assacnusetis oavs
\ / \ / \ y f\ i • s^, Wii-
ivvo Comprehensive Conservation
& Management Plan
-
AN EVOLVING PtAN F PlP ACTION
;iH
SUMMARY
MASSACHUSETTS BAYS PROGRAM
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
1996 FINAL CCMP
-------
The Bays Program
The Massachusetts Bays Program is a joint effort of local, state, and federal
governments, as well as citizens, scientists, educators, and businesses, to
develop regional solutions to pollution problems in the Bays and their adjacent
watersheds. The Program is funded under the Clean Water Act through the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and is administered by the Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs' Coastal Zone Management Office. In
addition to developing a long-term plan to improve water quality management,
the Program offers information and technical assistance on innovative, locally-
based pollution prevention and remediation projects, and sponsors a multi-
faceted public outreach and education effort to heighten awareness of pollution
problems and to enlist support for and participation in Bays protection.
For more information, call 1 -800-447-BAYS or write to the Massachusetts Bays
Program, 100 Cambridge Street, Room 2006, Boston, MA 02202.
-------
Table of Contents
I. Introduction 1
II. The State of the Bays 4
III. Overview of Coastal Subregions 13
IV. Projects of Regional Scope and Impact 14
V. Action Plan 20
VI. Implementing the CCMP Throughout the Bays Watershed 29
VII. Financing the CCMP 33
VIII. Monitoring CCMP Implementation 34
Appendices
A. MBP Research and Demonstration Projects 38
B. MBP Committees and Staff .46
C. Bibliography 53
Acknowledgements 57
Note:
Additional Chapters found in the full CCMP include Base Programs Analysis, Federal Consistency Analysis, and
Public Participation/Public Responsiveness Summary.
-------
I
Introduction
History of the Massachusetts Bay
Program
The Massachusetts Bays Program was launched in
1988 to actively address the mounting environmental threats
to the health of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays (the
Massachusetts Bays). Initial funding of $1.6 million from
the Massachusetts Environmental Trust was the result of
settlement fines from a suit filed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the City of Quincy against the
Commonwealth for violations of the Clean Water Act in
Boston Harbor. The same year, Congressman Gerry
Studds, acting on behalf of the Massachusetts
Congressional Delegation, drafted an amendment to the
Clean Water Act, giving priority consideration to
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays to become part of the
National Estuary Program (NEP). The NEP was estab-
lished to identify nationally-significant estuaries threatened
by pollution^ development, or overuse, and to promote the
preparation of comprehensive management plans to ensure
their ecological integrity.
In April 1990, following submittal of a nomination
package from the Commonwealth, EPA Administrator
William Reilly accepted the Massachusetts Bays into the
National Estuary Program. In November 1990, EPA and
the Commonwealth signed a Management Conference
Agreement which set forth work to be accomplished over
the next five years.
Today, the Massachusetts Bays Program is a federal,
state, regional, and local partnership funded by EPA and the
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
(EOEA). The MBP is administered by the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management Office (CZM) - an agency with-
in EOEA - with technical assistance and planning services
provided by the Regional Planning Agencies through grants
from the MBP.
Structure and Goals of the MBP
As a first step to carrying out the estuary program, a
Management Conference was convened to provide a forum
for open discussion and collaborative decision-making. The
Management Conference oversees the activities of the estu-
ary program and consists of representatives from appropri-
ate federal, state, and local government agencies, regional
planning agencies, various user groups, public and private
education institutions, and the general public.
The Management Conference is organized into a net-
work of committees: Policy Committee, Management
Committee (MC) (and its Steering Committee), Technical
Advisory Committee (TAG), Local Governance
Committees (LGCs), and Public Participation Program
Committees. The Policy Committee is comprised of the
EPA Regional Administrator and the Massachusetts
Secretary of Environmental Affairs. This committee
approves the decisions of the Management Committee, the
major decision-making committee in the Conference. The
Management Committee is made up of representatives of
state and federal government, the TAC, the five regional
LGCs, and the three Public Participation Program
Committees (the Coastal Advocacy Network, Education
Alliance, and Business and Resource Users Group).
The ultimate objective of the MBP is to institutionalize
the water quality management planning process to ensure
that a dynamic action agenda is implemented to protect,
maintain, and, where necessary, restore or improve the
Massachusetts Bays ecosystem. Work under the program
has been geared to:
• improving the habitats of living resources in
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays;
• protecting public health by minimizing risk from envi-
ronmental contaminants;
• protecting and improving water and sediment quality;
• enhancing the aesthetic quality of Massachusetts' coast
and coastal waters;
• encouraging pollution prevention and environmentally
and fiscally sound methods of treatment, cleanup, and
restoration; "and
• improving public access as well as educational and
recreational opportunities in and around the waters of
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.
-------
Overview of the Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan (CCMP)
To accomplish the above goals, the MBP has devel-
oped a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP). This plan will serve as the "blueprint" for coordi-
nated action among all levels of government to restore and
protect water quality and the diverse natural resources of the
Massachusetts Bays estuary.
Charting a New Course
The MBP charted an innovative course among the
nation's 28 National Estuary Programs by producing an
early version of the CCMP in 1991, the first year of the pro-
gram's federal funding. Other similar national' programs
had typically completed several years of scientific research
before recommending a course of action. However, the
Management Conference believed that, while much
remains to be learned about Massachusetts Bays, enough
was known already to begin to take action to prevent further
degradation and restore the integrity of the Bays ecosystem.
Developing the 1991 Draft CCMP
, An all-day "CCMP Development Workshop" was held
in March 1991 to design a challenging plan development
process. Participants included government officials, envi-
ronmental advocates, business leaders, and citizens. The
workshop resulted in a series of recommendations and the
formation of a CCMP Working Group to oversee the devel-
opment of the 1991 draft CCMP. This document was wide-
ly distributed for comment and served to guide the activities
of the Program as the Plan was refined and revised over the
following four years.
Developing the 1996 Final CCMP
Several important events have helped to shape the 1996
Final CCMP:
Peer Review
In the fall of 1992, a peer review was undertaken by six
outside advisors to strengthen and focusThe program. Their
recommendations included: holding a Visioning Workshop
to clarify program priorities, setting measurable goals,
defining a long-term regional implementation strategy, and
exploring potential funding mechanisms and sources to
finance our action agenda.
Visioning Workshop:
Setting Priorities and Measurable Goals
A Visioning Workshop was held in June 1993 to help
set program priorities. These priorities included reduction
of pathogen pollution of shellfish beds and beaches,
improved habitat quality, and reduction of toxics and nutri-
ents entering the ecosystem through point and nqnppint
sources. Subsequent meetings of an Ad Hoc Committee
resulted in the establishment of four measurable goals for
the program:
1. Set target values/acres for increased acreage of open
shellfish beds over time. Initially, the goal is to reopen
the 12 beds identified under the interagency Shellfish
Bed Restoration Program;
2. Identify embayments at risk of eutrbphication;
3. Monitor improvement in selected biological indicators;
and
4. Restore 12 coastal wetlands where restricted tidal flow
has led to habitat degradation. Monitor and report the
number of acres of coastal wetlands every two to five
years to ensure no net loss.
Focus Groups
Early iterations of the CCMP referenced, but did not
describe in detail, the major projects of regional significance
(so-called "megaprojects") in the Bays region. In order to
ensure that the current CCMP provides accurate, informed
discussions on these projects, along with appropriate rec-
ommendations, a series of focus group discussions were
held throughout 1994, Agency representatives ,and interest-
ed members of the advocacy community exchanged ideas
and reached agreement on basic steps needed for protection
of the Bays environment.
Regional Implementation Strategy
To ensure that the CCMP survives, beyond the end of
major NEP funding, a series of workshops beginning in
January 1994 explored models for a regional: approach to
facilitate future revision and implementation of the Plan.
The principal resulting recommendation focused on institu-
tionalizing the existing partnership between the MBP and
the Regional Planning Agencies ,to provide ongoing techni-
cal and financial planning assistance to communities and to
promote watershed-based water-quality planning. A retreat
held in January, 1996, fpeused on the future role of the
Local Governance Committees and reaffirmed their com-
mitment to work towards local implementation of the
CCMP. Massachusetts Bays Program staff will continue to
provide guidance and: technical assistance throughout the
implementation phase, and will work closely with the
Management Conference participants to monitor CCMP
implementation progress.
Financing the CCMP
Implementation of many of the recommended actions in
the CCMP will require funding. Accordingly, in 1994, MBP
-------
produced a companion document to the CCMP (Financing
the Massachusetts Bays CCMP: Federal, State, and Local
Funding Sources and Mechanisms) which provides guidance
on state and federal sources of funding for implementation, as
well as potential local and private sources.
Public Review Process
Throughout the four years since the release of the 1991
Draft, MBP committee members and their constituents have
devoted many hundreds of hours to CCMP issues and to
development and revision of the document. In addition, in
December, 1995, the draft final CCMP was released to the
general public for review and comment. The Final CCMP
incorporates responses to comments received as part of the
public review process, as well as comments on the draft
final CCMP from numerous state and federal agencies.
State and Federal Approval
Following approval from the Governor in late winter, 1996,
the CCMP was submitted to the EPA for a 3-month review and
approval period. A celebration of "graduation" to the official
CCMP implementation phase is planned for early fall, 19%.
Plan Organization
The 1996 Final CCMP is organized into 11 chapters.
