0 O H- 3 O )-^ i-« c C H- r" rr * M- H- ^ ra S ;j 3 rr f-* D H- H- 3 p • n 0 H a p t-i -i rr • ra 3 •3 3 • cr Q ra > ra 1-^ 3 0 1^ • 3 • • 0 n r* 3 n D cr H- •^ 03 0 ■-t rr 73 H- ^^ •^ o 3 ?3 ■3 n •■^ ,.— \ <* ro 3 a Q rt Q 0 ra 1 ha "^ 3 rr <^ (0 -3 TD 1-1 • P3 ra 0 • O o ^Jo rj OD Lnoo C3 o 1-3 M O o is »-2 l-n »3 > t- C — O 03 w o CO »=3 I I II I r>^ ro I I ux I 03 o 3 I > tv) (>a g 5" ^=1 > r 4 f'l I 4 ) o 2: I) I I o a — C-, olcrt o 2: ■a re < W K- /^ 1— ' &> . CO 3 '^ 3 a. H- ro 3 • • • H- ra J-- ^1 Ci rr • J-- ?r 7? > s m O re re 'ji u ii •-t n a. H i-l crj 1-^ c £1 '^ rr 3 H- C t- ■c • rr ■o t-^ o H- • O • ■a cr M o ►J* o re (T • •^ re re >-( • ro ri n 3 C3 3" • u rr CO 3 O 3 1 "1 ^ o est o > O O N) I V*J u> ta a t-3 M O O S v-J >-a ►C > o ~^n o -J 09 h^ 03 - i I 111T c^ ^ *1 ti^ - S :2 o I 1: > I I ,.|. I I Ifj o I w I f;l 'M in ! f 1 <1 I! •& ■S n (0 3 I • c w Q P D 3 O M X n > o Q. C 3 rr 3 < H- m " CB -^^ rr »-( rr H- O 3 fc— « «-j Crt ■^ a: n S n 00 on CO > cn .•^ f3 ro H- tl a ca o ra (T) 03 ro X H n r> 3 CO ■3 ►^ '-1 -^ H- n o O CO d o re u ^ ^ D 3- H- H- • H- ra -< ^ -< rr >-^«-^ o ri • • 3 H- rr 3 - 3 f-n • • « • •-t ^^ c rr r> 3 3 SJ 3 - ♦ H rr o cs > 1-^ X3 H' 3 CS 3 x^ > ^ M H- 1 o rr fJ C O 63 CO o re «i H* O M r-^ C H- C re l-a o re - o 3 M- 3 C9 3 Q. o CD i-n > 3 ?3 D rr ^ >- c a. H 3: . C3 fO 3 -d H- > rr H a re H I-* I-' -a n 1-' 3 3 H- - ■-{ H- <-t re •-t '^ • ra CJ CT 3 3 Q 3 n r* 03 3 »-"» C3 - r rr • *w rr •-3 3 0^^ 1 CO 1 O 1 '"^ 1-' H- 10 ^ » i-r 1 O & 3 1-^ • 3 n ca • . o o > O o CD W >-? o z o *— * TJ H c^ o c- > vO »-;> o r* «j — m «a» 1 Fl -~l CO O as -Tj . !, - H -J ■ I - fo -►— - ui |. ■ I >— . ro 3 2 • 3 > P3 I I . \J\ U> UT 3 3 O 3 > » "i) m (0 o o 3 3 o 3 ■O O o (» m B :3 lw en r- > Mi> >!n en en ►T- tJ C3 J(J o o <£ n cr C3 ^ re re r re H^ r> ,-3 Ji > rr 12 o 'J o re n • o 3 rr 3 p- re n • >-• • »-n|i-l o t-n 3 O »-ri o » > > Crt > re 1 w > « 3 H- rr o u CO rr rr rr rr O ■< re o > CO CL 3 I?" n • .-n 3 -1 c 3 O '^^ ^ re n • O »t3 »~^ ^ o n re =1 O » rr o o CO •a 11 H O c c 1 o fn ">^ — ■ >-( 3 3 ; r? 3 n 3 CO J5 C3 3 rd re re 1-1 P T ^ ^\ h- t re 1 1 I— P3 n t-i -y tn H H s: s: O c- re o 3 re re re re o o i-n H- o ■3 < en re I-" (-' »-{ >-( »-h CT re '^ re 3] • re re o- a. H- "-( T3 3 • ■a ■a r» CJ rr O rr ^^ t=j 3- 3- ^3 *^ re ■I P- >-' O O O O 1 (-! H- O re -I o 3 3 O O sr ta 3 "-i ^ 3 re re O re CJ 3 M- r» 3 • • 3 CO O o o O rr O T3 XJ o CO D3 3 n re re ^J c: re rr I-' •t n re ^3 >-< >~i re u • i-t re O 1-1 rr P n t-" ?r O en c rr O O ■a 1 •t M Q 1^ .^ 1 • 1 hO N3 VO Ul C-C o O o P '-^ ^c > o w n o I CD en ►::3 I ! J t 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■•1 1 t— >— t— 1 ■I ■ i I III .|. 1 I t _ ro i I t I , u» 1 ..iill «^ -co 3 • 3 3 > f PI 3 P- S •35 f • * I < li I I I J L I I I r > I » t I 2 3 Q» 3: 3 W > PI. m. 0 d f ii r^ ^ir ■'-*■;■ =3 '^! I" n In >-. fe •-' (^ u- Q O f3 n Q O O r. o n OJ I t^ o io> , 1 i 1 1 , 1 1 1 I. i ;> !> 1 1 1. 1 1 •1 ' i. 1 1! ill ! ! 1 I i 1 J j 1 J 1 1 »— ■ 1 I H- »— ' 1— • •~ •"■ 1 t ro t— >-^ CSJ ►— H— I I I I 1 •-II O^ tM I I I I u> » • c, I I il i\\ i} O 11^ O iP* ca us n 3 3 rCI O ^ n 1 = o ■1-5- r "-3 i^.t ("3 r-r T^ i:i w *-j i '^ rvj T] '^ -c 3: 'T- 0 ns H 0 0 0 CO CO -y "-a > K- t-" {'-' 3 H- H- —- ^ 0 t-' H- ro C c ra Q > 0 frt 3 C fj ra D- f-t --I > H- 0 re ra 3 0 Oi 0 0 i-t i-\ fn rr n n 0 0 n 1-1 3 3- ■-i ■-t >-( ■-I •-» H- rr rr • rr rr 0 =1 Z3 !-:» rr :s •^ H- CI. CL rr '7 •t r-; 1— ' 0 0 • 3 ~-^ n 3 > r^l> H- •> *— M-iM- 0 3 ^ C^ 1-^ c: }-• Ci ►^ =1 M rr Q i '-; 0 fj U -^^ rz n rr ra M 0 a. Q (n 0 l< ir H- in 1 3: o r^ 1-1 l-I 3 H- ^ ■ 3 :» •> ^o ro ra -> )— ' ^ 0 ra > M ^ • 1 ^ ^ ^ CO 0 H- H- ■a 3 3 U rr 0 rr ~P3 rr ra Ca W c» >-» in 1 11 0 ^ '^ i-i 3 CO )-^ T rr ^ U rr 3 > M rr ~^ ^ • y^ •7» rr >-f rr rj rr :j n 0 0 p) > H- • K 3 »-( 3 'i -> L3 0 rr • ; 1 • n o H rr O O o ro I i cr^ I I CD CO cn H H O o 2; >^ »-a f5 > o . >< =s=- •-"no ^«» c/3 >=; -J 00 I I I , t I I ! ' ! I- Hi] UJ I u> •— I ^ Cv • • 1 1 1 1 Cv 1 r 1 00 o 2 o I J|i r j s 1 1 • t 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 ' ' ' 1 1 t ' 1 f ' 1 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 p ^ 1 C=1 • % ■ 2 J 0 > 1 1 1 1 1 > 1 , 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^ 1 t- 1— • 1 1 t 1 . ^ 3 k tr" ■ H 1 j 1-*- ^ 1 i 1 1 3 ) i I i\ n pa rr :h rn o t=f > -^ h3 r; 1— ' H- c O H^ "d o 1— ■ y i-( re n M 1-^ ra r1 • H- 3 y w 3 * o cn ' D 3 c ^ > - ■3 O H- re 01 l-- O. o l-t ^ tt • hj /-* rr 1-* re CD ■ •-1 1-1 0 3 o O O Ct> o §S j-n ►Ti > rr •-< =;. ;^ « •=> CO iO ^=1 3 2: o p I > r S !-•- 3 o 3 I ?: > f1 c> Section VI Equal Economic Opportunities Eb< nfff as an rch i JO in trf DS ec ne id tc le i Providing Equal Economic Opportunity '^ It is the policy of the Massachusetts Port Authority to increase the level and .ality of participation by minorities and women in its economic opportunities. This 11 be achieved by using relevant equal opportunity and affirmative action guidelines ,d provisions established for state agencies by the federal government, the )mmonwealth of Massachusetts, and the Authority as they are presently in force as may from time to time be promulgated or amended. The Authority requires an enforceable provision of contract or lease, equivalent affirmative action ograms of its contractors and lessees and as a condition of bid or sale in irchasing goods and services. Lessees and Concessionaires The goal for 1978 is to identify minority investors and operators for no less than ajor concessions at Logan Airport. The Authority will continue to make substantial firmative action efforts to contact and encourage qualified minority and female itrepreneurs to compete for leases and concessions and will grant at least equal msideration with other contractors. The target goal is a minimvim of 20 percent of e overall dollar volioxne of the Authority's leases and concessions. Ho'wever, since »ne of the Authority's major tenants, the airlines and auto rental agencies are 50 percent xnale or minority-owned, a larger percentage of the non-airline and non-auto rental isiness shall be set aside for negotiated contracts with minority and female owned operated businesses. Interim determinations of this proportion will be based on a dy of what proportion of the Authority's dollar volume is made up of non-airline, or ito rental business, and lease and concession availability. The lessees and jncessionaires and the Authority's major long-term tenants are encouraged to adopt jnilar programs. Goods &c Services A substantial proportion of Massport's contracts and purchase orders for goods ad services will be let to minority and female contractors. The goal is a minimum of 0% of the dollar volvune of contracts and purchase orders for goods and services. This roportion excludes the cost of services and goods such as utilities, telephone, tevedoring services, etc., where no identifiable minority or female capabilities sist at present. ) VI-I itll* es: th: tti lit i IS Goods li Services (cont'd). The Authority's purchasing staff, with the assistance of the Equal Opportunity kasing Specialist hired 10/77, has identified those categories of 'goods and services ch we are aware of minority or female capabilities. As a result of this process the trity's goal for 1978 is $354, 000, As new capabilities are identified, they are added r bidding lists and this information is forwarded to the appropriate staff members. In an effort to maximize the participation of minority and female firms in our lasing activities the staff has been utilizing the following types of procedures: 1. - selective set-asides for minority bidders 2. - direct negotiation 3. - joint ventures between minority and non-minority firms As part of its effort to increase and stay abreast of development in the minority less sector, the Authority has become a member of the New England Minority basing Council, Activities in the Council include the attendance of the Equal rtunity Purchasing Specialist and appropriate staff members, at minority sitions, minority matchmaker programs, and periodic seminars. The Equal rtunity Purchasing Specialist and other staff involved in purchasing will utilize minority business data and listings of the New England Minority Purchasing cil to supplement Massport's listings and data. I» ) The Authority will continue to utilize local and regional minority technical assistanc ps a.3 additional sources of information and identification of minority business capabilitii techi-ical assistance groups include, but are not limited to: 1. - Small Business Development Corporation 15 Court Street Boston, Mass. 02119 2. - State Office of Minority Business Assistance Executive Office of Communities &t Development 100 Cambridge Street - 13th floor Boston, Mass. 02202 3. - Office of Minority Business Enterprise Regional Office, , ; 441 Stuart Street - 10th floor -* Boston,- Mass. 02116 t 4. - Nelson Peters & Associates ; 89 Broad Street ? Boston, Mass, r 5. - Lew^is H. Latirner Foundation 133 Mt. Auburn Street Cambridge, Mass. 02138 < Al In addition, language has been developed by the Compliance Office which ||.ill be used as a condition of bid or sale in which the bidder or vendor must. 1 - Attest to a non-discriminatory employment policy at all job levels and files a breakdown of its employees by race and sex at all job levels This profile must meet the standards of the affirmative action policy set forth by the Massachusetts Port Authority and _ ^ renect the percentages recommended by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination for female and minority employment for Massachusetts cities and towns. The applicable percentages wall depend on the location (s) of the vendor's place of business. These standards will become a routine part of the specifications for every contract or purchase order for goods and services. If the vendor's profile does not meet the standards set forth by the Authority's AffirmltrvrAcdon Program and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discnmma^on the vendor or bidder must: 2 - Submit to the Authority an affirmative action plan which meets the standards set forth by the Massachusetts Port Authority, consistent with the minimum minority and female percentages applied by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination for ^^e city of fc Boston and other cities and towns of the Commonwealth. Tlie bidder • or vendor must demonstrate that every possible measure has been and shall be made to eUminate any discriminatory barriers m t™s and conditions of employment on the grounds of race. -^°^' fj^^f °"' creed, national origin, age or sex and to eliminate and --^f ^ ^^^ effects of such discrimination in the past. Such affirmative achon shall entail positive and aggressive measures to ensure equal :p;orLity L hiring and all other terms and conditions of employment. Bidders and vendors will be notified that their performance under this condition of bid or sale will receive major consideration m Massport s selection of vendor or contractor. C. Construction Contracts As required by Administrative Bulletin 75-14. every construction "ntract VI-3 T _tini i; •I (I The Authority has a goal of not less than 20% ratio of minority employee ;rson-hours to total person-hours in each job category based on the percentage ^minority residents in the population of the City of Boston plus the neighboring ^acted communities of Chelsea, Revere and Winthrop. However, the minority tilization requirement is 10% in conformance with the Commonwealth's formula. The Authority is maintaining a list of qualified minority and female contractors, /ith constant updating. Efforts to assure the involvement of minority and female ontractors consists of clauses in selected contracts which require minority/female ontractor participation. Such clauses require a minimum standard for minority nd/or female contracting involvement. The identification of the specific contracting ,nd sub-contracting opportunities will be consistent with the capabilities and levels of ompetence of the female and minority contractors available to the Authority through ts contacts and direct experience. In March of 1978, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued DOT Order To. 4000. 