Part
2, Sec. 2C13
Human Activities Offshore Fixed Artificial Platforms
12.
Offshore Fixed Artificial Platforms
A
proposal and plans initiated by a private marine consultant
in the mid-1980's for the construction of a fixed offshore artificial
"island", or platform, were submitted to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) for its review under § 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act (as extended by § 4(f) of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)). The offshore fixed platform, to be
known as "Gugel's Arabian Nights", was proposed as a holiday
resort facility, incorporating restaurants, shopping malls,
hotels, casinos, apartments, a hospital, a heliport,and other
amenities to accommodate 100,000 persons (Figure 16).
As
originally proposed, the physical structure would consist of
an octagonal-shaped steel platform supported by 16 steel piles,
located approximately 30 miles (48.3 km) east of Boston, in
water depths of 80 to 85 feet (24.4 to 25.9 meters), and directly
over the Stellwagen Bank, at 42_23'N x 70_23'W (Figure 16).
Each of the 16 piles would support 850,000 tons, and would rest
in pockets cut into bedrock (no additional anchoring would be
required). The platform itself would be 1000 feet (304.8 meters)
wide and 60 feet (18.3 meters) deep, and constructed of steel
and reinforced concrete. The bottom of the platform would rest
60 feet (18.3 meters) above the mean high water level.
The
interior of the platform would consist of two or more levels.
The lower level (approximately 800,000 square feet) would be
between 20 and 40 feet (6.1 to 12.2 meters) high, and contain
support systems for the facility, including diesel electric
powerhouse; garbage disposal; fire pumps; storage tanks for
fuel, potable water, emergency water (fire); food storage; maintenance
shops and warehouses. The upper level (approximately 800,000
square feet) would contain multiple stories, including eight
towers rising above the main platform. Transportation to and
from the facility would be aided by a helicopter landing pad,
and three docking spaces for cruise liners.
During
the summer and autumn of 1988, the COE received comments from
the public and other Federal and state agencies in response
to the proposed project. Significant concerns were raised regarding
the effects of the project on the marine habitat and living
resources of the Stellwagen Bank system. Also, the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management Office (MCZM) determined the proposal
was likely to affect the Massachusetts coastal zone, and was
thus subject to a Federal consistency review and determination,
pursuant to § 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (15
CFR Part 930.53(b)). In addition to raising questions concerning
structural stability and integrity, the Commonwealth asserted
the proposal's likely effects would include:
•
Operation of necessary support facilities in one or more ports
or harbors;
•
Increased boat and barge traffic within State waters, and in
trips to and from Stellwagen Bank;
•
Interaction with commercial and recreational fisheries on Stellwagen
Bank;
•
Potential environmental harm to fishery resources and the Bank's
ecology, resulting from construction activities; volume and
composition of discharges; fuel and other spills occurring during
transfer operations; accidental loss of debris and litter; noise
and light-induced changes in fish behavior;
•
Potential environmental harm to threatened and endangered species,
especially the northern right whale and sea turtles, resulting
from noise and vessel traffic; and
•
Interaction with whalewatch vessels.
The
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) also stated that a
NEPA environmental impact statement (including consultation
pursuant to § 7 of the Endangered Species Act), would be
necessary to address these concerns. In 1990, the applicant
proposed the relocation of the artificial platform to a site
further north (42_30'N x 70_06'W); and the expansion of the
project to include two identical platforms, or "twin towers",
each 1,000 feet wide and connected by a gangway. The COE has
indicated numerous uncertainties still require resolution before
the proposal may move forward, including the financial support
for this project (T. Bruha, COE, pers. comm., June 1990). Additional
inquiries to the COE have indicated there has been no further
progress on this proposal (T. Bruha, ACOE, pers. comm., June,
1991).
next
section
|