Chapter I introduces the Massachusetts Bays Program and
describes its evolving management plan. Chapter n includes
a summary of the Characterization Report, a companion doc-
ument to the CCMP which describes the major features of the
Bays - physical, biological, and socioeconomic - and explores
the impacts of toxic pollutants, pathogens, and nutrients on the
Bays' resources. Chapter HI presents specific information on
the Bays' five coastal subregions, including important resource
management issues. Chapter IV describes a number of major
construction projects ("megaprojects") of regional scope and
impact in the Bays region. It provides an overview of the his-
tory of the projects, summarizing key environmental issues
and providing action recommendations for the major agencies
and authorities involved. Chapter V, the centerpiece of the
Management Plan, presents 15 major Action Plans for pre-
serving and protecting the Bays' resources. Implementation of
these plans is presented as a series of targeted steps to be taken
by responsible federal, state, and local agencies, with proposed
costs and timelines for both immediate and long-term action.
Chapter VI presents an overall strategy for implementing the
CCMP on a regional (i.e., watershed/embayment) basis.
Chapter VII provides information on CCMP financing sources
and mechanisms. Chapter VTfl describes the scientific and
management monitoring programs that will be instituted to
gauge progress on achieving MBP goals.
While the remaining chapters are not included in this
summary of the CCMP, they describe an approach for evalu-
ating and strengthening the region's existing management net-
work (Chapter K); an approach for developing an effective
and streamlined Federal Consistency analysis (Chapter X);
and the MBP's public participation program and the role the
general public, environmental advocates, and business com-
munity have played, and continue to play, in shaping the
CCMP (Chapter XI).
The loose-leaf format of the CCMP underscores its
development and purpose as a "living" document, subject to
future review and revision. Additional copies, as well as com-
panion documents such as the Financial Plan and the
Characterization Report, will be made available through the
MBP, CZM, and Regional Planning Agencies.
-------
The State of the Bays
Introduction
This chapter describes important natural resource and
-socioeconomic features of the Massachusetts Bays region.
It also assesses the current status of the Bays ecosystem,
focusing on priority problems and risks to coastal habitats,
living resources, and human health.
To characterize the pollution problems of the
Massachusetts Bays and to develop management solutions,
the MBP conducted a major research program. This pro-
gram was conducted by a variety of academic institutions,
agencies, and authorities. Included was an in-depth analy-
sis of three diverse embayments: Plum Island Sound,
Weymouth Fore River Estuary, and WeUfieet Harbor. The
results of this research and related studies conducted by aca-
demic institutions, agencies, and authorities were incorpo-
rated into the CCMP planning process. In particular, the
recommended actions in Chapters IV and V reflect the tech-
nical data from the research and studies.
Major Natural Features of theBays Region
Geography, Geology, and Water Movements
The Massachusetts Bays region, shown in Figure 1,
encompasses all of the coastal waters of Massachusetts Bay
from the tip of Cape Cod to the New Hampshire border, an
area of about 1,650 square miles with a shoreline of more
than1800 miles. The Bays are located at the southern end of
the Gulf of Maine, a large coastal sea characterized by rela-
tively cool water and large tidal ranges. The land draining
into the Bays covers more than 7,000 square miles. Half of
this area lies within 13 watersheds in Massachusetts; the
other half is the watershed of the Merriniack River in New
Hampshire.
The Bays region has a diverse geological history. Its
shoreline includes numerous beaches comprised of sand
and gravel deposited by the glaciers, as well as rocky shores
with exposed preglacial bedrock. The underwater topogra-
phy of the Bays is a patchwork of mud, sand, gravel, and
boulders (Knebel etal, 1991).
The MBP provided the funding for the first integrated
study of the physical oceanography of the Massachusetts
Bays (Geyer et al., 1992). A key step in developing man-
agement solutions for the health of the Bays is understand-
ing how pollutants move and are deposited throughout the
region. Further, understanding the Bays' currents is essen-
tial in predicting how human activities (such as the major
sewage outfall under-construction in Massachusetts Bay)
are likely to impact the marine environment.
The Bays are strongly influenced by the southward
flowing coastal current of jthe Gulf of Maine. This current,
combined with the large flow of water from the Merrimaek
River, enters northern Massachusetts Bay between
Stellwagen Bank and Cape Ann. From there, the water
flows southward into Cape Cod Bay, exiting the system
around Provincetown. (Some water also enters
Massachusetts Bays across Stellwagen Bank under the
influence of strong tides.) The overall counterclockwise cir-
culation pattern in the Bays is a yearly average and may
vary seasonally and even be reversed on any given day
(Geyer et al, 1992).
The residence time of water in different parts of the
Bays varies from as little as a few days (Boston Harbor and
other smaller embayments) to 20 - 45 days (Massachusetts
Bays) to over six months (Stellwagen Basin). Particles are
flushed more rapidly out of Massachusetts Bay than either
Cape Cod Bay or Stellwagen Basin.. A study funded by the
. MBP is examining how the characteristics of Cape Cod Bay
influence the physicaLand biological processes controlling
the availability of nutrients, which can be a source of pollu-
tion when present in excess concentrations (Gardner et al.,
in progress).
Compared to other east coast estuaries, the,
Massachusetts Bays do not contain a high volume of fresh-
water from rivers. Nonetheless, rivers are important sources
of selected pollutants to parts of the Bays (Menzie-Cura,
1991; Menzie-Cura, 1995 a,b) since some pollutants, such
as heavy metals and toxic organic compounds, are often
adsorbed to particulate matter carried by rivers. Unlike
much of the rest of the Bays region, Cape Cod Bay receives
almost all of its freshwater inputs from groundwater.
Finally, the Massachusetts Bays undergo an. annual
cycle of stratification of water into distinct layers by depth.
As the water warms in spring, it begins to stratify into a
warmer, lighter surface layer, a narrow transitional layer
called a pycnocline, and a colder, denser bottom layer.
These layers become most pronounced in summer when
there is little mixing between the surface and ocean bottom.
Cooling temperatures and increasing winds during the fall
season break down this stratification by mixing the water.
-------
Figure II-l. The Massachusetts Bays and Their Watersheds
-------
The significance of this phenomenon for the biology of the
Bays is that nutrients which support the growth of phyto-
plankton are used up in the surface waters during stratified
periods and are eventually replenished when the waters mix
again in the fall (Geyer et al, 1992).
Biological Processes
The patterns of primary production by phytoplankton
are related to the stratification cycle described above. As
winter moves toward spring, the increased day length initi-
ates a spring phytoplankton bloom, typically in February in
Cape Cod Bay and in March in Massachusetts Bay.
(Townsend et al., 1990). Under the stratified conditions of
summer, the phytoplankton, which must remain in the well
lit surface waters, eventually deplete the nutrients, and their
growth slows considerably. At the time of the fall turnover
and breakdown of stratification, nutrients brought up from
the bottom waters stimulate a fall bloom of phytoplankton.
The particular species of phytoplankton present at any time
also undergo seasonal changes, and can vary from year to
year as well.
Productivity and chlorophyll estimates of the Bays are
relatively low compared to other coastal regions. The annu-
al productivity of Massachusetts Bay has been estimated at
between 300-500 grams of carbon per square meter per year
(Cura, 1991; Kelly, 1991; Kelly et al, 1993). Chlorophyll
concentrations, an indicator of the quantity of phytoplank-
ton present, range from 1-4 mg per cubic meter per year in
most of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Higher con-
centrations occur in some harbors and along eastern Cape
Cod Bay (Kelly ef a/., 1993).
Nutrients, particularly nitrogen, are required for the
growth of phytoplankton, and hence provide a key to under-
standing patterns of productivity of the entire system. The
largest single source of nitrogen to the Bays is water that
enters the Bays from the Gulf of Maine (Cura and
Freshman, 1992). The Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority's (MWRA) treatment plant on Deer Island is the
greatest single land-derived source of nitrogen to the Bays
(Menzie-Cura et al, 1991). About 20 percent of the local
nitrogen loading to the Bays derives from the atmosphere
(Zemba, 1996). In general, nitrogen concentrations in the
Bays are highest in harbors and embayments, and then
decrease with distance from shore. A study funded by the
MBP is examining how the characteristics of Cape Cod Bay
influence the physical and biological processes controlling
,the availability of nutrients, which can be a source of pollu-
tion when present in excess concentrations (Gardner et al.,.
in progress).
Cultural eutrophication, the excessive and deleterious
growth of algae stimulated by artificially high nutrient
inputs, has degraded a number of estuaries around the
globe, including Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound.
Symptoms of such eutrophication are not presently evident
in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Most of the Bays
waters are extremely well flushed, although the deep waters
of Stellwagen Basin experience occasional depressions of
dissolved oxygen in September and October (Geyer et al,
1992). In general, eutrophication in the Bays system is con-
sidered a nearshore, localized condition that is limited to
smaller embayments.
Most marine organisms depend directly or indirectly
on the phytoplankton community.. Zooplankton—most
commonly microscopic animals related to shrimp and lob-
ster or the larvae of fish and invertebrates—feed directly on
phytoplankton as well as each other. The endangered right
whale is attracted to Cape Cod Bay in late winter because of
the high concentrations of copepods, the most abundant
type of zooplankton in the Bays.