7A concerning the effective implementation and enforcement of minority )usiness enterprise programs. As part of our efforts to implement equal opportunity .nd affirmative action policies that will be compatible with this order, the Authority s establishing an advisory committee to assist in the development of contracting ;oals, procedures, and appropriate contract language. The Committee will be composed if Massport staff as well as representatives from public and private organizations and .gencies at the Federal, State and Local level. » i> VI -4 i m / ' / <» EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION STATE -^.ND LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORAAATlON (EEO-4) EXCLUDE SCHOOL SYSTE^-.S AND EDUCATiOMAL irJS 1 1 T'jTiONS (Retul olttitlied ifislruClions jirior to f ijni) ilelnuj 1I1.4 lofiiw -"•'W.I- c r f'-i':S I? 31 .'a V. y .7 C( A ^ X r i ! T ». . I I ] / .- / ? 7 * : ; 1 - . _ - 1_ :; .'. '■ \. i T . -TV - IJTt K :- -'..L/r •■•: 1 ■> •" ;• 1 i .' I- : A. TYPE OF GOVERN/v'iENT (Check one box only) D 1. Srciie □ 2. Couii'Y 0 3. C "•/ r I 4. To-.vi\s; vp Q 5. b|)fCiol d>»ir.ct X] 6. Other (S|)eciJy; Political S-ub-Division B. iDENTlFlCATiON NA//£ OF POLITICAL JU!*n* cover* J by iKe function indicated. It you cor.nor ;up^!/ tne io»o for r^tP/ ojency **.rSi.-. the fvndiso, please attoch o tisf shr-^-ing nonne en J oddrei> of ogenciek vwhotecctocrenotinciuced] I /INANCImL AOMINiSTSAlHDN. 1u« 0»>rtkMi^ 1b« bUJ.ntj end ib***vifloil«r'i uMM.r and ^\Of% 01 tOrT'.tf\t\\„i*iwt\. ;c«>iri>l uO'i>«*it^irsf>*C cJ>*cek Of^bl u^r*4.ci o«*d T hOjSiv^v C^y* tn'ott ^'t'^i.i lo^ »r«M i^vbiic f.o*y»»^-^ 1*/^ Old b/uljrt .nei*ottj:% ond kol^o(or>unt1 ih&v'd b« rri>or'«d Of irv/ft 7) hw<.k«« pMtwri ;.u/c r e»/xJ p'ctwi*^* 3Ct.*»»i»i. k Cwntiot'ie'i coroner's oM^r. etc.. inci;jO>'«9 terKAt4ot und c'-fKul 1 3 UTiliTlCS *=■.•. L» Trf-iNSPQKiA MOM If^l-dei wo-r* wopl/. t'e< I'h: pc^c iroi.f-i. <^v*. o«/pO't\ ^-^ir^ tfun\p.viLi*Min unj lef^'-noit 13. SANirAliO-"* -J.'O Stv--Cf Srrr** cleonu*9 gu'bo^f o^J ttl^\t coJle:f>on oAO J \;.Ok^l Pro'ts>oo. n.oi'Menurtcfl- o'.d Dor'o^oA of M>"«io'", CM- 3 .*-■"». \» .-ef I />'*'♦•» cnO ie*e9« dtsp?»ot pio^iri. ICTLCn. »/(>\joltwn d«< e o*mJ ci*-«u**c^ n.c>f»AOa /OC, etc 14 £.V.FlOT.VlM StCUftllT It 0»rnt« ,^,r^.-J/ .... f-uv- ^*^" VI- 5 (I- (') 1 fUll U:.\z E/.'. 'lOY£;S I'tnijior Ct'. •-■Oip' 0, tc^ I'd M.ct-.t!ctl, 1 % • /.;;.-iu-M { 1.. II... ^....1. 1 3k IM.-^ TOTAL A MALE G KE/.'.AIE \ ^ ■ 11'; -.v. 1' 0 C« 1 ..j-i. rtriMC 1 E ! f 1 J r.-...;'i c« r. u .M.Iti B 1 c \:: I 1 > >) 1 3 ■; 1 1 1 r 1 .1 i i ] ^ ^^--f J 0 J * ( t 1 ■'■•.i:-:?: 3 6 0 .•• V 1 1 1 1 4 SOW 1 1 1 1 5 100 IV 0 1 1 1 ■^P^ 6 1 3 0 n •' 1 0 0 1 0 0 i 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 7 l6 0yJ9 16 15 1 i 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 23 0CIUS 29 25 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 in * 0 139 1 1 10 JO 50 1 1 1 ■ 1 II 60/9 • 1 ; .•• s 0 •' 9 1 1 0 ■ 0 0 i 0 i ! 1 ij 10 J ::•- 10 7 1 0 1 f 1 0 '7 i 1 0 0 0 •• H 14 1 3 (' 1 5 9 11 11 1 0 0 1 0 0 T 0 0 \ '^^ 15 i60?49 47 37 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 16 75 0FIUS 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 139 1 1 It) 40 59 1 1 1 1 1 l7 6079 1 1 .'(! SOW 2 2 0 r 0 0 ' 0 0 ; b"! 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 79 10 0 17 9 42 39 2 0- 0 i 0 0 0 10 » 13 0 15 9 30 15 30 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 ^ ; ^ 31 160749 15"] 0 0 ~ 0 0 ! 0 0 0 1 0 r 37 75 0 Plus 1 1 1 ^=r-^ — I—' 33 C 1 39 ! t '•-iJ-.-P-' 34 4.0 5 9 j 3^ 60-79 i 1 36 .3099 6 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 37 100179 9 7 0 0 0 i 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 L ■ -r--. --■;•: 34 I30I59 1 1 0 0 0 i 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 ^•*^??^ 39 16 0 74 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 I o~1 0 0 0 - .,-i^ *0 75 0 Pius • 1 c iA-i I 0 13'/ 1 i i? 4 0 59 "Ts" 27 i _..„..._ 3 1 43 60 7V 3 0 0 0 ! 0 0 ; 0 ■" 1' '0 0" 0 1 1 1 0 44 6 0 9'; 1 0 0 0 25 1 0 OJ 0 ■z 45 100 179 30 3 8 2 0 20 1 1 i ""■'1 "o-i 0 0 1 0 4t 130 159 0 0 0 U 1 u 47 16 0 74 9 ■ 1 1 i M-T- , .o t -.^ .> Otlt^ ■ - _-_ 1 1 r 4 I . r ;- 1 r. 1 u' i: ,T. TT .1 :^ Or m ST^.PiOYt^^W^ DATA AS OF JUNE 30 .Con,.l (Do no, induce e.oCed/cppoin.cJ o(licia..._Biu..^^- ^' !..^oun..c^-_- . .i 1 I U I '-1 lit»c3 ■^-^*) o_l 80 [__io_ L.A.-Li-L- °- 2. OTHER THAN FUU l.WE [MHlOYEES -...Cudc ...... ...or, ....,>l-,— r3 I I S3£a I I -■ SVI « illfiC besi 8. {\ tion ' Wr. 1 r.1 OF f:1 l» • / . ■ .T: ■ C^'l 5 i_TJ^ L^IL" .---" 'sTliTt'N'i^oTKTl CfTyv.e InfornK.lion CeiUt-r (NCiC) nu-nbcrs cssicjnicl to ony Crim.r.o! Justice Acje-cles vhos- clc-ic are included in ihii report.) The Massachusetts Port Authority v/as created as a political sub-division of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts t° P;'°;';^^^ fo'the issuance of revenue bonds payable solely from tolls and other revenues for the refinancing operation, im.provement and development of the Tobin-Memorial Bridge, Logan International Airport, L. G. Hanscom Field and the Port of Boston. TncllTde list of agencies in function 15 .esr of .V .now,ed,e end -s reporte ^ ^ ^ .^^^e ^ l-w, U-s'- Cocle^i..e 13. is. (Wilfully false statements on thi^ repori cue i tJon 1001.) fcRSON 70 CONTACT REGASDING THJS fOSW James V/. Sullivan ,i U'wr.oer ond Sireei. C.i,-. Sioifc. Z.p Code) 99 High Street, Boston, MA 02110 liT.lE Director of Personnel IcLE^O*:: nu-V be ^ iStA CCO£ (617) 482-2930 z\ i II '•■i EXHIBIT IV-3 Rehabilitation of the Boston Fish Pier is given priority by planning units at all levels of state and local government. This project is not only included in the Boston Plan and the Overall Economic Development Plan for Boston, it is also included in the Metropolitan Area Planning Council's Overall Economic Development Plan and supported by the Massachusetts Office of State Planning. The portions of these reports that deal with the fishing industry and Boston Fish Pier rehabilitation are attached in this section. i i I EXHIBIT SB Rehabilitation of the Boston Fish Pier is given priority by planning units at all levels of state and local government. This project is not only included in the Boston Plan and the Overall Economic Development Plan for Boston, it is also included in the Metropolitan Area Planning Council's Overall Economic Development Plan and supported by the Massachusetts Office of State Planning. The portions of these reports that deal with the fishing industry and Boston Fish Pier rehabilitation are attached in this section. I i Ci c II ^VlVlHS,i,j. EVIN H. WHITE Mayor CITY OF BOSTON OFFICE OF FEDERAL RELATIONS ONE CITY HALL SQUARE BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02201 JOHN e. DREW Director 725-4224 Szptzmbz^ 19, 1977 Vzcd'itmznt 0 {;. Conm e^tce Ecc'fiD'n^c VzvzZoprrZriJt f majon. zconomZc ptanYi^yiQ docj-mznt, Thz Bet ten Plan, I u}ou.ld JLJ.kz to zxtZYid my Mhotz- /iCJ-'tted 6u.pp0'it zo f'Axi)i>poit' & appJU-ccLt-Lon ^oa. TZttz I ijand-cng to f'.znovatz thz ZOitorv T'i&h V^ZK. Tkz Boston Vlan 'tzp^i.z-6 znt6 thz mo4>t tko^oagk and comp'iznzn6x.\.>z z JintzQn.citz atl c ZiiC'it^ and rzd doctimznt. Tkz Bolton ^4 an 'in pZannA.ng; thz n. majofi i>tzp toica ciififizntty pKovi. A.S zxpzctzd to toi'J-^kZZlzd and J'^TiZi on thz pan.t oi thz CZty 0^ Bo4>ton to CO i ton' 6 phyi>Jizal and zconom-ic planni.nQ ■laZ iZnancZaZ a4)6Z6tancz Znto cnz zxhau.iit^\JZ Z'J -Lt^ZZzatZo n 0^ thz ^Z.6h^ng Znduit^y ^n tzgf.aZ pafit ol oun. watz^^^xont AzdzvzZopmznt znovatZon oi thz Boi^ton ¥Z4>h PZza. Z6 thz ^Z^6t 'Xd th-i6 goal. Thz $100 mZZZZon ^L&hA.ng Zndu^t^y dzi> zmpZoymznt ion. 1300 bZaz-coZZaA. Mon.kzA.6, and C'Xzatz an addZtZonaZ 10 00 iob6 ptiZmaftZZy ion.' mZnon.A.ty iA}OA.kzn.s icZtkZn thz nzxt dzzadz. Boston aZso ha6 thz potznt^aZ ioK hzcomZng thz pfiZnzZpZz ^A-i^h p/toce44-cng czntzn. {^01 Hziv EngZand duz to A,t6 ZocatZon wZthZn thz KzglonaZ t'Xan.&pon.tatZon nztioon.k. Thz fizczntZy pa44ed ZOO-mZZz ^Z6hZng Z^mZt -16 zxpzctzd to dotxbZz ^Z^h catchZng wZthZn thz nzxt Boiton can captixA-z thZ.4^ Zncn.za6zd actZvZty , and thz a.z- bu.i>Z.nz66 Zn\fZ6tmznt Zn iJ^^h pA.ocz66Zng, ivhoZzi>aZZng and Zndii6tn.Zz4> , u)Zth pn.opzfi {^acZZZtZz& at an zxpandzd TZ&h dzcadz. ■iiuZtZng fizZatzd VZzn.. Thz fizno\jatZon oi thz ¥Z6h VZzK Zi, a 6ZgnZ^Zcant 6tzp tou}aA.d n.z\J ZtaZZzZng Boiton^ 6 zconomy, Job ba6z, and ZmpoA.tancz to thz Wew EngZand fizgZon. Thz EconomZc VzvzZopmznt AdmZnZ^^tn.at-ic^ wZZZ bz makZng a majofi contfiZbmtZon to both Bo&ton and thz New Engta) fizgZon thn.oagh thz ^undZng 0^ thZi pn.ojzct. SZnczfizZy uohn E. wn.zM MA i) 1 f* Fish Pier Rahabilitation I IV-39 c 19 '* 5. Rahabilitation of the Frsh Pier The Boston Fish Pier is the center of all fishing trans- actions for the Boston metropolitan area. Fish are sold in the New England Fish Exchange on the pier and filleted or frozen by processors located on the pier or on Northern Avenue. The Fish Piar was constructed in 1912 by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It was operated privately by the Boston Fish Market Corporation until 1372 when Massport took over its operation. During the last 30 years the condition of the pier and the Iccal fisr.ing industry have declined. In 1955 there were 53 fis^-ing vasseis operating from the Fish Pier; now there are 15. Nsvertheless the coming of the 200 mile limit and new financial i-itarast in modern fishing boat acquisition has produced new ^opa for the revitalization of the fishing in- dustry. Tr.e 1300 jobs currently at the pier can be stablized and new jess created. The renewal of the Fishing Fleet would rair.fc.-ca ship repair activity at the nearby industrial park anc C5_ld in time generate new demand for refrigerated container sctlvlf/. Soecific -'•z'-^zz This r— prsal calls for reinvestment of 10-12 million in the putiiciy :v»nad Fish Piar (3.4 to 10.5 m EDA, 3.S to 4.5 m rflassport). Recent studies of the pier have indicated serious p.-ob;arr,s with the structu.-^l integrity of the pier, the utility systSi-n, structures, and a need for new and more efficient leading facilities. First phase rehabilitation will Include: - Rehabilitation of buildings 1 and 2 for use by fish dealers and processors. The third floor of these buildings will be renovated for other compatible rent-producing uses, either residential or office space; - Rehabilitation of building 3 for compatible income produce uses; - Rehabilitation of the power plant building to house centraf freezer cold storage, and heating facflities". ~ It is also proposed that a new fish unloading and auction facility be located here and that it would be an appropriate relocation site for an enlarged ice plant. These facilities are badly needed for growth of the pier's operations as well as for reasons of sanitation and efficiency. IV-40 « * - Rehabilitation of tha pier Itself is proposed and would include resurfacing tha apron and ragrading and paving the central street. The traffic and loading patterns would be revised to eliminate tha present problems of congestion. This rehabilitation would be phased to allow minimum disruption o-f pier operations. A ssccnd major component of this project would involve credit assistance for the Fishing Fleet. A new trawler now casts an average of $1.S million and most of the existing Fleet is over iO y^ars old. As an undercapitalized high risk indus- try the r'sr\.