Blooms of nuisance algae are a major management
concern. Red tide is caused by a dinoflagellate,
Alexandrium tamarense. This organism produces a toxin
that causes paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) in humans
who ingest shellfish from waters where these organisms
have bloomed. In recent years, red tides have been limited
primarily to thejipper North Shore. One of the major.con-
cems expressed by some about th& new MWRA outfall
(currently under construction) is that the nutrients; it will
release may stimulate blooms of the red tide organism trans-
ported south from Maine by the overall circulation patterns
through the outfall area. Because the overall amount of
nutrients will not change and the nutrients will be added
below the zone where plankton can grow, most scientific
evidence suggests, it is unlikely that the new outfall will
affect the frequency and extent of red tide blooms (US EPA,
1993). Nonetheless, it is a focus of monitoring efforts. (For
more information on the MWRA project, please refer to the
"Boston Harbor Project" discussion in Chapter IV.)
Other toxic algae occasionally identified in
Massachusetts Bays include Pseudonitzscbia pungens,
which causes Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning, (ASP) ^nd
Dinophysis sp., which induces-diarrhetic shellfish poison^
ing. Phaeocystis (brown tide) is not toxic but is considered
a nuisance algae because it fouls beaches, is odorous, clogs
fishing nets, and can smother eelgrass and other marine life.
Living Resources Habitats
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays are blessed with a
diversity, of estuarine and marine habitats that are of immea-
surable value to the Commonwealth's citizens and to its
native wildlife, Protecting and enhancing these habitats is a
priority of the Massachusetts Bays Program.
-------
Salt Marshes
Salt marshes are among the world's most productive
ecosystems. Currently, there are about 34,000 acres of salt
marsh in the Bays region (calculated by MBP from Mass
CIS 1985 land use data). Almost half of this acreage is the
wide expanse of marsh stretching from Plum Island Sound
through Essex Bay on the Upper North Shore. Other large
salt marshes are present in Scituate/Marshfield, Duxbury
Bay, and Barnstable Harbor.
Over the years, large areas of salt marsh in
Massachusetts, particularly in the Metro Boston area, have
been destroyed or degraded by filling for urban develop-
ment (Foote-Smith, EOEA, personal communication).
Adoption of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and
accompanying Regulations in the 1970s slowed this trend,
but small incremental losses and degradation continue
today. These result from commercial development, legal
filling (e.g., public works projects), illegal filling, mosquito
control, and pollution. Relative sea level rise and the
impacts of development in the upland buffer zones adjacent
to marshes present future challenges to the health of the
Bays' salt marshes. MBP has provided funding to map
potential coastal salt marsh restoration sites and to provide
a socio-economic justification for restoration of critical
marsh areas (King el ai, in progress).
Tidal Flats
There are approximately 30,000-36,000 acres of tidal
flats in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. About 40 per-
cent of this acreage occurs along Cape Cod Bay in
Barnstable County. Duxbury and Plymouth Bays on the
South Shore, and Ipswich Bay on the North Shore, also con-
tain extensive tidal flats (Hankin, et al, 1985). In the past,
tidal flats have been subjected to the same filling activities
that have despoiled salt marshes. In addition to outright
loss, tidal flats are also prone to high levels of pollutants
since they are areas of sediment accumulation. Tidal flats
provide essential habitat for a number of commercially-
important shellfish and are major feeding areas for migrato-
ry shorebirds, including several threatened and endangered
species such as the piping plover and roseate tern.
Rocky Shores
Rocky shorelines constitute the Bays' most dramatic
coastal scenery. They are most prevalent in the North Shore
region from Nahant north through Cape Ann. Because they
are well flushed by wave action, they tend to be less affect-
ed by pollutants than other coastal habitats. Nevertheless,
even rocky shores can be degraded by severe pollution. Oil
spills, in particular, constitute a threat (Whitman, 1994).
Eelgrass Meadows
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) forms a rich underwater
meadow that is a haven for a variety offish and invertebrates
(Buchsbaum, 1992). Major threats to this habitat include
declines in water clarity, dredging, and boating activity
(Orth and Moore, 1983; Costa, 1988 a,b). Also, eelgrass is
prone to natural population fluctuations resulting from
intense coastal storms and a naturally occurring "wasting"
disease.
Open Water
The nearshore open water of the Bays extends from the
immediate shoreline to a depth of over 300 feet in
Stellwagen Basin. Much of this habitat lies within either the
Commonwealth's Ocean Sanctuary Program or the
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. A major
management concern for this habitat is the protection of a
number of endangered species, such as whales and sea tur-
tles, that visit the area. Other concerns include fisheries
management and maintenance of water quality and habitat
integrity in the presence of a number of wastewater outfalls
and dredge disposal sites.
Barrier Beaches and Coastal Dunes
Barrier beaches and coastal dunes encompass a com-
plex of habitats, including intertidal areas, upper beach,
wrack line, foredune and back dune, washouts, and inter-
dunal swales and forests. These habitats are critical resting
and feeding areas for migratory birds, and support a number
of unique animals and plants, including various rare or
endangered species.
Barrier beaches are the coastal habitat used most inten-
sively by people. As such, they present especially difficult
management challenges. Conflicts commonly arise over
balancing residential, commercial, and recreational interests
with the preservation of the beaches' natural amenities.
-------
Estuaries as Fish and Waterfowl Habitat
Numerous coastal and offshore fish species spend at
least part of their lives in estuaries. Although the number of
commercially important "estuarine dependent" species is
lower here in New England than in other parts of the east
coast, these habitats are important nursery areas to several
locally valued species, ^most notably winter flounder.
Pollution of some of the Bays' urban estuaries, such as
Boston and Salem Harbors, has been associated with a high
incidence of disease in this and other fish species (Moore et
at, 1995).
The Bays' anadromous fish - those that migrate inland
from marine habitats to spawn - include alewives, blueback
herring, American shad, rainbow smelt, Atlantic salmon,
and Atlantic and short-nosed sturgeon (Reback and
DiCarlo, 1972; Chase, 1994). Over the years, these fish
have suffered greatly from habitat degradation, particularly
in the coastal rivers that are their spawning sites (Chase,
1994). Much of the decline in their populations can be
attributed to the restricted access to these spawning sites
caused by dams and other physical impediments. Spawning
sites also have been destroyed by siltation, excessive growth
of algae, and other forms of pollution.
Large wintering populations of sea ducks, gulls, and
alcids (penguin-like sea birds) use a variety of the Bay's
estuarine and nearshore habitats. In addition, gulls, terns,
cormorants, herons, and egrets summer in the Bays region
and depend on a number of offshore islands for nesting.
The major threat to these birds is habitat degradation, both
here in Massachusetts and in the areas where they spend the
rest of their migratory lives (Buchsbaum, 1992).
The Human Habitat
In 1992, a major socio-economic analysis of the Bays'
resources (Bowen et al., 1992) paved the way for CCMP
priority setting.
Population Pressure
People are the ultimate source of most of the water
quality problems and habitat degradation in Massachusetts
and Cape Cod Bays. The coast of Massachusetts Bays is
among the most densely populated of any estuary in the
National Estuary Program (NOAA, 1990), and the popula-
tion is expected to grow - especially in Barnstable County.
This growth will spur additional land development, with
resulting increases in sewage effluent, stormwater runoff,
and other nonpoint sources of pollution.
Shipping, Boating, and Dredging
Boston is the major shipping port in the Massachusetts
Bays region, generating $1.858 billion in economic activity,
based on 1992 figures from the Massport Authority
(Massport, 1995). The recreational boating industry in
Massachusetts employs nearly 9,000 workers with a total
payroll of $187 million (Cavanaugh and Lewis, 1990). To
maintain this shipping and boating activity, Boston and
other harbors in the region require periodic dredging. A
major and ongoing management issue is the safe disposal of
dredged materials, especially those that are contaminated
Other maritime-related concerns are chronic oil spills and
bacterial pollution from marine sanitation devices.
Tourism
Tourists in Massachusetts coastal regions spend about
$1.5 billion per year and support nearly 81,000 jobs. A
major management issue associated with tourism is the con-
flicts that arise between recreational use and the protection
of the Bays' critical coastal resources, especially those on
barrier beaches and coastal dunes.
Cultural Resources
The Bays region has a long and rich cultural history,
beginning with the first Native American inhabitants of
approximately 12,000 years ago (when the continental shelf
was exposed as a broad coastal plain) and continuing into
the present. A recent survey of data at the Massachusetts'
Historical Commission (MHC) indicates that the coastal
region has the highest density of ancient archaeological sites
in the state. Marine resources have been a significant part
of Native American subsistence strategies for millennia.
European explorers were initially attracted to the Bays for
their fishing potential in the 15th century and much of the
early colonial settlement was oriented here. Key aspects of
the Commonwealth's history are related to its' sea-faring
industries and dependence on the maritime trades and
economies. Important historic and archaeological resources
include shipwrecks, marine-dependent structures (e.g.,
wharves and lighthouses), and various archaeological sites.
The latter include Native American habitation areas and vil-
lages, historical colonial settlements, and historical marine
industries (ships, shipyards, .saltworks, fish flakes).
Together, these rich cultural resources help define the
unique character of the Bays region and provide a better
understanding of its historical use and development.
Fishing
Fishing has been an economic and cultural staple of
coastal Massachusetts since Colonial times. According to a
recent MBP-funded study (Bowen et al, 1992) the total
value of fish and shellfish landed in Massachusetts and
Cape Cod Bays in 1990 was about $53 million.
Unfortunately, major commercial species are being
overfished, resulting in an ecological tragedy that has led to
severe economic hardship for traditional fishing-dependent
communities, such as Gloucester (Correia, 1992;
Buchsbaum et al., in progress). Eight out of 18 species of
finfish that occur in the Massachusetts Bays region were
-------
listed as "overexploited" by the Northeast Fisheries Science
Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in
their 1993 survey. Total landings of the three most impor-
tant species of groundfish in Massachusetts waters — cod,
winter flounder, and yellowtail flounder — are now only 15
percent of what they were in the late 1970s (EOFA, 1990).
Haddock, a species long prized by fishermen and con-
sumers, has all but disappeared from Massachusetts waters.
In response to these distressing trends, NMFS has
issued new regulations designed to drastically cut fishing
mortality by limiting the areas open-to fishing, the length of
time fishermen can fish, and the total number of fishermen.
At the same time, the Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries (DMF) has placed limits on the size of boats that
can fish in state waters. Despite these actions, however,
recovery of the stocks remains uncertain.
Although overfishing is generally considered to be the
primary cause of the current crisis in the fishing industry,
pollution and habitat loss are also thought to play a role,
especially among fish species that spawn nearshore or are
anadromous. In the winter of 1996, MBP hosted a work-
shop to present the results of a MBP-funded analysis of
those factors impacting fish populations (Buchsbaum et ai,
in progress).
Toxic Contamination of Massachusetts Bays
Habitats and Resources
Pollutants in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, such as
nitrogen, suspended solids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAHs), chlorinated hydrocarbons, trace metals, and
pathogens, can increase risks to human health, habitats, and
sustainable resources. These pollutants enter the Bays in
either one of two general modes: from point sources (i.e.,
direct discharges), or from nonpoint sources (i.e., diffuse
sources such as stormwater, groundwater, or the atmosphere).
Sources of Pollutants to Massachusetts Bays
Recent studies indicate that the drainage basins for
Boston Harbor, the lower North Shore, and the Merrimack
River contribute the largest pollutant loads to the Bays.
Major sources within these basins are effluent from munic-
ipal wastewater treatment facilities and industries, rivers,
stormwater runoff, and atmospheric deposition (Menzie-
Cura, 1991; Menzie-Cura, 1995 a,b; Golomb etal., 1995).
Wastewater treatment facilities, particularly the large
ones run by the MWRA, are among the greatest contribu-
tors of trace metals, especially copper, lead, and zinc (Alber
and Chan, 1994; Uhler et al, 1994; Menzie-Cura, 1995b).
In recent years, the level of metals discharged by MWRA
facilities has declined due to an industrial pretreatment pro-
gram and a slower economy (Alber and Chan, 1994).
Industrial pipes are generally not a large "direct" source of
toxic pollutants to the Bays, as most industries discharge
their wastewater into municipal sewer systems rather than
directly into the Bays or their tributaries.
The Merrimack River, which drains the largest water-
shed to the Bays, contributes an estimated 10-40 percent of
the total copper load to Massachusetts Bay. It is also an
important source of lead, chromium, and mercury. Many of
these pollutants are discharged to the Merrimack River by
municipal wastewater treatment facilities and industries in
the urban centers along the river (Menzie-Cura, 1991).
Rivers entering Boston Harbor are major sources of lead
and PAHs (Menzie-Cura, 1991; Alber and Chan, 1994).
Stormwater is a significant cumulative source of pollu-
tants on a Bays-wide scale and a major contributor to the
degradation of many nearshore waters, including Boston
Harbor. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) also are a sig-
nificant contributor of various pollutants to Boston Harbor.
Atmospheric deposition is a significant contributor of nitro-
gen, organic compounds (PAHs and polychlorylbiphenyls,
or PCBs), and certain trace metals (cadmium, lead, zinc,
and mercury). These pollutants enter the atmosphere from
car exhaust and emissions from power plants and municipal
incinerators (Golomb etal, 1996; Zemba, 1996).
Concentrations of Toxic Pollutants in the Water
Column and Sediments
In general, the concentrations of toxic pollutants in the
water column in Massachusetts Bays gradually decrease
with distance from shore. In parts of Boston Inner Harbor,
Salem Sound, and northern Massachusetts Bay, levels of
trace metals exceed those recommended by EPA for chron-
ic toxicity to marine life. In addition, contaminated sedi-
ments can be a steady source of some toxic pollutants to the
water column.
The contaminant levels in virtually all sediments in the
Bays are above background levels, even in relatively pris-
tine Cape Cod Bay (Knebel et al, 1991; Hyland and Costa,
1995; Shea and Seavey, in progress). To assess the impact
of contaminated sediments on the community of marine
invertebrates inhabiting the sediments, MBP funded a sedi-
ment triad analysis (Hyland and Costa, 1995). For a variety
of coastal sites, this study compared sediment toxicity, con-
taminant concentrations, and the health of the benthic com-
munity. In most areas of the Bays, contaminant levels are
below those thought to impact benthie organisms.
Nevertheless, there are a number of toxic "hot spots" in
depositional areas where toxic contaminants and high levels
of organic matter accumulate, resulting in fewer benthic
species (Hyland and Costa, 1995). Nearshore sediments in
Boston Harbor, Salem Sound, and Broad Sound contain a
long list of potentially toxic compounds at hazardous levels
(Moore et al, 1995; Hyland and Costa, 1995; NOAA,
-------
1991). In Boston Harbor, levels of chromium, copper, zinc,
lead, mercury, PCBs, and DDT significantly exceed the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA's) lowest effect range. Chromium is elevated in
Salem Harbor sediments (MacDonald, 1991). The
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site and the future MWRA
outfall site both violate EPA's proposed sediment criteria for
certain PAHs (Cahill and Lnbalzano, 1991).
To further our understanding of the nature of the sedi-
ment pollution in the Bays, MBP funded an analysis of pol-
lution levels in cores taken from Massachusetts and Cape
Cod Bays (Shea and Seavey, in progress). In addition,
MBP funded a review of available sediment pollution data
(Cahill and Imbalzano, 1991). These and related studies
assist the MBP in understanding the potential impact of
major dredging and dredged materials disposal projects in
the Bays, as well as characterizing the results of long-term
disposal of pollutants into the Bays' waters.
Levels of selected contaminants are expected to
decrease in Boston and Salem Harbors as a result of ongo-
ing improvements to wastewater treatment facilities, reduc-
tion in CSOs, and the reduced use of certain toxic pollu-
tants, such as DDT, PCBs, and chromium. To help these
and other communities implement CCMP actions related to
controlling sediment pollution, the MBP funded an analysis
of stormwater Best Management Practices and related costs
in the Salem Sound area (Battelle, in progress).
Effects of Contaminants on Organisms in the Bays
Diseases and other physiological effects attributed to
toxic pollutants have been found in fish and shellfish from
Boston Harbor, Broad Sound, and Salem Harbor (Moore et
al., 1995; McDowell et al, in progress). Diseases associat-
ed with PAHs (e.g., a precancerous condition.of the liver)
were much higher in winter flounder from Boston Harbor
than in flounder from offshore sites (Sullivan and Robinson,
1990; Moore et al., 1992; Moore and Stegeman, 1993;
Johnson et al., 1993). A study by DMF showed that tissue
PCB concentrations are elevated in winter flounder and lob-
sters from Salem Sound and Boston Harbor compared to
those from non-urban coastal sites (Schwartz et al., 1991).
The effect of toxic pollutants on important marine organ-
isms at the population level is currently being investigated
(McDowell, in progress).
To clarify the role of food chain transfer in PAH
uptake, the MBP funded a study of PAH metabolism in
clams and marine worms (McElroy, et al., 1994). In addi-
tion, a MBP study examined a biochemical marker that is
induced in populations of fish and intertidal shellfish from
the Bays which have been exposed to organic contamina-
tion. The marker has the potential to serve as monitoring
tool to assess pollution exposure (Moore et al., 1995).
These studies and related research will be useful in tracking
the recovery of the Bays as the CCMP is implemented.
The risk to humans of consuming fish and shellfish
Major Sources of Pollution
to the Massachusetts Bays
Nitrogen
PAHs
Lead
KEY
Nonpoint sources
Atmospheric depositor)
I _l Point source
Sources of Carcinogenic PAHs in the Bays
Source Carcinogenic Total
PAHs PAHS
(% of total PAHs)
Rivers 1.82%
Small Point Sources 0.54%
Major Point Sources 0.63%
Coastal Runoff 0.31%
Atmosphere 1.08%
Dredging 1.48%
Total 6.00%
20.0%
3.0%
63.0%
2.0%
8,0%
4.0%
100.0%
10
-------
containing toxic pollutants is assessed by comparing conta-
minant levels in edible tissues with action levels set by the
federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), hi general,
fish in the Massachusetts Bays are considered safe to eat by
current standards of risk analysis. The only current health
advisory is for the consumption of lobster tomalley from
lobsters caught anywhere in Massachusetts Bay and a lim-
ited advisory for sensitive people for lobster, flounder, and
bivalves from Boston Harbor and bluefish from
Massachusetts Bay (US EPA, 1988). An EPA study offish
and shellfish in Quincy Bay puts the risk of developing can-
cer as a result of consuming PCBs in winter flounder, clams,
and lobsters (excluding tomalley) at between one in 1,000
to one in 100,000, depending on how regularly the fish or
shellfish is consumed (US EPA, 1988). The consumption of
lobster tomalley alone posed the highest risk, one in 100.
Most fish advisories in Massachusetts are restricted to
rivers and lakes. Health risks associated with consumption
of fish from our marine waters, even those of Boston
Harbor, are low. Nonetheless, there are some risks, though
fish in the Bay are generally considered safe to eat.