-~ Fleet has been chronically unable to renew itssi' c-a '.; '-ability to gat credit. This proposal calls for a Federaily funded loan guarantaa program to assist fisherman. Working wit.-i local banks and the proposed guarantee program, the Cit'/ :' roston will offer technical assistance to fishermen to gain '^r.sr.cing for new fishing boats. Timf.-- Tlre "s'n ?:ar upgrading and loan guarantee program zs~it Zic':~ 3S early as 1973. Preliminary enaineerrnq .^w''< 3": cr/^-onmantei ciaa.-ance is already complete. Tha entire ' -:: r-iss pisr upcrsding could be accomplished within 2 years ..-v-rStT;-!-. in the F'sh Pier and the Fishing Fleet will nave a r.ajir effect on a major New England industry. Fish prccessir.g wr.ich traditionally employs a resident blue collar, 3ftan mi-orir/, labor force will be stabilized in Boston v/ith a potential 'zr adding 1000 new jobs to the present baseof 1300. Scstsr. has the potential for becoming the principle fish processing center for New England due to its location ■.vithin the ragional transportation network. With the growth of the industry because of the 200 mile limit, fishing could double its level of activity within the next decade. IV-41 is 5 ? 1 *,<& •s- * * 2 ■i 7 ■& •1 m % % ^ 12 3 2 7 ^ S % !•& •s-i-j •& s ! I 1 • 1 1 7 s \» ? ! Iff S 7 i 1 1 1 i i 1 >?i 1 1 1 3 1 1 ! i 1 1 S 1' at 71 1~ X 1 's'si' i ' 1 , ' 1 i ' i Is ix X ' L k 1 ! 1 1 ' 1 • : 1 ^ 1 ;■*; 1 : 1 1 1 1 f ''III •f' ! ! i 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 If 1 f f f 'i ' 1 !■ 1 1 1 I 1 ^ ssss; 1 ■ ,• ( ' 1." 1 =ri ill ^i S 1 ! s s siis s e e IS* fM 1 1 i2;5 S s 1 »-'P 1 !i i 1- ;- ••4- ! ' 1 SPi § § i ,.1 kk ^ - 1 t ?si % if! i t i 1 i 1 : ' (_. i •* ^ ^ 9 e 5 § i n 55 m t 1 » ; ■» l-v r 1 i 1 1 « ^ n i § § K 3 3 1 il • IZ Is ;- '■t^ :? ji 3 1 1 i 7- 3 i ii 2 1 8 o 1 • S 9 •- t o § s i 8 • § ? ? 15 «i* s • 8 • 8 § § ' - u ii 1 §s3 1 * s " ^ ;l § § § _i § § § § § ii § § § § i § e J vi 3 9 3 S S '3 s 3 S K 3 IT • ' s • v%^ 2M ^ r s IfBI 1 5 " • •t 8 ■** S ^* 8 8 a S 3 s-s , ^ ' ^77 ss 1 (• 1; 7 -^ |f ■ i:- f r I f f s s S Sp .Ihi, a AS 1-5 •f i3 r »• 3 ^ 1 1 < • 8 8 s! a i It 8 3 s ? a s 1 8 M S s s S s S 8 8 ^ - — _ -- J '-1 r 1 1 's ' 1 ! 1 ' 1 1 t i 1 i ' • 1 -1 a I i i 33 m It 1 \ „ f 03 o 3 CO 33 < -5 I o» JZ3 C n on £ O 3 CJ tl) -5 O (/) ro I —• a. o -5 Q. O. fl> 3 XIX X X 3 U2 vo < fD -5 fD OS a fD Q. 3- Ol 3 fD V> fD OS o s- a. fD cn C3 c -5 CO rf O 03 O o 3 fD U) CD O 3 o 3 g s C 3 o la 2 o O H-i Ifl o « ci-! o a CD I 3 «•' -b^ ^ -^ ta 03| (D 3 |l ji a PI S CO • ^ (D a 8> I S " S ii 1 1I CO I, Mi! o :i X X ! X X * I X 00 ! ro I Ol ro i o» 33 CO ca •a o 3 O. (9 pa <9 CD •a o 3 » ■ 3 ! ci-t O I I ro ; ■ ' i ^ «/» (/I I 33 00 ^1 a ca ■ The Commonwealth of Massachusetts EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT STATS HOUSE . BOSTON 02133 MICHACL S. 0U- plecant to s-ate action to redJie the cost of doing business in Massachusetts.. The fishing ir.c'jstry is a sjod =xa,TTple now that the territorial limit has btok extended 2CC rrilss into the Atlantic. The Lieutenant Governor already heads a "230 f^ile Wrrk Grous" whici:, together with a similar group recently fundei'- fay the New Jr.cland Regicnal Cc-rrissicn, will detenrlne what steps can be ■■z.. tafren to n2x:r"!z5 the eccncni; acvar.tagas for the fishing industry- In cort- ■j" ;1th this, several state acenciss have worked closely with local offidsfj* in^ T''shsrr=n •Jr Gloucester to c.-ir:-:el state and federal funds into the con^--^ str-.iTicn cf a f'sh prccrssf-r ficility and into a revolving loan fund for-i ths u-grad-frg =-" t^ ' ' ' INDUSTRIES PRIORITY: To Encouraas the 'laxiinjn Growth of 'le*^ Jobs 1n Those Tndu5tri"n which are Best Able to Take Advantane of .Massachusetts' Eccnp. mtc Assets All of the initiatives advanced in this oroqram to constrain the costs and increase the convenience of doinq business in Massachusetts will serve to encouraae the creation of new jobs, especially in those industries that have natural qrowUi potential. State government cannot create these ne* jobs directly. Instead, it must proceed by fostenng an Imoroved general climate for operating businesses and undertakimi in- vestr^nts. More directly, the state can attract new cor- porjte headquarters and encourage the exoansion of technolo^ and natural resource-based industries, as well as the ex-_ ploitation of import-substitution opportunities, by pursuino the steps set forth below. " NEXT STEPS: A. Enact a loss carry-forward tax provision for all new and expanding companies in Fiassachusetts. 2. Imolement the Capital Formation Task Force fi- nancing nechansiras that receive Gubernatorial and legislative approval. C Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a variety of tax incentive proposals for such new grov/th potential industries as solar energy and fishina. <*a). Continue the work of the "ZOO-Kile Vork Group" '' in assessing specific ways to expand the (Massa- chusetts fishing industry. E. Improve the capacity of state government to iden- tify industrial development ooportunities and to provide information and assistance to prosoective entrepreneurs and investors, with specific re- oard to taking advantage of import-substitution opoortunities. State government will work with private sector and academic economists to iden- tii^ those products that are heavily inaorted to Massachusetts and to assess the opoortunities for local production of these products and the potential consumer savings resulting from such local production. Miost itiportant, state govern- ment will distribute this infornati on and provide follow-up assistance to those who might want to take advantage of these import-substitution op- portunities. » STATEi-lENT OF 2'JO-MILE V:ORK GROUP Fishing is the oldest industry in Massachusetts and has played a proninent .ole ia New England's history. Unfortunataly , as a result of improper nanase- eaac, aa excess of foreign fishing off the Georges Bank, and the ecployasnc. of destructive fishiag practices, the industry is nov on the brink of destruction !_/. Ia a ti=e of increasia' eec:io=is hardship, this means a loss of revenue, food, and rescurcss that JUssachusetts can ill afford. After £ great deal cf eficrt on the part of concerned legislators and interest ercu-s, Ccisr fess has raspscied ,to the crisis by enactiag the "Fishiag Conservation ar.i'jiir.irasar.t At: of 13^6" 2/ K^as'e co=i3rJ.y knswa as the 2C0 Mile Liaic) . This lecisiiticz vill affcri tsaszil states, actir.3 alone and on a regional basts, an --^irf-r.i;- ts ra:ev»r frsr the errors of the past, Co re-establish the fishing in— ;-;;—.• iS a "iabla it:r.r^i asset, and to save froa devastation the once vast, but -c-: cailatsi r-itursl rasf^rias 3f our oceass. Congress, ia passing the 200 Mile Lisit, has ia; up a frazavcr.-i for action; but there recaias much vork to be done bj- the stitij acd by privets industry before the enomoua potential for econossic ii 'l-k: . Xz iis.rrh of 157; C-avarcsr Dukakis aor.oucced thac the 200 Mile Work Group «ould " be forsac — MassacJ:-_s»;ti. Its tasks were to detemlne what aajor problecs stood ii the -z- zz ecsnc=ic ratr-ary for the Massachusetts fishing industry and to pro- pose scl-^'tircs CO thass pribians. The Work Group was for=ed by the Office of Lt. . bcvercrr Tbrras ?. O'^-sill, III. i= May, ar.d consisted of heads of various state aser.cias. rairesentativa- •:: -z^izz port cities, officials froa other coastal con— - 'Ticltiss, represaatitives z:z~ the fiaaacial ccrraaity, aad fishiag industry of- Iclals. Tha ' f-r*- -'■-- =■■ at the outset that various sub-coc=iitcces should be sat u-3 Z3 iavastigita z-i. iail vith specific problea areas, and that the Cosaittee • should it5a-f be caly terprrir-, serviag ir. aa advisory capacity to the Lt. Cover- csr's C-ffice. The s.ib-c5=iitta=s broke dc-n iato the following areas: Technical Assistaata aad Fleet ~ev»i;tasat, Markatlas, Legislative, Sesource Managenenc , Port 2evelo-a»-t, "iaaacial, aai Tuture Conflicts. These sub-cossaittaes have filed their repcrts vith the Lt. Gsveiaor's Office aad the full 200 Mile Work Croup and the repcrts >.»va baaa ccapilad and edited iato this final report by Che Executive Office cf irvirsa^aatal Aifalrs. Xx is ^.3 opiaioa of tea Work Croup that this report accurately ideatlfies the aajjr iss.:a3 and needs 01 the Massachusetts fishing industry. The Work Group hopes that this report vill serve as an iapatus to new and iaaovative proerans and policies vhich vill restore the Massachusetts fishiag iaduscry to its full potential. Project Manager's Elliot K. Friedman, Director of Property Management and Real Estate Develooment Mr. Friedman is responsible for the direction of Massport's special development projects. He was previously the Project Director for the Boston Redevelopment Authority's South Cove Urban Renewal Project, and Director of Development for the Boston University Admin istr at ion . Mr, F t" i e d m a n has exprience. He recieved from Northeastern University Pennsylvania . many years of planning and development 3 Master's Degree in Public Administration and an A.B. from the University of Robert S. Parks, Property Manager Mr. Parks is responsible for the maintenance and management of the Fish Pier area. Prior to working at Massport Mr. Parks was owner and manager of a business responsible for the sales and service of oil and gasoline equipment; he is involved in numerous community organizations and is currently President of Roxbury tenants of Harvard, Director of the Board of Mission Park Corporation, Vice President of the Consumer Advisory Council, President of Mission Hill Health Movements, member of the Area Planning Action Council Parker Hill/Fenway area, member of the Board of Directors of Parker Hill Medical Center and of the Harvard Community Health Plan. In the past he has been a Trustee of the Affiliated Hospital Center, member of the Board of the Health Planning Council of Greater Boston, Chairman of the Policy Board of the Mission Hill Outreach for the Harvard Community Health Plan and founder and member of the Mission Hill Planning Commission . Mr. Parks has had a great deal experience in entrepreneurial management and policy formation. He has a 3.3. in Business Administration from Boston College. Joseph J. Randall, Project Engineer Mr. Randall is responsible for r^eview Architectural/Engineering work for the project and xor advice to Massport 's Department of Property Management Estate Developm.ent . of the technical and Real Following Mr. Randall's graduation from college he held many positions in Civil and Architectural Engineering; beginning as an Engineer and up to President oT an Engineering Consulting firm. He has worked or. a variety of projects including bridges, commercial and industrial buildings and building modifications. His experience in the public sector includes work as a Structural Mr. Randall attended Northeastern University and has a B.S. in Civil Engineering. He is currently a Registered Professional Engineer in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maine, and is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers . David B. Weiner . Director of Engineering As Director of Engineering, Mr. construction projects in the Authority Weiner oversees all Prior to coming to the Port Authority, Mr. Weiner worked at the Boston Redevelopment Authority, for fifteen years as project engineer, assistant chief engineer, and project director. He has worked on Government Center, the Boston Waterfront, the Charlestown Navy Yard and Copley Square. Of particular note here is the waterfront project which involved the rehabilitation of existing historical buildings; the Faneuil Hall Markets, the Mercantile Wharf Building, and the piers along Atlantic Avenue. He has also worked at William A. Fisher Co. and at Edwards and Kelcey. Mr. Weiner holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Northeastern University and is a Registered Professional Engineer in Massachusetts . :-«uumMjQ3BKB n ^ 'T 'a r a I. !■■,■> < -I ~ > a r X I I p\j| * ^ its a a *i o o <-< tn n r In oiv p r ic III ri r. >iz -■ B l-l 2 Cl C m ,c -I- - > > > I- ,r r r, — -I n 2 Ui C" c 11 m ■n o c it ra p o z c -< ■o z PI z o o fU (J X S X (^ U> Ul ^ c M 01 «3 M ru u rk IB CO fl» z c z -< m o H C c - •0 m X (ft .r S E Z O o z IB u T < X X T -n > ~ — n: Z r « < -I -^ o I n >- r > fti z ui z z »• > z z o o W (/» TJ > -1 r z > - — HP) H Z a o* L»- I* c o 2 < ^ pi O -• X •• X I o» n > X Z -1 o > m c X z ■D r I o r -< -H » n ra n r I >. IT H O — tfi a z X O) c o o m z n X ni c -♦ m c n > r > z r o ■n a ffi oi-< ■ zl - 1° • n w < ■ DC 1;^ I xia 13; ■ Zl* 1 : c;z ,- I Zin r u o c c z a c -< o < Z «» O) > ' > •< r rlx > > > lo X 3 X r -< r C X IV» o » » u o o ^ > M -^ a ^ t> m V -t r > o f> o c > > -• r- m o c im T o < c m z > ■o •0 o m > a -4 ire rr 12 n 7 71 -1 O •0 3 r. -1 r > X C in -* •0 T o O £ 3> D S _i ■■>»g».ya»g -Mijtft. ,.»».»,.— . TByHiFTrsaiaaJ 4 C I T) Z > > -ia ■< - 7) 2 O z — ro {/) •B T D XI -4 (t, r 3) -, tr. I z no > r I n r I I 3i] tijiMnjoo tin li 3«i f3 I I u I I o > r -I ri" r* n » -< X- I 3 n ft > ; . o o » > I r : C C m m r r 01 N ( u a I oat o o 4 o o i • « I H c c c n ■« -4 J! r ►- ra i Bi|j; r z Tiin ro 7t -1 -D z > ei r > I r > z Z o 1) c X ■n z » •n T D a -H ^ » ^ 1 z »J -I) 0 n o M c m O n ■p l» -* > M o "n p« z 1/1 (T I z c z O T iCi c ^ (^ in ^ io a» -* r -4 « ' Ul O 4 m > ta ftt in fB D i I o » ;c a ; c c i« ^' I T — r — c.r i< -.ir r. •r vJ M II. o I O O ifc- c i L_J »-iO V I Vile fr - 'r r I io c a e li* I ic\ O IC c c z. r > |c 1 < n n- > r r T am r^ c.-a ■n fT»l re V .SI I I I I I e I lu o IF- •- kri O lO o £ I Ijl -filM 01 I I > o|o a Iff z U O fU ceo xlz Z X X C Piir niT-. -,|r tnir. riT * I" ■ oir c T 2 irt -^C — t* ir •« ic r c - "It in I :a «|rr > — ,U1 ft 3 Ti CA ir' o 1- i> c;r^ C /T^ ir T'T -,- "^ - - cl3 c. ini > ■— ric 2 13 r. 12 v\vi — ' -1 in ttr jT. Ini — 1> r. I > 2 ir •«lz •«ic/> ! I ^ o |« a I j: o .3* < i« Z'l n* X IH ni ri o rs X u m ■C 2i c > r IC C ;C O a o a c|u -4 > -^ h I > I lit I M|0 O M NIC C i v^" C »;« C|C C if ? I> g =~ l<" ^ ;i i-< c c ^ ^ m- ■ — ',~ r * K u^ ^xlc «u " jr. ) ra IC T :t U 1 > , z M 'Z Ic T !-• c -< - '* N^ l"^ O O 10* olo Ic z > l*> > r iZ in I r - IC im IJr. Ic 13 lO r wi-. D 12 zir c o X iC C :-< — IC •nir ' ni- It I r irt sin > ^ < <: > •B 0 r— '2 C C r r 1 > C 2 2 ri rt > > i> > ^ 2 r r '.*■ r jc tt > > ■> > c — I X II z r c ^ •< )■< < :P 'C a Is « > I* ™ IfB f* ^ :ro rK ira re IC ■n X IT X — r ir r tB •- ^ li^ ^ m X I ! t :x re rrt ;i » It •• ■BIX -< — l» SIC c a » lo 1 1 t 1 fU 1 a 1 -4 1 "• . 1 3 1 «« -i* O 1 ft > Ul 1 -• u & IM UIO «i— —IK (PI? » C :i C;i * u |>J o I© — * N ^4 o la 9 lo > n 'c r < c z L- ic C Ul '■re c > > - r "» a c i> rv,n n ;z -•ic >.w ■ r iC la « C n > I- n. •^ T 2 1 2 a > c c •: [A t* I P 2 -. m " 2 -5 O > r - ri> z rir ! P C|f > o o B < u » lU »'C -|u T ^ Nl o '^ t;: r |C c >> Uii3iinxc vm ti ?M '^l ! I I i I I . I ! I b \a ■ le S ' » I ll 'O n I* u lo m .■> c 'tft m ITl » ■n e n« c kI< .1 1l< IZ ^ Ul o ■- ^.• o »- <^ « u a cute ♦ -N -* im IS 'Oi t^ Iw » li^ U -,(- .-.> >l— — T T'-* Klu r « >ir; rU 2 —I— —ID cia -iT X - r I- -'•^. ui.> nc mitt r :e > do 3 i c =im '«•. riT! c ram ^ •« I (« — j tr -< I >— « I m Iff c> lu 1 1^ I K - ^ "s' I C C 1 to tr. 1 iK > I to ^' I lo c: i> in > s !C ii IX ii t^ > I I I 1 I jo too 2 » 1 -I f I 0| "^ I In ;; i |K> I ic A t« I I lU I I Iff I 1 f I > tN I ■ llu I :0 2:z ^1 z Z!2 1 ■Mi^ ; >i> rtr I I I ir» oic nire -ii r n r; r w O IN OjO M , VP I i K I -^ w ^ I. ! <•<• r.lz 2 .-• ft > r lr» ffi'-« m -i n: l> > <" n -< — t— a ,x -4 c Ct.•- — > ^ c ci re n». r r ' ffl I o|i '!!! — 1 I *JIC I u - M u IC C i« »- w u i> * a im o ir z = £ - ** - > I- t> :z X r '— B ; I- r, > 2 , 12 > r c r r > r! ■= rai ■ IS ' fsl 51 c r c r C. CIOI m > rt -< r o ! 1 I i C lUI O l> c» in niLl -" IC > It X irr nlf. ik a Mt» o •«* o t-s ff © n; I o o C C s > c i» » — ~ z o cl >■ lUflufDOC t;« It urn i EXHIBIT Il-A-8 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Item la. Has a Federal, State, or Local Environmental Impact Statement or Analysis been prepared for this project? C Yes [^Ho C Copy attached as EXHIBIT II-A-8(l)(a) b. If "No," provide the information requested in Instructions as EXHIBIT II-A-8(l)(b) [X] EXHIBIT Il-A-8(l)(h) attached Item 2. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has been provided a detailed project description and has been requested to submit comments to the appropriate EDA Regional Office. [^ Yes QH No Date description submitted to SHPO April 6. 1978 Item 3. Are any of the following land uses or environmental resources either to be affected by the proposal or located within or adjacent to the project site(s)? Check appropriate box for every item of the following checklist. YES NO UNKNOWN 1. Industrial Qg □ ^ 2. Commercial [^ QJ Q] 3. Residential □ [X] □ 4. Agricultural ... .■ CH [E] □ 5. Grazing □ |^ □ 6. Mining. Quarrying □ S CH 7. Forests □ S] □ 8. Recreational □ [^ □ 9. Transportation Q] [xH □ 10. Parks □ [^ □ 11. Hospitals □ H □ 12. Schools □ E □ 13. Open spaces □ ^ □ 14. Aquifer Recharge Area ^ \^ □ 15. Steep Slopes □ [HI □ 16. Wildlife Refuge □ [x] CZ! 17. Shoreline S □ □ 18. Beaches □ [x] □ YES NO UNKNOWN 19. Dunes □ Q 20. Estuary □ [^ 21. Wetlands Q US 22. Floodplain [x] □ 23. W\\d&mQS% (designated or proposed under the Wilderness Act) □ [^ 24. Wild or scenic river (pro- prosed or designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act) QJ [^ 25. Historical, Archeological Sites (Listed on the National Register of Historic Places or which may be eligible for listing) □ □ □ □ □ B □ 26. Critical Habitats endangered/ threatened species □ 13 □ 27. Wildlif □ C3 □ 28. Air Quality □ d CZ] 29. Solid Waste Management [X] Q Q] 30. Energy Supplies □ [23 □ Item 4. Are any facilities under your ownership, lease, or supervision to be utilized in the accomplishment of this project, either listed or under consideration for listing on the Environmental Protection Agency's List of Violating Facilities? □ Yes QNo FORM EDA-I01P (REV. tO-78) 1 USCOMM-DC 52870-P79 EXHIBIT II-A-8 Cont, INSTRUCTIONS Federal Agencies are required by law to independently assess the expected environmental impacts associated with proposed Federal actions. It is extremely important that the informa- tion provided be in sufficient detail to permit EDA to perform its evaluation. The information requested must be submitted with the preapplication. Failure to provide suffi cient data will delay agency review and a decision to formally authorize an application. This information request is designed to obtain an understand- ing of the area's present environmental condition and the pro- ject's elements that will affect the environment. Should you believe that an item does not apply to the project, consult with EDA's Economic Development Representative (EDR) before responding. In all cases when it is believed that an item is not applicable, explain the reasons for this belief. It is important to understand the comprehensive nature of the information requested. Information must be provided for a) the site(s) where the project facilities will be constructed and the surrounding areas to be affected by its operation and b) the areas affected by any primary beneficiaries of the project. The amount of detail should be commensurate with the complexity and size of the project, and the magnitude of the expected impact. Some examples: A small community center project may not require de- tailed information on air emissions, meteorological condi- tions and solid waste management. A water resource or industrial development project will require detailed information. Item la — Compare the Environmental Impact Statement or Analysis with the information requested in the instructions for Item lb below to be sure that every point is covered. Ref- erence the location of that information in the Statement for each item covered. Correct any deficiencies/omissions in the information supplied and attach to the document. Item lb — Provide responses to the following items in the order listed and attach as EXHIBIT [!-A-8flXb): (1) Primary beneficiaries Identify any existing businesses or major developments that will benefit from the proposal, and those which will expand or locate in the area because of the project. These businesses or major developments hereafter will be referred to as primary beneficiaries. (2) Area Description (a) Describe the size, terrain, and present land uses as well as the adjacent land uses of the areas to be affected. These areas include the site(s) of construction activities, adjacent areas, and areas affected by the primary beneficiaries. (b) For each box checked "Yes" in item 3, describe the nature of the effect on the resource. If one or more of boxes 17 through 21 is checked "Yes" or "Unknown." contact the EDR for instructions relating to the re- quirements imposed by the Floodplain Management and Wetland Protection Executive Orders. (c) Attach as Exhibit lI-A-8(l)(b)(2)(c) the following: l)a U.S. Geological Survey "15 minute" ("7-1/2 minute"if available) topographic map which clearly delineates the area and the location of the project elements; 2) the Department of Housing and Urban Development's flood- plain map(s) for the project area; 3) site photos; and 4) if available, an aerial photograph of the site. If a floodplain map is not available, contact the EDR for additional instructions relating to the requirements Imposed by the Floodplain Management Executive Order. (3) Air Quality (a) Provide available air quality data from the mom station(s) either within the project area or, i exist, nearest the project area. rim (b) Indicate the types and quantities of air emissionl be produced by the project facilities and its pr beneficiaries. If odors will occur, indicate who » be affected. (c) Indicate if topographical or meteorological conditio! hinder the dispersal of air emissions. (d) Indicate the measures to be taken to control emi ssions. (4) Water Quality (a) Provide available data on the water quality of surf or underground water in or near the project area. (b) Indicate the source, quality, and available supply raw water and the amount of water which the projec designed to utilize. (c) Describe all of the effluents or discharges associi with the project facilities and its primary beneficiar Indicate the expected composition and quantities these discharges prior to any treatment processes they undergo and also prior to their release into environment. (d) Describe any treatment systems which will be us for these effluents and indicate their capacities their adequacy in terms of the degree and type of tr ment provided. Indicate all discharges which will no treated. Describe the receiving waters and their i (e.g., recreational) for any sources of treated untreated discharge. (e) If the treatment systems are or will be inadequB overloaded, describe the steps being taken for nee ary improvements and their completion dates. (f) Describe how surface runoff will be handled i discussed in (3) above. (5) Solid Waste Management (a) Indicate the types and quantities of solid wastes t produced by the project facilities and its prii