Pathogen Contamination of Sustainable
Resources
Shellfish Bed Contamination
The closure of shellfish beds due to pathogen contam-
ination is, in the eyes of the public, one of the major envi-
ronmental and economic problems facing Massachusetts
and Cape Cod Bays. Indeed, the 80,000 closed acres of
shellfish beds represent a significant annual economic loss
to the state. A 1991 estimate of the economic loss from
closed beds in the Ipswich
River alone was $500,000
(Ipswich Shellfish
Advisory Board, 1991).
Coastwide, the annual
losses are many times this
amount.
Contaminated shell-
fish beds are closed to
reduce risks to public
health from pathogens in
sewage. The two most
frequent diseases attrib-
uted to sewage pollution
of marine waters are gas-
troenteritis (caused by the
Norwalk virus) and
hepatitis A. Between
1961 and 1984, 6,000 and
1,400 cases of these two
diseases, respectively,
were reported in the United States (Williams and Fout,
1992). Many cases go unreported. Massachusetts has
shown a promising trend of no reported cases over the past
few years.
Although fecal coliform bacteria generally do not cause
diseases themselves, they are used as an indicator of the pres-
ence of pathogens. Shellfish beds are open to harvesting when
overlying waters are less than a (geometric) mean of 14 fecal
coliform bacteria per 100 mffliliters (ml) of water for 15 sam-
ples. No more than 10 percent of those 15 samples can exceed
43 fecal coliforms per 100 ml. (See U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration's 1989
Revision of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program's
(NSSP) Manual of Operations, Part I, Sanitation of Shellfish
Growing Areas.) Many shellfish areas in Massachusetts are
conditionally approved, meaning that they are open except dur-
ing certain predictable pollution events, such as rainstorms or
sewage overflows. These areas may be closed during certain
seasons or classified as restricted, in which case the shellfish
can be harvested but must "cleaned" at a relay site or depura-
tion facility for several days prior to marketing. Beds may be
classified as "prohibited" due to high levels of fecal coliforms
or subjected to management closure because they were not sur-
veyed. DMF has responsibility for monitoring and classifying
all shellfish harvesting areas in the Commonwealth.
At the time of this writing, 61 percent, or 252,568 out of
413,341 acres of Massachusetts Bays coastal waters, are clas-
sified as permanently open to shellfishing. As mentioned
above, 80,000 acres of the total closed acreage is considered
productive (i.e., contains harvestable shellfish). On a regional
basis, only 36 percent of the coastal waters from New
Hampshire through Boston Harbor are open, compared with
81 percent on the South Shore and 90 percent on Cape Cod
(DMF statistics).
The Status of Massachusetts State Waters By Classification Type In
Acres As of January 1,1996
Approved
1,351,896 77%
Cond. Approved
16.821 1%
Management Closed
208.887 12%
Cond. Restricted
2.240 0%
4.587
Prohibited
163,053 9%
Prepared by Div. of Marine Fisheries. May 1,1996 Acreage calculated by Mass/GIS. Conditional Approved (Contains
both Seasonal and Rain Conditional Areas)
11
-------
Over the past twenty-five years, the acreage of coastal
waters open to shellfishing has gradually declined
(Buchsbaum, 1992; Heufelder, 1988; Leonard et al., 1989).
Between 1970 and 1990, the closed acreage roughly tripled
on the South Shore and increased about twenty-fold on Cape
Cod. On a more positive note, however, hundreds of acres
of shellfish beds in the region have been reopened since
1991, as a result of pollution abatement.
Studies in a number of areas around Massachusetts and
Cape Cod Bays (Ipswich, the Annisquam River, Salem
Sound, the North River-Scituate, and Cape Cod) show that
the primary causes of closures of shellfish beds are inade-
quate sewage treatment systems, illegal sewer tie-ins to
storm drains, stormwater runoff, and wastes from livestock,
pets, and wild animals (Roach, 1992; Cooper and
Buchsbaum, 1994; Heufelder, 1988). Most of the recent
large increases in closures of shellfish growing waters in
Massachusetts are attributed to increased development
along the coast, resulting in increased nonpoint source pol-
lution, and more intensive monitoring. Nonpoint source
pollution of shellfish beds, particularly from stormwater, is
often technically difficult to mitigate, since it requires the
tracking of many small and diffuse sources, each of which
may be polluting only intermittently. Creative land use
planning and innovative engineering solutions are required
to alleviate this problem and prevent future degradation.
MBP is developing a model to help communities identify
shellfish beds at risk of closure from future development
(Horsley-Witten, in progress).
[Note: While most shellfish bed closures are due to
pathogen contamination, certain biotoxins such as paralytic
shellfish poisoning (PSP) periodically play a role in bed clo-
sures as well. PSP is a naturally-occurring seafood toxin
that is caused by a tiny microorganism known as a dinofla-
gellate, Alexandrian, tamarense. When the PSP-causing
organism is present in large numbers, it is often referred to
as "red tide." PSP can lead to serious health effects, and
there is no known antidote. Shellfish that are harvested as
part of a recreational or subsistence fishery appear to pose
the greatest health risk because individuals may not be
aware of a problem or do not heed the warnings. Coastal
waters as well as the marketplace are monitored for indica-
tions of PSP by DMF and the Massachusetts Department of
Public Health (DPH), respectively. This monitoring system
appears to provide adequate public health protection.]
Closures of Swimming Beaches
Beaches are closed to swimming if fecal coliform
counts exceed 200 cells per 100 ml seawater. Gastroenteritis
is the most common disease that is contracted by swimming.
in contaminated waters. The Massachusetts Bays Program
has calculated that about 10,000 swimmers annually may
suffer illness as a result of incidental ingestion of marine
waters. This translates to an annual risk of about one in a
hundred. The beaches posing the greatest risks are primari-
ly in the region extending both from Boston Harbor through
Salem. These same beaches experience the greatest number
of pollution-related closures.
A positive trend is the decrease in beach closures in
Boston Harbor over the past few years. This has been attrib-
uted to chlorination of CSOs, repair of sewage interceptor
conduits, and cessation of sludge discharges to the Harbor
(Rex et-al., 1992).
Massachusetts Water Quality Standards
The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control
(DWPC), within the state Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), sets water quality standards and designated
uses for specific coastal and inland waters. These are goals,
and are based on an assessment of what a particular body of
water should be able to achieve, both in terms of water quali-
ty and for shellfishing, fishing, swimming, and sustenance of
- aquatic life. Coastal waters are classified as either "SA,"
waters with the highest expected uses, or "SB," areas which
cannot meet SA standards. The DWPC, through its biennial
water quality assessment reports (under s.305(b) of the Clean
Water Act) to EPA, periodically assesses how well water bod-
ies are achieving their targeted goals and designated uses.
About 60 percent of Massachusetts marine and estuarine
waters assessed by the DWPC do not support their designated
uses due to pollution. Another 30 percent support their uses
and 10 percent are in partial compliance. Designated uses,
such as shellfish harvesting, were achieved for only 58 percent
of the waters classified as SA, and for only one percent of
those classified as SB. The parameter most frequently caus-
ing non-attainment is fecal coliform bacteria. Stormwater,
CSOs, and municipal point source discharges are the major
sources of non-attainment Toxic contaminants and organic
enrichment often prevent waterbodies from achieving their
designated uses for maintenance of aquatic life and fishing.
These observations provide strong support for the MBP's pri-J
ority goals of'reducing pathogen contamination of shellfish
beds and reducing toxic pollution from stormwater runoff.
MBP-funded studies which have contributed to our under-
standing of the sources and loadings of pollutants entering the
Bays include Menzie-Cura (1991), Menzie-Cura (1995a and
1995b), Golomb et al. (1995), and Zemba (1995).
Conclusion
Characterizing the status of the physical and biological
resources of the Bays, as well as the sources, loadings, fate
and effects of pollutants, serves as an essential first step in
developing a sound comprehensive management plan. The
recommendations in this CCMP have evolved from our
understanding of the state of the Bays, coupled with the prac-
tical wisdom and experience of concerned citizens and agency
professionals working together over the past five years.
[An expanded State of the Bays report is in preparation
and will serve as a companion document to the CCMP.]
12
-------
Overview of Coastal Subregions
Chapter m of the CCMP provides background informa-
tion on each of the five coastal subregions that com-
prise the larger Massachusetts Bays region. These five sub-
regions and the communities they include are shown below.
Each of the subregions is described in terms of its major
physical characteristics, population and economy, land use,
water quality (including municipal sewage and sludge treat-
ment methods, shellfish resources, public beaches, and
other commercial and recreational uses. Information also is
given on selected resource management issues important to
each region - for example, rapid population growth, closure
of contaminated shellfish beds, or coastline erosion. Major
coastal improvement projects and activities, such as the
MBP Mini-Bays projects, stormwater remediation activi-
ties, and harbor management planning, also are described.
Finally, an extensive directory is given of regionally-impor-
tant projects and programs, key contact persons, and
sources of financial and technical assistance to the Bays' 49
coastal communities. Excerpts from the CCMP for each of
these regions are available upon request from the
Massachusetts Bays Program Office.