beneficiaries. (b) Describe the methods for disposing of these ! wastes plus the useful life of such methods. (c) Indicate if recycling or resource recovery programs or will be used. (6) Transportation (a) Briefly describe the available transportation facil serving the project area. (b) Describe any new transportation patterns which arise because of the project. (c) Indicate if any land uses, such as residential, hospi schools or recreational, will be affected by these patterns. (d) Indicate if any existing capacities of these transp tion facilities will be exceeded. If so, indicate increased loads which the project will place upon tl facilities, particularly in terms of car and truck tra FORM ED-101-P (REV. 10-78) I USCOMM-DC 5287' EXHIBIT II-A-8 Cont. INSTRUCTIONS (7) Noise (a) Indicate the major source of noise associated with tlie project facilities and its primary beneficiaries. (b) Indicate the land uses to be affected by this noise. (8j Hlstorlc/Archeoloelcal Properties (a) Identify any known historic/archeological resources within the project area that are either listed on the National Register of Historic Places or considered to be of local and state significance and perhaps eligible for listing in the National Register. (b) Attach as EXHIBIT ll-A-8b(l)(b)(8)(b) any historical/ archeological survey that has been conducted for the project area. (9) Wildlife and Endangered Species (a) Identify wildlife resources located in the project area or its immediate vicinity. (b) Indicate whether any endangered or threatened species have been identified in the project area or its immediate vicinity. (10) Energy (a) Describe the energy supplies available to the project facilities and the primary beneficiaries. (b) Indicate what portion of the remaining capacities of these supplies will be utilized. (11) Construction Describe the methods which will be employed to reduce adverse impacts from construction, sucii as noise, soil erosion and siltation. (12) Toxic Substances (a) Describe any toxic, hazardous, or radioactive sub- stances which will be utilized or produced by the project facilities and its primary beneficiaries. (b) Describe the manner in which these substances will be stored, used, and disposed. (13) Public Reaction (a) Describe any objections which have been made to the project. (b) If a public hearing has been held, attach a copy of the transcript as EXHIBIT ll-A-8( l)(b)(13)(b). If not. certify that a hearing was not held^ (c) Indicate any other evidence of the community's aware- ness of the project such as through newspaper articles or public notification. (14) Alternatives to the Proposed Project Provide a description of any of the following types of alternatives which were considered: (a) Alternative locations. (b) Alternative designs. (c) Alternative projects having similar benefits. (15) Mitigation Measures Describe any measures which will be taken to avoid or mitigate any adverse environmental impacts associated with the project. (16) Permits (a) Identify any permits of an environmental nature which are needed for the project. (b) Indicate the status of obtaining each such permit and attach as EXHIBIT II-A-8(l)(b)(16)(b) any that have been received. Item 2 - Applicants are required to provide the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) with a) a narrative description of the project's elements and its location, b) a map of the area surrounding the project which identifies the project site, adjacent streets and other identifiable objects, c) line drawings or sketches of the project and d) photographs of the affected properties J_f_ building demolition or renovation is involved. This material must be submitted to the SHPO no later than the date of the preappli cation. Additionally, the SHPO must be requested to submit comments on the proposed project to the appropriate EDA Regional Office. Item 3 — Self-explanatory. Item 4 — Self-explanatory. FORM ED-IOI-P (REV. 10-73) USCOMM-DC 52870-P79 i SUMMARY Institution of the 200-mile limit has provided a major opportunity for the U.S. fishing industry - so critically impacted by subsidized foreign competition in the past - by protecting U.S. fishermen's rights to fish caught off the nation's shores. Between I960 and 1965, more than 100 million pounds of fish were landed at the Boston Fish Pier which served as the center of a flourishing industry. On Georges Bank, 83$ of the fish ca.ught in I960 were brought in by U.S. fishermen. 17 years later, however, this percentage had dropped to 10. Competition by subsidized foreign fleet decimated the formerly fruitful industry. The Boston Fish Pier, located at the center of New England's regional truck routes and only minutes from Logan Airport,, is the logical center for processing the increased. U.S. catches expected, from Georges Bank. As the quantity of fresh fish shipped by air grows, this logistical advantage will become even more important. To accommodate the needs of modern processing plants, the Boston Fish Pier must undergo rehabilitation. This redevelopment will bring more than 825 new jobs to an inner-city area suffering from high blue-collar unemployment and an additional 2060 new jobs to the region, due to a multiplier effect. Private businesses are ready to invest almost two i million dollars immediately, and substantially more in the future, in new capital equipment at the pier as soon as rehabilitation is completed. The momentum for growth exists. The industry is simply awaiting a catalyst. Economic Development Administration and Masport funding of Boston Fish Pier rehabilitation would provide the spark needed to begin fundamental revitalization of the Boston fishing industry. ^1 i \ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Exhibit II-A-8(1 )(b) (1) Primary Beneficiaries The planned project is a rehabilitation of four existing structures and a pier for use by the fishing industry for the landing, unloading processing and transporting of fish. The primary beneficiaries therefore will be the fishermen, fish processors and brokers in the Boston area and the New England region. Also, because of Boston's importance in the New England region as a transportation center, many New England fish firms have expressed an interest in opening a sales and distribution center in Boston, in addition to their stores/plants in other ports. The Port Authority has had three- formal requests and numerous informal requests for space on the Boston Fish Pier. [see attachment 1, Exhibit IV 1-a] (2a) Area Description The Fish Pier (Pier No . 6 ) is located on Northern Avenue in Boston south of the Fort Point Channel. To the south lies the residential community which stretches from Dorchester Avenue in the west to the Inner Harbor on the east and south. -1- /fm I The pier was built on landfill, at the beginning of this century. The area itself is one of Boston's largest industrial sections. Predominant uses in the area are transportation related, as the area offers good access to the Central Artery and downtown Boston via Summer Street and Northern Avenue. Waterfront and marine industrial and commercial uses, fish processing, seafood packaging and distribution, boat repairing, and navigation equipment sales, related office uses, freight depots and seafood resturants exist on both sides of Northern Avenue. There is a large, but now predominantly inactive railroad switch yard which is owned by Massport and used for new car storage, parking for the convention center, and other open area activities. Northern Avenue is a wide (equivalant to eight operating lanes) thoroughfare that allows for adequate traffic flow. The primary zoned land use in the area is waterfront industrial and general manufacturing. Waterfront industrial as a zoning classification also allows for office uses and wholesale business and storage. Population of South Boston totals 38,488 (City of Boston 641,071). The Fort Point Channel share of this population is negligible (see Table 1 and Map of area). 2b1 Industrial uses : The fishing industry is the primary user of land in the immediate area, and is centered on the Boston Fish Pier and in several buildings near the pier -2- [Buildings H and 5, for example, are also owned by Massport and used by fish processors and other fishing support industries]. Over the years, the Fish Pier has fallen into a state of disrepair. The proposed project is a repair, rehabilitation and renovation effort to assist in the revitali zation of the fishing industry. 2b2 Commercial uses in the area consist of a few retail stores and restuarants. The present establishments exist in the area because of the fishing industry. This rehabilitation, since it will enhance the Boston Fish Pier will improve the environment for these commercial establishments .- ?b17 This project is a rehabilitation of an existing shoreside facility. The shoreline will not be altered in any way. 2b22 Flood plain: The Fish Pier lies within the special Flood Hazard Area map by the Flood Insurance Administration for Boston. (Community 250-286) Massport is in the process of filing for Flood Insurance for the Fish Pier buildings, including numbers 1, 2 and 3 and the Power Plant. 2b28 see (3) below -3- r 2b29 see (5) below (3) Air Quality Existing Air Quality is measured by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering in two locations, Kenmore Square and the East Boston Callahan Tunnel. (see attached) Neither of these sites is near the project site. It is very unlikely that the air quality background concentrations in the vicinity of the Fish Pier project are as high as shown at the monitoring locations due to greater amounts of open space available at the Fish Pier, the influence of sea breezes and the presence of substantially less traffic at the Fish Pier than at Kenmore Square or the East Boston Callahan Tunnel. Hence monitoring sites shown worst case conditions. Furthermore of the two pollutants that could be expected to increase very slightly from the project area, carbon monoxide and photo chemical oxidants (ozone) , the former has been decreasing throughout the region and the latter cannot be considered a local pollutant; that is, the ozone present at the Fish Pier is not formed at the site. The hydrocarbons emmitted will contribute in a small degree to the ozone formation that will be measured elsewhere. Increase in nitrogen dioxides will be imperceptible. -4- Cf The small amounts of dust generated during the renovation period should cause insignificant air pollution problems in that area. The project is expected to have little adverse impact on air quality. Due to increased use of freezer storage, truck traffic will not increase over present levels even if the fish volume handled does increase. (that is, the trucks will operate at higher load factors) . Hence the air pollutants from trucks will not increase. The air pollutants from increased automotive travel will be minimal, and will not degrade the air quality. (See item 6 ) The fish processing that will take place on the renovated pier will not emit additional air emissions or odors than are now occuring. In fact, the odors should be substantially reduced as the processing techniques are improved . (4 ) Water Quality The Fish Pier receives its water from the City of Boston. Small quantities are used in fish processing. The proposed project will increase the amounts of process water used, but the increase will be minimal. The Fish Pier is already tied in with the sewer system of the City of Boston. The additional sewage emanating from increased Fish Pier activity will not be significant enough to have an impact on this system. -5- 2P, Sewer lines will be redone and adequate effluent controls will be installed to block the entry of fish scales and other wastes into the waterways. Hence, the rehabilitation of the Fish Pier will improve both sanitary conditions and water quality. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Water Pollution Control has been informed of the rehabilitation of the Boston Fish Pier, when engineering designs of sewer lines and efficient controls are prepared the designs will be submitted to the Division of Water Pollution Control. For a description of existing harbor water quality within the vicinity of the Fish Pier see the attached maps. As can be seen, water quality in this particular area of Boston Harbor is quite poor. Although modernization of the Fish Pier would not add to the already high levels of water pollution, any water quality improvement brought about by the project would be imperceptible. (5) Solid Waste The solid waste from the renovation project will be salvaged where possible, and where not possible, it will be carted away to a suitable disposal site approved by the state and municipal governments. The on-going refuse from the operation is and will be removed by regular trash collection and transported to a suitable and approved disposal site. Gurry from the fish processing- is transported and sold for cat food. -6- (6 ) Transportation and Traffic Flows The Northern Avenue area, because of its proximity to downtown Boston, has many modes of transportation available to it . Most transporting is now done by truck down Northern Avenue. Truck and automobile traffic on Northern Avenue is now around 14 - 15,000 daily trips. Total rehabilitation of (including Phases I and II) the pier will result in the addition of 200 more vehicles (for employees) in 1982 plus additional business travel which Northern Avenue can easily handle. There will also be an addition of 100 - 200 employees along Northern Avenue (other than at the Fish Pier) as a result of the revitalization project. In order to expedite traffic flows in the area parking for Fish Pier employees, customers, and clients will be relocated to Commonwealth Pier and/ or Commonwealth Flats. A parking plan for the Fish Pier area is in the process of being developed and will be implemented in the near future by Massport. Crucial elements of the plan include installation of meters for cars parked on Northern Avenue and fencing around a lot in Commonwealth Flats. (7) Noise Additional noise generated during the renovation will be minimal. Noise generated by truck and automobile traffic, which exists notwithstanding reconstruction on the Fish Pier and which will continue throughout reconstruction, is greater than the noise anticipated to be generated by the -7- tif ftl construction. Also, the additional noise generated by new traffic after renovation will be insignificant. Adjacent land uses will not be impacted by any noise generated by construction. As mentioned elsewhere land uses in the area are predominantly industrial and commercial, including warehousing, distribution and institutional. The nearest residential area is practically a mile away from the Fish Pier. Other Environmental Impacts There are no glare problems anticipated either during the renovation state or resulting from the ongoing operation . There will be no unusual vibrations generated during the new operations at the Fish Pier. The vibrational effects during the renovation period will be minimal and sporadic . There will be a major change in the visual appearance of the Fish Pier, as it changes from a dilapidated to a modern commercial structure. (8 ) Historical /Archaeological Preservation The Fish Pier is built on land created by a land fill project and hence has no archaelogical or historical significance. Northern Avenue is a fully commercially developed area with no noteworthy historical sites nearby. The environmental assessment done by Massport to comply with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act was shared with -8- Cf the State's Historical Commission. The Commission supported the Fish Pier renovation project. (9 ) Natural and Recreational Effects The Fish Pier is located in a commercially developed area. Its renovation , therefore, will have no effect on scenic or recreational areas, beaches, wetlands, or any wildlife. Since' the current structure is dilapidated, its renovation will be an aesthetic benefit for the whole area. (10) Energy electricity - purchased from local utility, future plans will not alter this service. heat - generated from high pressure steam-generating boilers. Boilers are filled with No . 6 x 1/2% sulphur fuel oil. Total concept for the renovation of the Fish Pier includes replacement of these boilers with a low pressure steam system or indivudal heating units. gas - supplied directly form local utilties, as required by tenants. No change expected in the future. ( 11 ) Construction For information on mitigation of noise generated by construction see (7) above. Since this project is a rehabilitation of existing structures in a well developed site and area, soil erosion and siltation are not expected. -9- " 0 (12) Toxic substances Radioactive substances - none of the present or proposed activities at the Fish Pier will result in radiation emissions. No toxic or hazardous substances will be produced by the Fish Pier or by the Fish Pier processors. (13) Public Reaction (a) No objections have been made to the project. (b) Massport and Mintz Associates have been holding Program Committee meetings approximately monthly to discuss various aspects of the rehabilitation. Notes on these meetings are included as Exhibit II-A-8 ( 1 ) ( b) ( 1 3 ) ( b) (c) See Exhibit II-A-8 (1 )( b) ( 13 )( c) (14) Alternatives to the Proposed Project ( a) Alternative Locations The fishing industry has been centered at Pier No. 6 in South Boston since 1914. Prior to 1914 fishing vessels landed at T Wharf in Boston. The present location suits the fishing industry well. The fresh fish industry must be located near the water so vessels can be unloaded. The pier's proximity to downtown facilities provides access to major interstate transportation networks, as well as to local city outlets. Relocation of the facility elsewhere in the city would entail building a new pier or rebuilding another waterfront facility. The same difficulty would arise if the fishing industry were moved to another city. -10- ( b) Alternative Designs Renovating the Boston Fish Pier is by far the least expensive alternative available. Since purchasing the lease from the Boston Fish Market Corporation in 1972 Massport has considered several schemes entailing new construction. These schemes have been abandoned primarily because the capital costs of new construction are too great and can not be covered by the limited resources of the fishing industry. (c) Alternative Projects Having Similar Benefits The renovated Fish Pier will clearly improve the aesthetic and human environment along Northern Avenue. A revitalized fishing industry will stabilize the 1100 jobs that exist at the Fish Pier and will foster an additional 3000 jobs by direct and indirect impact at the pier and along Northern Avenue. Renovation of the Boston Fish Pier will provide facilities for the fishing industry at an ideal location at a manageable cost. No scheme or project involving new construction can claim the low cost figures of this project. No other location can claim the convenience of the Boston Fish Pier. (15) Mitigation measures. Measures will be taken to insure that debris does not enter waterways. -1 1- A parking plan will be implemented in the Northern Avenue Area. Included in the plans for the rehabilitation of the fish pier are measures for regulating truck traffic circulation and limiting parking on the Boston Fish Pier. The modernization of fish processing facilities will reduce odors emitted substantially. A gurry retrieval system will probably be installed on the pier during phase II of the renovation. (16) Permits: for those received 11-A-8(1 )(l6)(b). see EXHIBIT -12- ^t €' Population 1970 U.S. Census Data City Point Telegraph Hill Columbus Park Andrew Square West Broadway D Street Total: South Boston 11 378 10, 144 5, 750 2, 222 5, 455 3, 539 38,488 City of Boston Total 641 ,071 -13- 01 DORCHf^TER m Li7' ai u p»:^^:! \^! iy rj :-:-:-:ci>:-: yyy-^y: I I Jiiiii%l 5' i-t 1-1 C3 bJ ■•::^. ^1 I i ^ \\- I N T H R 0 / -SOSmJcpKPfiD'v" / In ^ ■' I (/ ;■<;■ 'titr«etQ^ O/. Harb Columb- W?.:^^^^P f or T'.-iil Flat , united states 'department of the interior GEOLOGICAL SURVEY _„„_ "boston^outh quadrangle massachusetts 7.5 minute series (topographic). DORCHESTER ■ -.. ^^*>V / ' ^ ^.WW+ I 'A-^ "?.'^> f'^ ^-^^ "> ■'^r.ij^^ .5 .4 r - - o Exhibit II-A-8 (1) (b) 3(a) SULFUR DIOXIDE ( S02 ) Massachusetts Air Surveillance Network (MASN) D 1974 1975 1976 1977 * Chapt. 494 started in July 1975 *" Sunmary data for 1978 not available as of 4/9/79. NITROGEN DIOXIDE (I.'Op) ANNUAL ARITHMETIC KEANS - RUNNING AVERAGES Massachusetts Air Surveillance Network (MASN) 90 -r c o •H CQ a 1970 197 1972 ■ 1973 1974 ' 1975 * Change in s^zipling nethod 976 1977 I t TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES (TSP) ANNUAL GEOMETRIC KEANS - RUNNING AVERAGES Massachusetts Air Surveillance Metvvork (MASN) u u — \ Boston 1 1 1 - Kenmore Square 02i^0-002 75- NAAQS \ . _ ■"^^^ — ^ Q - ' • 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 ' 1975 1976 1977 . 3^? \ 100 ■P FXrFF.DANCrlS "iF 8 v.oun ■-:TAMiARD (9 PPM)» 75 50 n 12 l?o Pnd rViX 73 7'* 75 7b 77 3 5.li 1^ V^S) lO 12^ Bor>Tori - ke:i?-;ore squ/j^k ■■.rrUAI. ?~:r:EEDArJCK3 V-TRH ADJUrTED WATER. QUALITY 2 v/iNTHRop-^ SAMPLING STATlONSi f^' 39 /oS''^^^'^^^^" "^"^^ BCSTOM -75- Exhibit II-A-a (1) (b)(4) (a) « » Division 0? UATSR POLLUTION CONTROL KETRO?OLIT/J<' REGIOS'AL OFFICE BOSTON HARBOR SIIRVLY - 1972 STATION KG. 9 - Central VHis-rf - 500 yards off Aquariira Saciolc Ko. R54781 R55075 R55171 R55207 R55982 R55994 Date of Collection 6/5/72 7/14/72 7/20/72 7/26/72 11/2/72 11/3/72 Tirni? of Collectlo-a 1:00 PM 10:05 AH ■1:35 PH 12:47 PH 2:30 P>: 12:17 PH YciT.oercture ^^ ' 590 590 68° 63® 54° 45° Low Tide 12:11 PrI 8:31 AH 1:22 PH 6:01 AW 2:39 PH 3:24 PH BCD 3.0 2.5 6.7 2.5 3.2 0.9 oH 7.4 7.7 8.1 7.9 7.1 7.6 Alkelinity-Totcl 70 162 120 102 112 124 l£>.0. 2.3 . 7.0 _.. 3.6 4.3 w Chlorides 9400 14,600 13,400 15,400 14,000 17,400 Total Solids . M „ «• ^ ^ Suro- Solids-Total 6 _ » ^ ■ ^ w Loss . „ ,. .^ ^ ,. Total P 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.36 0.12 Co 1 i f o rs-To ta I 240,000 930,000 24,000- 93,000 . 240.000 43.000 1 ' Fecal 24,000 •- 230,000 24,000 15,000 93,000 ^4300 Color 55 25 45 28 18 20 Turbidity 1 0.0 1 0 1 0 Totel-Ki-N 0.3 I.O 1.4 0.7 Ar=on^a-N 0.13 0.28 0.05 0,26 0.60 0.24 *itrite-N _ _ _ _ Hitrate-N 0.0 0.0 0.0 ■ 0.0 0.0 0.0 • ■ • STATIOc? KO. 36 - Sou DIVISICH OF V;ATER POLUJTIOH CO^i.^OL KETROPOLITAH RECIOKAL OFFICE BOStOH FLiJlBCR SGH'/i:? - 1972 1 SoiiDltt No. K^-^eoi R5^937 P35100 R55-6.3 R55714 1 ■ 'Dctc of Collection oA^/72 6/7.0/72 7/15/72 C-/15/7?. 9/12/72 • ■ Tioic of Ccllectioti X2:if:0 Prf 10: ?G /J'T 9T.25 A}< 11:20 AM Temoerr.ture A.fi 0.4 ?,0 2.2 PH 7.4 7.8 7.1 7.S 7.9 Alkalinitv-Tot.-jl 75 83 ICS iOS 93 |.o. 6.3 7.6 8.1 6.S 6.9 Cclorides 9000 12.^00 15.000 16.600 15.400 Total Solids • •- SusD- Solids-Total • 4,0 3.0 . 4.5 Lona _ w Total ? 0^2 0.20 O.IA 0.03 oao Colifom-Total 75.000 240„000- 9?„0Q0 24C0 Fecal ■ 24 „ 000 ^500 43GO 930 -■ Color Afi ilfl 2'> 10 0 • Turbidity I 1 0 0 0 Totcl-K1-K O.A K7 1.0 - Asznonic-N o.-?o 0,7« 0-2?» 0.34 0.19 Kitrite-N . • - Kitrate-H n.n 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ■ fll a C0KH0H1-J£.JJ,TK OF K>LSSACKU SETTS Division 0? WATER POLLUTIOH COSTROL KETTROPOLIT/i^ REGIONAL OFFlCi: V BOSTON HAPoOR SnRVi:Y - 1972 STATION MO. i^S - South Boston - Fort Poiut Chaanel - KC. Vashingtoa Avenue 1 S£=.