Upper North Shore Region
Salisbury
Newburyport
Newbury
Rowley
Ipswich
Essex
Gloucester
Rockport
Salem Sound Region
Manchester-by- Peabody
the-Sea Salem
Beverly Marblehead
Danvers
Metro Boston Region
Swampscott
Lynn
Nahant
Saugus
Revere
Everett
Chelsea
Winthrop
Boston
Milton
Quincy
Braintree
South Shore Region
Plymouth
Kingston
Duxbury
.Marshfield
Norwell
Pembroke
Hanover
Scituate
Cohasset
Hull
Hingham
Weymouth
Cape Cod Region
Provincetown
Tniro
Wellfleet
Eastham
Orleans
Brewster
Dennis
Yarmouth
Barnstable
Sandwich
Bourne
13
-------
IV
Projects of Regional Scope and Impact
Introduction
Chapter IV of the CCMP describes a number of large,
ongoing or proposed projects in the Massachusetts Bays
region that are expected to have a greater-than-local impact
on the water quality, coastal habitat, and living marine
resources of the Bays ecosystem. These projects of region-
al significance (so-called "megaprojects") include:
• Boston Harbor Project: Upgrading Sewage Treatment
in the Metro Boston Area
• Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project
• Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project
• Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
• South Essex Sewerage District Project
• Saugus River Flood Control Project
• Plymouth Sewage Treatment Project
The MBP believes that such expensive and complicat-
ed projects should be held to the highest standards of public
review. The process of reviewing these projects in the
CCMP is intended to identify and illuminate issues of envi-
ronmental concern and to recommend actions which should
be taken to ensure that each of the projects proceeds in a
manner that maximizes benefits for the people of the region
while posing the least risk to the coastal environment.
Boston Harbor Project: Upgrading Sewage
Treatment in the Metro Boston Area
One of the biggest public works projects ever undertaken
in New England, the Boston Harbor Project involves the reha-
bilitation of the Metro Boston region's ailing water and sewer
systems and the construction of new wastewater and sludge
treatment facilities. Key components of the project include:
• wastewater collection and delivery system improvements;
• combined sewer overflow (CSO) reduction and treat-
ment initiatives;
• new wastewater screening headworks;
• new primary and secondary wastewater treatment
facilities;
• new effluent conveyance/diffuser facilities;
• new sludge-to-fertilizer facility; and
• a toxics reduction and control program.
These improvements are expected to make Boston
Harbor and its tributaries much cleaner than they have been
in more than a century. Indeed, the activities to date have
already resulted in a demonstrably cleaner Boston Harbor.
Nevertheless, the project has not been without controversy.
Despite study findings and agency determinations to the con-
trary, concern has been raised by some about potential water
quality and ecological impacts associated with relocating the
treated wastewater discharge from Boston Harbor to a site
9.5 miles out in Massachusetts Bay. This concern centers
around possible nutrient over-enrichment of Bays waters and
potential resultant algal blooms and depleted oxygen condi-
tions that could pose a threat to marine life. To address this
concern, an Outfall Monitoring Task Force has been assem-
bled to monitor scientific data from the site and to suggest
remedial action should any adverse impacts occur.
The CCMP recommends the following actions in order
,to ensure that the project proceeds in a manner that both
maximizes benefits for the people of the region and poses
the least risk to the marine ecosystem.
Recommended Actions
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
(MWRA) should:
• plan its operating budget to ensure sufficient funds are
available for operation and maintenance of the new
treatment facilities (this budget parameter js a require-
ment for the receipt of federal funding);
• continue aggressive enforcement of industrial permits;
• continue efforts to reduce household hazardous waste
14
-------
and to educate the public about proper use of the sewer
system;
• eliminate CSOs where deemed appropriate by a public
review process;
• continue maintaining the sewer system;
• monitor the health of the ecological community by
assessing species abundance and diversity of the ben-
thos in Stellwagen Basin and Cape Cod Bay near the
outfall; and
• implement contingency planning, with public input,
based on meaningful and verifiable triggers.
Communities and citizen organizations have taken an
active role in reviewing and commenting on the March
1995 Draft Contingency Plan. The Coastal Advocacy
Network and others have recommended that, should
unforeseen circumstances seriously threaten the health of
the Bays, the contingency planning process should give
consideration to all contingency options, including
advanced levels of treatment (e.g., effluent filtration, organ-
ic polymer addition, etc.) and inshore diversion of effluent.
Several communities have expressed the concern that con-
tingency planning should protect the health of Boston
Harbor, as it continues to recover from the effects of past
effluent discharges. The Massachusetts Bays Program rec-
ommends that the MWRA should:
• consider all contingency planning options, and, consis-
tent with the goals of this CCMP, the MWRA should
strive to protect all of our shared coastal resources, from
the North Shore to Boston Harbor to Cape Cod Bay; and
• continue to make all monitoring data available to interest-
ed parties in a mutually-agreed upon and timely fashion.
The 43 MWRA customer communities should:
• minimize infiltration and inflow;
• implement strong stormwater management measures
aimed at achieving the water quality standards in
Boston Harbor and its tributaries; and
• maintain their portions of the sewer system.
The Outfall Monitoring Task Force should:
• Adopt meaningful change values for several environ-
mental indicators, including, but not necessarily limited to:
1. percent change in liver lesions of winter flounder;
2. exceedences of water quality standards;
3. exceedences of FDA limits for seafood safety; and
4. changes in dissolved oxygen for Stellwagen Basin.
Recommend meaningful changes for:
1. biological productivity; and
2. structure of the benthic community, particularly as
it relates to contaminant levels in marine sediments.
Ensure that MWRA monitoring efforts are coordinated
with the state's planned monitoring program and the
nationwide marine monitoring programs.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
should:
• in collaboration with DEP, ensure MWRA compliance
with its discharge permit when the permit is finalized
and becomes effective; and
• continue to collaborate with MWRA and NMFS on the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement
the conservation recommendations in the NOAA
Biological Opinion.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
should:
• immediately implement the Recovery Plans for the
North Atlantic Right Whale and Humpback Whale; and
• continue to collaborate with MWRA and NMFS on the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement
the conservation recommendations in the NOAA
Biological Opinion.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) should:
• continue to upgrade modeling techniques and pursue
acoustical methods for the monitoring of outfall-gener-
ated plumes.
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
should:
• in collaboration with EPA, ensure MWRA compliance
with its discharge permit when the permit is finalized
and becomes effective.
15
-------
Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project
This huge construction project is designed to increase
the capacity and safety of the Boston-area interstate high-
way system, improve access to Logan Airport and the South
Boston seaport, and reduce traffic congestion in downtown
Boston. Key components of the project include:
• a widened, mostly underground 1-93 (Central Artery)
from Charlestown to just south of the Massachusetts
Avenue interchange, with 8. traffic lanes plus intermit-
tent auxiliary lanes;
• an 1-90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) extension via a
Seaport Access Highway and Third Harbor Tunnel to
Logan Airport in East Boston, with a connection to
Route 1 A. The new harbor tunnel will extend from the
Subaru terminal in South Boston to Bird Island Flats in
East Boston (The new harbor tunnel was opened
December 15, 1995 and dedicated as the "Ted
Willliams Tunnel.");
• an extended frontage road system parallel to 1-93, both
northbound and southbound, from Causeway Street to
just past Southampton Street; and
• a South Boston bypass road to connect 1-93 to the
Seaport Access Highway and the Commonwealth Flats
area of South Boston.
In addition to improving traffic flow and safety, the project is
expected to have a number of environmental benefits, including:
• improvements in air quality resulting from fewer traf-
fic snarls;
• increased parkland and open space in downtown
Boston, along the Charles River, and on Spectacle
Island;
• a cap to prevent leaching from the existing landfill on
Spectacle Island; and -
• restoration of 14 acres of coastal wetland at Rumney
Marsh.
Despite these benefits, concern has been expressed by
the City of Boston Conservation Commission and others
over the project's potential impacts on water quality in
Boston Harbor. Incidents of sediment control breakdown at
Spectacle Island have been reported, with resultant plumes
of suspended sediment observed in the waters around the
island. It is important that effective stormwater runoff best
management practices be instituted and maintained around
the perimeter of Spectacle Island to prevent any further ero-
sion and sedimentation from the island's construction and
excavate fill sites.
Recommended Actions
The MBP has not developed recommendations specif-
ic to the Central Artery project at this time. However, the
MBP will continue to track the nature and progress of the
project, and will issue future recommendations as deemed
appropriate.
Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement
Project
This project involves the deepening of channels in sev-
eral major Boston Harbor tributaries to permit the safe and
efficient passage and berthing of container ships and tankers.
These channels and many of their berths are currently too
shallow to accommodate commercial shipping except dur-
ing high tides, resulting in costly delays and limits on vessel
size and loading. Areas to be deepened include:
• Reserved Channel. Most of the existing 35-foot channel
would be deepened to 40 feet, including a portion of the
main ship channel to provide a deep-water turning area.
• Mystic -River. A major portion of the existing 35-foot
channel would be deepened to 40 feet, except for areas
along the south side and at the upstream limit where
40-foot depths are not required.
• Chelsea River. The existing 35-foot channel would be
deepened to 38 feet after the relocation and alteration
of utility crossings beneath the channel.
• Inner Confluence Area. The 35-foot confluence of the
Mystic and Chelsea Rivers along the East Boston
waterfront would be deepened to provide a safe 40-foot
approach to the Mystic River and Chelsea River.
• Berth dredging. Berths that would economically ben-
efit from channel dredging would be deepened, includ-
ing berths on the Main Ship Channel.
Although the project is expected to result in major
trade-related benefits for the Port of Boston and region, it
has raised several important environmental concerns.' These
relate primarily to the potential impacts of channel dredging
and disposal of dredged materials on marine water quality,
living resources, and habitat. Some of the material to be
dredged is contaminated and could harm aquatic life if not
removed or disposed of in an environmentally-responsible
16
-------
manner. The current "preferred" disposal option is "in-
channel," with capping with clean materials to reduce the
risk of significant environmental harm.