-5ln Ko. R5A81L R5494S R55119 P^5483 Date cf Collection 6/6/72 6/20/72 7/18/72 8/15/72 •- • Time of Collection _ 2:45 PM 10:50 AH 11:55 AH I, Tenperaturc (F / •• _ _ _ 1 Low Tide 1:07 PH 1:15 PM 11:37 AK 10:07 AH • 1 BOD 3.0 7.2 4.5 5.8 • ■ dH 7.4 7.2 7.6 7.4 Alkalinitv-Total 75 76 103 114 1. 4.7 2.8 6.9 2.2 Chlorides 9000 14,400 12,800 14,200 Total Solids ^ ^ ^ ^ Susp. Solids-Total 4.5 11 ^ 10 Loss ^^ ^ ^ ^^ • Total ? .22 .40 .18 .36 . Coliforci-Totil 430.000 930,000 46,000 93.000 Fecal , 91,000 43.000 4300 9300 Color 45 35 30 15 . Turbidity 2 2 1 1 • Total-KI-K 1-7 4.5 1.3 1.5 ^Aoinonic-N 0.26 1.3 0.28 0.33 • Nitrite-N - Nitrate-N 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 / i DIVISION OF VJATL'R POLLUTIOH COSTROL HETROPOLITAH REGICKAL OFFICS BOSTON HARSOR S'JRVi:? - 1972 STATIOH KO. 151 - So uth Boston - Reserve d Channel - SitEscer S treet Bridge r R54813 P^4950 P-55121 F^5486 Date cf Collection 6/6/72 6/20/72 7/13/72 S/15/72 . Time of Collection 12:15 Ail 1:05 PM i0:13 AH 10:15 AM TtEoerature (^ ) 60° . _ - Low Tide 1:07 PH 1:15 PH 11:37 AH 10:07 /1-i BOD 3.0 2.4 2.3 2.2 • pH 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.6 ; Aikclinity-Total 74 96 102 104 \.o. 7.1 6.4 7.1 6.8 ■1 Chlorides 10,000 14,600 15,400 16,400 - Tot£l Solids „ . _ .. Susp. Solids-Total A.O 4.0 _ 3.0 . Loss . _ •• » ' . Total P .18 .20 .16 .12 - Co 1 i f o rtc-To ta 1 240,000 24,000. 43,000 430 ' Feed 15,000 4300 43,000 • 36 • Color 43 0 20 10 Turbidity I 20 1 1 ■ • ■ Tctal-Ki-N 1.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 Asmonic-N .21 .23 .25 :.16 " r.ftrite-N ^ . . s'itrcte-N 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ i _Dn_. I EOSTON H/J'.ZiOR SURVEY SEDIMENT AI:ALYSIS Kg Cd Pb Zn Kl - Cu Cr As 7. Vol 3.0 6.^ 190 330 33 • 220 230 2,4 l^.u 20.5 15.0 740 1400 110 530 180 .3.6 25.0 4.0 13.0 S50 950 • 77 590 ' ISO 5.4 29.0 2.9 9.1 440 • 750 100 440 84 ?-2 13.0 3.0 5.7 460 1550 SO 950 58 6.0 . 14.0 2.0 6.6 110 170 73 140 100 . 8.0. 20.0 1.6 4.0 . . 140 250 40 150 180 • 5.0 . 9.6 :OTE: Concentrations reported as n:g/kg dry weight passing Ko. 30 sieve. -81- f I i •> Exhibit II-A-8(l)(b)(13)(b) MINTZ ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS, INC. samueiE M.mz Joseph A Guenno One Dock Square Building Boston, Massachusetts 021 09(61 7)523-3705 ToshKawakami William A. Yuhas October 3, 1978 MEETING SUMMARY Fish Pier Program Committee Meeting #1 26 September 1978 At Mintz Associates; 1:30 PM Present: Committee: Frank Byrnes: F.E. Harding Co. Vito Corseli: Great Atlantic Co. Frank Foley: F. J. Foley Co. Russ Nagle: John Nagle Co. Hugh O'Rourke: Boston Fisheries Assoc, Bill Stride: Turner Fish Co. John Stride: Turner Fish Co. Massport: Elliot Friedman Gail Monahan Bob Parks Debbie Kaplan Mintz Assoc :Sy Mintz Bill Yuhas SUMMARY: Elliot and Sy outlined some objectives of the Committee including the following: Input for prograirming of Fish Pier Rehabilitation; Open discussion of all alternatives and issues; Best possible solutions considering individual needs and overall needs; Bring all ideas -old and new- to the Committee for discussion; MINTZ ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS. INC. samueiE M,ntz Joseph A Guerino One Dock Square Building Boston, Massachusetts 021 09(61 7)523-3705 Tosh Kawakami William A. Yuhas -2- Inform other Fish Pier tenants of activities of the Committee; Discuss one key issue or designs question at each meeting. The issue discussed was that of traffic circulation on the Pier including loading and unloading of trucks, circulation plans, restricted access areas, autos on the Pier and a central shipping area. Conclusions: The following outlines those areas where the Committee reached a concensus on specific issues: 1. Automobiles -all automobiles- should not be allowed on Pier. Autos were identified as the major cause of conjestion. 2. Straight (perpeudicular) unloading at the sheet truck docks should be continued. Angled unloading does not allow for adequate dock frontage. 3. Trucks must be allowed access onto the apron area of the Pier (backs of stores). This area might be limited to the un- loading of fish only. 4. A Pier traffic circulation plan is needed. It should consider advantages/disadvantages of one way traffic, off-pier parking for dealers trucks, and a clearly marked roadway (perhaps 12 ft. wide) on the apron to separate traffic from dealer work areas. 5. A central shipping area is not practical at this time. Next Meeting: A circulation plan of the Pier including a roadway and work area dimensions on the apron will be prepared for the next meeting. Bob Parks will notify members of the next meeting. Wednesday or Thursday afternoons were agreed upon as the best meeting time. William A. Yuhas i • MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY - BOSTON PISH PIER TENANTS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Attendance at the September 26, 1978 meeting is as follows: Sy Mint 2 Prank Byrnes Elliot Friedman Russell Nagle Joe Guerino Hugh 0 ' Hour ke Bob Parks Bill Stride John Turner Debbie Kaplan Prank Poley Vito Corsile Gale Monahan This Committee was formed at the suggestion of the Massachusetts Port Authority to discuss items that relate to the rebuilding of the Boston Pish Pier, some of which are immediate and others per- tain to the future. The principle parties attending this meeting are representatives of the Massachusetts Port Authority, The Boston Pish Pier Tenants, and Mintz Associates Architects/Planners, Inc. It was suggested that meetings be held periodically as subject matter develops that requires implementation. The meeting held at the office of Mintz Associates, Tuesday, September 26, 1978, was concerned with truck loading and unload- ing procedures, regulating traffic, and the need for eliminating passenger automobiles on the Pish Pier excepting in emergencies. The Pish Pier was constructed in 1910-191^ during the era of the horsedrawn teams and provided adequate space for maneuvering. Today, the Pish Pier is clogged with semi-trailers on two dif- ferent times of the day. In the morning fish arrives over the road from various New England Ports and Canada, and in mid -after- noon to early evening trucks arrive to transport the finished product to the Marketplace within a 1,000 mile radius of Boston. At the beginning of the meeting Sy Mintz had layouts posted on the walls of his meeting room showing physically two plans re- lated to loading and unloading. One plan was designed to back the trucks into loading platforms on a right or left angle based upon which side of the Pier they were unloading. The second plan was to back the trucks squarely against the Pier loading facilities in a straight line. It was the concensus of the Tenants Committee that the trucks should not be backed in on an angle. It was decided that the trucks should be unloaded by backing directly into the loading platform. -1- 4 -2- ") The delivery of fresh fish over the road to the Boston Pish Pier requires that trucks unload at the back of the fish plants. Several reasons were offered but primarily it is a procedure that has found acceptability over the years following trial and error. The advantage is that the fish can be stored at the back of the Pier temporarily and be close to the process line minim- izing the need for additional space and labor. Traffic patterns are also being considered that will maintain a good traffic flow thereby minimizing traffic Jams on the Pier. ,It was definitely agreed that no private vehicle can park on the FisK Pier~lrrespe'ctrlvg~of time of day." Obviously during ~reconst ruction of the i^'lsh PleT^there will be construction vehicles, suppliers, and dumping equipment that will require space. This will be a mobile operation relating to the con- fusion of rebuilding one side of the Pier and moving plants across the Pier. This dictates that the sooner a traffic pattern is established and adhered to by the Pish Pier Tenants it will minimize lost time due to traffic congestion. -' ^ ' . ^ • I c < 0 MINTZ ASSCXJIATES ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS, INC. samueiE.Mmtz One Dock Sq^rare Building Boston, Massachusetts 021 09(61 7)523-3705 °To''shKawakam° William A. Yuhas MEETING SUMMARY FISH PIER PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEETING #2 12 OCTOBER 7 8 AT MINTZ ASSOCIATES: 1:30 P.M. PRESENT: COMMITTEE: FRANK BYRNES: F.E. HARDING CO. RUSS NAGLE: JOHN NAGLE CO. HUGH O'ROURKE: BOSTON FISHERIES ASSOC. JOHN TURNER: TURNER FISHERIES MASSPORT: ELLIOT FRIEDMAN BOB PARKS GAIL xMONAHAN MINTZ ASSOC: SY MINTZ BILL YUHAS SUMMARY Elliot informed the Committee that Massport is meeting with No Name Restaurant owner, Nick Contos regarding their lease. It was suggested that when we are further along technically, and better understand the implications of rehabilitation of the buildings, Nick should be involved in matters affecting the No Name . As a follow-up to the last meeting. Bill Yuhas presented a sketch of the apron area showing an 18 ft. wide truck roadway and a 28- 30 ft. wide work area. Questions: -Should the truck roadway be set back from the cap log? -How will this effect the proposed new canopy? -What uses will be continued on the apron? Suggestions: -Pier tractors should operate two-ways. -Trucks should be limited to one-way. -Traffic pattern should be flexible to respond to future needs. 3 MINTZ ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS, INC. MEETING SUMMARY PAGE TWO Conclusion It is necessary to look at the apron area in more detail, to survey user needs, develope canopy design alternatives, paving alternatives and discuss in more detail at a future meeting. The central issue discussed was that of dealer layouts at the first and second floors of buildings 1 and 2. Mintz Associates presented sketches generally showing the following: Floor 1: All processing Cold storage Small office (shipping & receiving) Toilet Floor 2: Offices Locker Room w/showers & toilets lunch room storage area Mechanical equipment area Also shown was an open area in the second floor allowing for visual surveillance and verbal contact from the second floor to the first floor. General comments are as follows: Coolers: -Flexibility could be important but cost will be an impor- tant factor. ^ -Major concern is heat transfer. -Coil coolers are more efficient, fan coolers melt ice to quickly. -Access door directly off the apron may be desirable in larger coolers. -Temperatures: 36 degrees to 38 degrees (34 degrees ideal) = Coolers; -10 degrees = freezer 2nd Floor Access: -Floor opening will depend on individual need and a function of needed floor area. -Access through a canopy hatchway should be considered fur- ther along with an interior hoist through a floor hatchway. Processing: -Processing lines do not have to be front-to-back but could also be across the store area. A need is for adequate space for the temporary holding of fish prior to processing. The canopy will provide a protected area for fish holding. I MINTZ ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS, INC. MEETING SURMARY PAGE THREE Conculsions General layout as shown in the sketches is O.K. Specific design layouts will be worked out with individual dealers in Phase II. Most if not all dealers need more space or at least more efficient space, particularly cold storage. The smallest dealer bay would be 30 ft. wide. The issue of dealer." layouts will be discussed at subsequent meet- ings as this phase of the project is developed. Next Meeting: A detailed evaluation of apron uses, needs and canopy design alterna- tives as well as truck circulation and surface treatment will be presented at the next meeting. Bob Parks will notify Committee members of the next meeting and any additional issues to be discussed. Submitted by: Bill Yuhas copies to all present < MINTZ ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS, INC. MEETING SUMt4ARY FISH PIER PROGRAM CQMMIITEE MEETING #3 AT MINTZ ASSOCIATES @ 1:00 P.M. ^ VcC£^h2\/ 6? ^ 1 R^'S? PRESEOT: FPPC: Vito Corseli MPA: Elliot Friedman MA: Sy M_Lnt2 Frank Byrnes Gail Monahan ^ Bill Yuhas Frank Shinney Debbie Kaplan Russ Nagle Bob Parks Bill Stride John Turner BFA: Hugh O'Rourke Sunmary As concluded at the last meeting, Mintz Associates have evaluated apron uses and canopy design alternatives. The purpose of meeting was to review alternative canopy, truck dock and apron uses and design. Alternatives included the following: Truck dock side: Suspended canopy with options for the width of the loading plat- form fran the existing width of approximately 4^5 feet to 8 feet. j^on side: Suspended canopy - 12 feet to 16 feet chain link fence enclosure, 8 feet high, 22 feet out fran building. Ihree J column supported canopies. 