The CCMP recommends the following actions in ordef
to ensure that the project proceeds in a manner that both
maximizes benefits for the people of the region and poses
the least risk to the marine ecosystem.
Recommended Actions
The Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) should:.
• ensure adequate monitoring of the cap after comple-
tion of construction; and
• ensure that appropriate environmental performance
standards are incorporated into construction contracts.
Massport, ACOE, EPA, NMFS, and the
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs (EOEA) should:
• begin planning now for disposal of contaminated
maintenance material, and explore range of applicable
alternative technologies; and
• ensure adequate independent monitoring of all dredge
and disposal work during construction.
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
This "project" involved the formal designation of the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) as a disposal site
for uncontaminated sediments to be dredged from the
Commonwealth's harbors and shipping channels. Over the
next century, an estimated 23 million cubic yards of sedi-
ment will be generated from various dredging projects along
the coast of Massachusetts Bay. EPA and the Army Corps
of Engineers (ACOE) have determined that available upland
disposal sites are not sufficient to meet these disposal needs,
and have reaffirmed the need for an ocean disposal site.
The MBDS is an open water disposal site located
roughly 21 nautical miles from Boston and 15 nautical
miles from Gloucester, in waters ranging from 275 300
feet deep. Situated slightly southwest of a former disposal
site used since the 1940s, this site was favored because it:
• preserves the relatively pristine condition of the eastern
portion of the former MBDS;
• increases the distance between the disposal site and the
National Marine Sanctuary at Stellwagen Bank;
• provides an opportunity to cover previously disposed
contaminated sediments; and
• avoids an area of the Industrial Waste Site (TWS) that
contains a high concentration of drums.
In August 1993, EPA issued a "Final Rule" which for-
mally designated the MBDS as a disposal site for unconta-
minated dredged sediments. Disposal was specifically lim-
ited to material which meets the requirements of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act and its accompa-
nying regulations. These requirements consider impacts to
the marine environment, aquatic life, and human health.
The Final Rule also prohibited disposal-and-capping of
materials too contaminated for unconfined ocean disposal at
the MBDS until its efficacy can be effectively demonstrated
and it is authorized by law.
EPA's designation of the MBDS was not an authoriza-
tion for the disposal of any particular dredged material at the
site. Final site designation simply allows the MBDS to be
considered as a disposal option when land-based alterna-
tives are not practicable. Since only the actual disposal of
dredged material, as authorized by EPA and the ACOE,
directly affects Massachusetts Bay, the designation, by
itself, will have no impact on the water quality or marine
ecology of the Bays.
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office
(CZM) will formally review any activity at the MBDS or
modification of site restrictions which may be proposed in the
future for consistency with its own policies. Projects also will
be reviewed by NOAA, under the Sanctuary Consultation
provision of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (to insure
that the activity will not adversely affect the resources or
qualities of the Sanctuary) as well as under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (for protected species issues).
Nevertheless, concern has been expressed about the
adequacy of future monitoring at the MBDS, as specific
components of a long-term monitoring program for the
MBDS are still to be determined. The EPA expects to
develop long-term management plans for all of its open
water disposal sites, including the MBDS, by January 1997.
The CCMP recommends the following actions in order
to ensure that the project proceeds in a manner that both
maximizes benefits for the people of the region and poses
the least risk to the marine ecosystem.
Recommended Actions
EPA, ACOE, and CZM, in consultation with other
appropriate federal and state agencies, should:
• lead an interagency study group to define parameters
for a demonstration study which could determine
whether containment of contaminated sediments (e.g.,
capping) is a viable disposal option for the MBDS.
17
-------
EPA and NOAA should:
• complete the interagency comprehensive assessment
report on the IWS, giving particular attention to the
site's potential impact on water quality and marine
habitat in the MBDS area.
South Essex Sewerage District (SESD) Project
This project involves the construction of a new sec-
ondary wastewater treatment plant by the SESD, a waste-
water management authority which serves the Salem Sound
communities of Salem, Beverly, Marblehead, Danvers, and
Peabody. The new plant is being built alongside the
District's existing but outmoded primary treatment facilities
at Cat Cove in Salem.
The project is expected to result in water quality
improvements which will enhance recreational and com-
mercial uses of Salem Sound and improve the health of the
marine ecosystem.
Nevertheless, concern has been expressed over the high
cost of the project to ratepayers. (Water and sewer users in
the five SESD communities will bear most of this cost, and
can reasonably expect their bills to triple over 1990 levels by
the time the project is completed in 1997).
In order to both maximize the SESD's beneficial impacts
on Salem Sound and minimize the financial burden on
ratepayers, the CCMP recommends the following actions:
Recommended Actions
All stakeholders in the project, including the SESD,
DER and participating municipalities, should:
• promote source reduction as a means of reducing con-
taminant loadings into Salem Sound;
• promote water conservation; and
• continue to seek state and federal funds to ease rate
increases.
Saugus River Flood Control Project
This project is intended to eliminate or reduce the storm-
induced tidal surges that periodically inundate the 4,000-acre
Saugus and Pines River floodplain and force the evacuation
of homes and businesses. (The worst of these surges, occur-
ring during the Blizzard of '78, damaged more than 3,000
homes and businesses and forced the evacuation of some
4,000 people.) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
estimates that a storm of the same magnitude today would
cause approximately $130 million of property damage.
As originally proposed by the ACOE, the project
would consist of more than three miles of dikes, walls, and
sand dunes along the coast. Its principal feature would be a
series of protective floodgates across the mouth of the
Saugus River. These floodgates would remain open most of
the time, but would be closed during severe storms to pre-
vent tidal surges from spilling into the floodplain.
The project has not yet moved beyond the design
phase, as the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
believes that a mix of non-structural flood protection mea-
sures may be more cost-effective than the ACOE proposal,
and has requested that these be further investigated. These
non-structural measures include:
• maintenance and repair of existing dikes, seawalls, and
tidal gates;
• retrofitting or elevating the most floodprone structures;
• dike construction;
• wetland acquisition;
• dune restoration;
• a floodplain management plan;
18
-------
• infrastructure retrofit; and
• an early flood warning system.
Studies to determine the cost-effectiveness of the non-
structural approach have been completed and reviewed by
the ACOE. EOEA is not expected to make a decision on the
Saugus River Flood Control Project until it has completed
its analysis of the ACOE's technical findings regarding the
state's plan and the impacts of current federal budgetary
policies.
While the project is being reviewed in greater detail,
the CCMP recommends the following actions:
Recommended Actions
Coastal communities should:
• strictly enforce municipal ordinances, including zoning
ordinances and the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection
Act, which regulate development in flood-prone areas.
Coastal communities and DEM should:
• strengthen existing flood protection regulations as
appropriate.
EOEA should:
• support efforts to preserve flood storage in the Saugus
and Pines River Estuary and investigate a possible
alliance with current efforts to restore wetlands;
• discourage development in flood hazard areas and
pursue a nonstructural program of flood damage miti-
gation wherever feasible; and
• provide technical resources and enforcement assis-
tance to communities seeking to tighten enforcement of
municipal flood protection ordinances.
Plymouth Sewage Treatment Project
This project will likely involve the construction of a
new 3.0 million gallon per day (mgd) secondary treatment
facility, along with possible alternative (decentralized) tech-
nologies, to alleviate the Town of Plymouth's mounting
sewage management problems. During the 1970s and
1980s, Plymouth experienced explosive population growth
that has resulted in huge wastewater volume increases.
Unable to handle these increases, the existing treatment
plant consistently violates the terms of its discharge permit
and is a steady source of pollutants to Plymouth Harbor.
Under the terms of a 1992 Consent Decree, the town
has been required to conduct a multi-phased Wastewater
Treatment Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Report
(FP/EIR) to evaluate feasible management strategies. This
report must assess the town's need for additional treatment
capacity and determine the type of facilities that will best
meet that need. Recently completed in draft form, Phase
TTTA of the FP/EIR recommends, among other things, the
construction of a new 3.0 mgd sewage treatment plant.
However, it has not been determined how far the sewer ser-
vice area for this plant will extend, nor how and where the
treated effluent will be disposed.
Complicating the issue is the fact that more than 70 per-
cent of Plymouth's residents currently rely on subsurface
sewage systems to dispose of their wastewater. Although the
town has already adopted several local supplements to Title 5,
at least half of these on-site systems were installed prior to the
promulgation of Tide 5, and therefore do not meet the state's
minimum siting or performance standards. As a result, on-
site systems are contributing to water quality problems in
Plymouth's groundwater, surface water bodies, and nearshore
marine waters. Even if the proposed sewage treatment plant
and sewer service area expansions are implemented, more
than 60 percent of the town's residents will continue to rely
on on-site systems in the year 2018. Therefore, a long-term
septage management program must be an essential compo-
nent of Plymouth's wastewater planning.
In order to ensure that an effective wastewater man-
agement plan is developed and implemented townwide, the
CCMP recommends the following actions:
The Town of Plymouth should:
• clearly identify on, a site-specific basis, the specific
public health and/or environmental threats caused by
on-site wastewater disposal, and direct its consultants
to evaluate potential alternatives to central sewering
for each of these areas, including community systems,
alternative on-site technologies, system upgrades to
Title 5, and inspection and maintenance programs; and
• explore alternatives to sewering the Industrial Park.
The DEP should:
• encourage Plymouth and other communities, as well as
consulting engineering firms, to explore and use alter-
native and decentralized wastewater treatment and
management technologies wherever feasible; and
• aggressively enforce water conservation standards
established by the Water Resources Commission
(October 1992) to help reduce wastewater flows and
the need for additional wastewater treatment and man-
agement facilities.