1. One story, partially covered, enclosed with chaim link fence. 2. One story covered and enclosed with overhead doors. 3. Two story, covered and enclosed, overhead doors and storage loft. Since canopy treatment directly effects design and treatment of exterior rehabilita- tion, it is necessary to decide on a canopy design so that vsork can proceed on ex- terior rehab that allows for future improvanents. 1. Sy Mintz presented alternatives. a. Truck Dock Side: Dock width and canopy. Carmen ts: Could use a wider platform width. Most want to be able to maneuver a fork lift along the platform. Also, must be able to open truck doors after the truck has backed in. Regarding street width, dealers and truckers can control cir- culation - self patrolled. It was restated that cars, not trucks, create the traffic problan on the Pier. The canopy is necessary for protection fran weather. TWO foot overhang beyond truck dock should be adequate. MINTZ ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS, INC. MEETING SUM-IARY FISH PIER PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEETING #3 PAGE Tm Conclusions: Set truck dock to accarmodate fork lift rrBneuvering on the platform ^ likely 6 to 7 feet. Ideal truck dock height would be 48 inches. Canopy to extend 2 feet beyond truck dock. b. Apron Side: Canopies and layouts. The apron survey and evaluation findings shov;ed that all dealers, no matter hew large or small, utilize approximately 22 feet of apron out frcm their store (the apron is 48 feet wide) for fish unloading, weighing and holding, box storage, gurry, etc. The rest of the apron is used primarily for vehicular circulation (tmcks and warf trailers), dijrapsters and boat access. Based on these findings all canopies or enclosures included this 22 foot area. Corments: Initial reaction was in favor of 2-stDry canopy. Major concern was regarding additional costs to tenants in terms of rents and operating costs. Loft space was considered as optional. Still stronger response in favor of 2-story canopy. General approval of apron uses: truck circulation, dealer uses (unloading, weighing, storage, etc.) covered area. IVro story is as valuable to a one-bay ^tore as it is to a four bay store. It woiild allow the processors to take in new products such as squid and whiting. Two lines are very beneficial to cost of operation in terms of changed over to different species. If more species could be cut, more boats would cane to Boston. New enclosed space under canopy is rentable and could be an alternative to expanding to an additional bay. \ ) MINTZ ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS, INC. MEETING SIM-IARY FISH PIER PR0GRAt4 COMIITEE MEETING #3 PAGE THREE Conclusion: Two story canopy solution was chosen as the alternative to be developed further. More accurate costs will be developed regarding the econonic feasibility. 2. General Special consiiLtant: Sy discussed the hiring of Johan Koppemaes and his eventual start to evaluate fish unloading, giirry handling, freezing, cold storage and ice making. We will be meeting with him soon and these meetings will include the Fish Pier Program Comnittee. 3. Next Meeting Massport and MA will address questions raised at this meeting regarding the selected canopy design. Bob Parks will inform the Canmittee of the next meeting and agenda items. Submitted by: Bill Yuhas >tf copies to all present I Exhibit II-A-8(l)(b)(13)(c) Boston Globe 9/15/78 /?S^ gets 1 6m grant 1 A $6 milljon grant to rehabilitate , cessing plants and dealers' now on the . Boston's dilapidated^ 65-year-old Fish pier, "and provide room for new busi*-i Pier was approved yesterdAy by ths'US nesses to handle the increased supplies-^ Conunerce Department's^ EcononiicPe-~_ of fish, we expect because- of, the 200- i vclorament Administration. ' .^ /.i/*;' . ,'mileliinit.'* r^v '^rr'-^^tr" -'/l'-*??^^- 4 Kept - Johtt X Moakley ' (D-Mass.). . L,t'"Go^-'5hom^ P; O'Neiit W saidf^ who has been pressing,for the federal the projectj^ll bring the Boston fish- ' hind* for more-than a year;announced:jing-i„dusij^.i^t.of the 'dark- ages.'' He h* Wwhington that$2,TBiIlion has-been- g^^nhe. 5)155, piji, -desperately- needs . committed for the, ctirrenti, iiscaK year rjjp^^fj^ •»--;'- 3,>_5^^,r--,^-^ ^^^^^^ ~ ftod %* million more for lS7»and- lfl8a-;3r=*. ^ /^>j^ "i^Sg^.^T- ». ,^>^ ■■ Moddey estimated theRsft Pier re^^^^^^^^^i^O-lie^ neva*i4«> wiK. create 27pa constructfoh^-^"***^*'"'*-'* expected, to start i* the,; and fi«bing.reJated^jDt» iit;BQstearHerv»P^avand.last t^^ the^ eaUcA the. {wpx^^ iirbaK-tenewaI.A el . , ^ . . ^ _, way throughout: Bos^s,-^atetft^^:J^^:;^^^;;j^^i^£y^ .,- i.v.*vt- - -T"-^'-.'-'^-';.- "" - _^^be^iinproved; Plumbing- electrical audi Alspokesniaa fox .the Bostintrishep-jr'sewage-^ystenis' wilt also bej modem- J are: ies Assn^ Hugh CXRourke,; said;' "Thisr will' be a re^Tsfiot lit the arm; foe the Bb8toB,fl«hihg.'fffdti5i;^-?^^^*^;^rf ^.ThereihabtttUthat wtXt provide iood>'hy r ^tuat^ ibute atk>u.t $3 mil^ ; r i Exhibit II-A-8(1) (b) (13) Boston Herald American 9/15/73 (c) Fish chief forecasts 2,800 new Hub jobs The president of the Boston Fisheries Association said yester- day that a recently-approved $6^ miUioir federal, grant for renovation of the Boston Fisher Pier will pump new life into the city's fishing in- dustry, resulting in 2S00 new jobs. The- 20 tenants occupying- the withering Massachusetts Port Au- thority facility on Northern Avenue were in danger of having their fish processing and wholesale firms closed down, said Frands M. Byr- nes, president of the Fisheries As- sodatfon. Byrnes predicted that the grant, which will be used to make interior and exterior improvements, will create- a more vibrant atmosphere at the pier. "I would say that ia five years, you'll see anywhere from three to five times as- many employees here," said Byrnes, who owns a com- pany on the pier. Massport E.xecutive Director David W. Davis said improvements on the 65-year-old fadlity will en- able Boston to focus oa "bigger and better" markets by pariayiirg a- healthfer fishing industry with the transportation capabilities of liearby Logan Airport. Davis said site improvements would begin next month with a S2- million allocation for fiscal 1978. The remaining $4.5 million would be used during the later phases of con- struction, which will be completed by 1980. "What we're trying to do is at- tract more boats to bring their catches to Boston, and with a dec- adent fish pier, you can't do that," said Byrnes. He added that the fish pier would probably have been closed down by the state's Food and Drug Administration if the rehabilitation grant from the Economic Develop- ment .Administration had not been awarded- Bymes credited' US. Rep. J. Jo- seph Moakley, House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr., Massport, the Boston Fisheries Association and Boston Fish Pier Tenants Group for convindng the federal government that the pier is in grave nfie4 cf" ren- ovation work- - i i i ll-A-8 (1)(14)(6) Permits Received Department of the Army, New England Division, Corps of Engineers Commonwealth of Massachusetts Historical Commission Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs: Approval of decision not to prepare an environmental impact report (Negative Assessment) for Rehabilitation of Boston Fish Pier Notification of Massport's digibility to purchase flood insurance for Boston Fish Pier CE=A=.TM=:»NT Or T-HZ ARMY NEW CNct-A.so nvis'.o."*. cs"».=*5 0' ENC:xcr;7S. ■*!-* tra/»e:.o «cao VVAl-THA-M. MASSACHUiETTS C31S-4. »er.T TO J330:-X-20 21 Se?ce=b« 1977 Zcstsn, ^issidz:i3»zz3 02HO C/aC S'//7a('rS ^^"^ cSoi^o7i, tylLaM^ac/ia^cil^ 022C2 EVELYN F. MURPHY Secrettary STATEi'CEIIT OF SECRETARY ON EIT^'IRCm-IEilTAL • ASSESSKEirr FORM Pursuant to M.G.L. , Ch. 30, S, 62, and the regulations governing preparation of environmental inpact reports, the Secretary of Environmen- tal Affairs herein issues the folloving statement vith respect to the En- vironmental Assessment Form submitted on the following project. Environmental Assessment Form No. 'olol^ Submitted By: Massachusetts Port Authority Date Received: February 14, 1978 Project Identification: Modernization of the Fish Pier on Northern Ave. STATE-f-EIfT : (v) 1, The decision not to prepare an environmental impact report (Nega- tive Assessment) adequately and properly complies vith the pro- visions of the regulations. ( ) 2. The decision not to prepare an environmental inpact report (Nega- tive Assessment) does not adequately and properly comply with the provisions of the regulations. See attached statement of reasons. ( ) 3. The decision to prepare a draft Standard Environmental Ir.pact Report adequately and properly complies vith the provisions of the Regulations. ( ) U. The decision to prepare a draft Standard Environmental Impact Report does not adequately and properly comply vith the provisions of the Regulations. See attached statement of reasons. ( ) 5. The decision to prepare a draft Extensive Environmental Impact Report adequately and properly complies with the provisions of the Regulations. ( ) 6. The decision to prepare a draft Extensive Envirorjnental Impact Report does not adequately and properly comply vith the provisions of the Regulations. See attached statement of reasons. DATE i REGION I Room 800 John F. Kennedy Federal Building Soslon, Man»chusen« 02203 DUb I UN AK t A Ur I- ll_C 3ULFINCH BUILDING, IS NEW CHARDCN STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114 April 21, 1978 n EPUT seF ER TO: Noraan J. Faramelli Chief Environmental Management MASSPORT 99 Higli Street Boston, MA. 02110 Dear Mr. Faramelli: Th^s i'^ in response to your letter of April ^1 'IH^^ '/^' Jlfdlnl the prooosed MASSPORT Fish pier renabilxtatxon projiSt and the' National Flood Insurance Program. At the present t City of Boston, regulations Bost of the National case please info anyone in the Ci funds to be used in an identified is required for ime Flood Insurance is available within the As far as we know MASSPORT is bound by the on has adopted to comply with the requirements ??ood Insurance Program. If this is not tne rm us Flood Insurance may be purchasea by ty of*Boston. In order for E.D.A. to allow for acquisition or construction purposes special flood hazard area flood insurance the useful economic life of the project. If we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to write or telephone us at 223-2blb. Sincerely , Edward A.Thomas Regional Director Federal Insurance Administration I { i BOSTON ^l^^^'^M «•#. ^ T.-. ■irt>. -'••'"