19
-------
Action Plans
/""^Ihapter V is the centerpiece of the Massachusetts Bays
V_xComprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. It
contains 15 major action plans, the successful implementa-
tion of which is expected to lead to the restoration and pro-
tection of the Bays' water quality, living resources, and fish,
shellfish, and wildlife habitat.
While some of the plans' prescribed actions are mitiga-
tive in nature, overall the emphasis is on prevention, in recog-
nition of the simple truth that it will cost far more to clean up
pollution later than to prevent it now. The plans also are
based on a premise of shared responsibility among all of us
in the Massachusetts Bays region who use and enjoy the
Bays' bountiful resources. Recognizing that fish, wildlife,
water, and pollutants all cross jurisdictional lines, the plans
establish a framework based on a partnership among gov-
ernment agencies (federal, state, regional, and local), non-
profit organizations, the private sector, and citizens.
Each major action plan in the CCMP contains a series
of individual recommended actions, each of which is
divided into eight sections: Rationale, Responsible
Agent(s), Implementation Strategy, Legislation Required,
Estimated Cost, Potential Funding Source(s), Target Date,
and Further Information. These sections document the
need for-each action and describe the organizations, strate-
gies, and timetables recommended for implementing
them. Estimated costs and potential funding sources are
identified as well. For more extensive information on
funding opportunities, the reader is referred to both
Chapter YE and the MBP report entitled, Financing the
Massachusetts Bays CCMP: Federal, State, and Local
Funding Sources and Mechanisms (December 1994).
A matrix of the 15 major action plans and individual
recommended actions follows. Each of the CCMP Action
Plan sections is available in full on request from the
Massachusetts Bays Program office.
The 15 major action plans in the CCMP are listed as
follows:
CCMP Action Plans
1. Protect Public Health
2. Protecting and Enhancing
Shellfish Resources
3. Protecting and Enhancing
Coastal Habitat
4. Reducing and Preventing
Stormwater Pollution
5. Reducing and Preventing
Toxic Pollution
6. Reducing and Preventing
Toxic Pollution
7. Managing Municipal
Wastewater
8. Managing Boat Wastes
and Marina Pollution
9. Managing Dredging and
Dredged Materials
Disposal
10. Reducing Beach Debris
and Marine Floatables
11. Protecting Nitrogen-
Sensitive Embayments
12. Enhancing Public Access
and the Working
Waterfront
13. Planning for a Shifting
Shoreline
14. Managing Local Land Use
and Growth
15. Enhancing Public
Education and Participaion
20
-------
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Responsible Agency
Department of Public Health
(DPH)
ACTION PLAN #1
Protecting Public Health
1.1 Establish a central clearinghouse
program for all beach testing and closure
information generated for Massachusetts'
coastal public beaches.
ACTION PLAN #2
Protecting and Enhancing
Shellfish Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
(DMF)
2.1 Conduct three (3) Sanitary Survey
Training Sessions annually ~ one each on
the North Shore, Metro Boston/South Shore,
and Cape Cod ~ to educate local shellfish
constables and health officers on the proper
techniques for identifying and evaluating
pathogen inputs into shellfish harvesting
areas.
2.2 Develop and administer a local
Shellfish Management Grants Program to
help communities finance the development
and implementation of effective local
shellfish management plans.
Shellfish Bed Restoration
Program (SBRP)
2.3 Continue and expand the innovative
Shellfish Bed Restoration Program to
restore and protect shellfish beds impacted
by nonpoint source pollution.
21
-------
ACTION PLAN #3
Protecting and Enhancing Coastal Habitat
3.1 Prepare and implement an EOEA - approved Open Space Plan to preserve and protect
key wetlands, floodplains, fish and wildlife habitat, and other ecologically- and recreationally-
important natural resource~areas.
3.2 Adopt and implement a local Riverfront District Bylaw to maintain river water quality,
preserve fish and wildlife habitat, and protect downstream nursery and shellfish resources.
3.3 Work cooperatively with neighboring communities, EOEA agencies, and other interested
parties to develop proactive, long-term ACEC Management Plans to preserve and protect these
vital resource areas.
3.4 Adopt and implement a local Wetlands Protection Bylaw to supplement the state
Wetlands Protection Act Regulations.
3.5 Prepare and implement ecosystem-based Barrier Beach Management Plans to promote
responsible use and protection of these critical coastal resources.
3.6 Employ full-time, professionally-trained conservation staff to provide ongoing technical
and administrative support to-local Conservation Commissions.
Department of Environmental
Management (DEM)
3.7 Develop and implement Resource Management Plans for all DEM-owned coastal
properties.
3.8 Develop and promote the use of river basin planning reports to facilitate responsible
water resources planning and management at the local and regiona} levels.
3.9 Acquire and restore undeveloped coastal properties that offer outstanding living
resources habitat and public recreation opportunities.
Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP)
3.10 Complete the statewide inventorying and mapping of coastal and inland wetlands, and
provide local Conservation Commissions with: 1) accurate base maps depicting wetland
boundaries, and 2) instruction on proper wetland map interpretation and use.
Department of Fisheries,
Wildlife and Environmental
Law Enforcement (DFWELE)
3.11 In collaboration with the Riverways Program, prepare an up-to-date inventory of
anadrompus fish runs in the Massachusetts Bays region and develop a strategy to prioritize,
restore, and maintain these runs.
\
3.12 In collaboration with the Riverways Program, develop and implement a citizen-based
Fishway Stewardship Program to restore and maintain anadrqmous fish runs along the
Massachusetts Bays coast.
Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (EOEA)
3.13 Continue the innovative Wetlands Restoration and Banking Program to restore and
protect degraded coastal and inland wetlands.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE)
3.14 Continue and expand current efforts to support eelgrass habitat protection and restoration
in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.
22
-------
Responsible Agency
= "
Municipalities
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
ACTION PLAN #4
Reducing and Preventing Stormwater Pollution
^^^^^^^^^"•^^""'•^^••^^^^^^••^•^^^^^^^^^••'^^^^^^^^^^^g
4.1 Adopt subdivision regulations that require the incorporation of stormwater runoffbest
management practices (BMPs) into all new development plans.
4.2 Implement best management practices to mitigate existing stormwater discharges that are
causing or contributing to the closure of shellfish harvesting areas and swimming beaches.
Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP)
4.3 In collaboration with Regional Planning Agencies, Natural Resources Conservation
Service/MassCAP (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service), and Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Office, 1) disseminate the Nonpoint Source Management Manual and Urban Best
Management Practices for Massachusetts, and 2) sponsor public workshops to educate local
officials about best management practices and performance standards for controlling stormwater
runoff.
4.4 Develop a coordinated and streamlined regulatory system within DEP to assure effective
implementation of the stormwater components of the Massachusetts Clean Water Act, Wetlands
Protection Act, and Federal Stormwater Program (Federal Clean Water Act, Sections 401 and
402).
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
4.5 Reduce stormwater pollution in the Massachusetts Bays watersheds through: (a) technical
assistance to communities in developing comprehensive stormwater management programs; and
(b) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance for industrial
stormwater dischargers. Targeted areas are the lower Charles River for the stormwater
management programs and the Neponset River for the industrial stormwater dischargers.
Massachusetts Highway
Department (MHD)
4.6 Prepare an Environmental Manual to complement the Highway Design Manual and
provide for the integration of environmental concerns (including stormwater management) into all
phases of highway project planning, design, construction, and maintenance.
4.7 As part of its forthcoming pollution prevention plan, develop a Stormwater Pollution
Mitigation Program to identify, prioritize, and correct existing stormwater pollution problems
associated with state highway drainage facilities.
4.8 Sponsor annual workshops to train local public works personnel on the proper use of
stormwater runoffbest management practices.
Massachusetts Highway
Department (MHD) and
Metropolitan District
Commission (MDC)
4.9 Require the use of on-site stormwater best management practices as a precondition to the
permitting of private property tie-ins to state drainage facilities.
23
-------
Responsible Agency
Municipalities
ACTION PLAN #5
Reducing and preventing
Toxic Pollution
5.1 Adopt and implement the following set of
regulations to ensure the safe use, storage, and
disposal of toxic and hazardous materials: 1)
Toxic and Hazardous Materials Regulation,
2) Underground Storage Tank Regulation,
and 3) Commercial/Industrial Floor Drain
Regulation.
5.2 Establish Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Programs for difficult-to-manage
hazardous products to ensure their proper
disposal on a regular basis.
ACTION PLAN #6
Reducing and Preventing
Oil Pollution
6.1 Establish and promote the use of Used
Motor Oil Collection Facilities to ensure the
proper collection and disposal of used motor
oil from do-it-yourself oil changes.
Department of Education
(DOE)
5.3 In collaboration with the Department of
Environmental Protection, develop and offer
continuing education courses on hazardous
materials management to create a pool of
trained "HazMat Specialists" at the local level.
Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP)
6.2 In collaboration with the U.S. Coast
Guard, EPA, and NOAA, implement the Policy
on the Use of Oil Spill Chemical
Countermeasures (Dispefsants) to protect
coastal resources from the adverse effects of oil
spills.
Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs,
Municipalities, & Private
Sector Partnership
5.4 Form partnerships to facilitate the safe
management of hazardous products,
emphasizing reduced products use and
recycling wherever possible.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
5.5 Reduce and prevent toxic pollution
through targeted National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting of
significant discharges in the Massachusetts
Bays; in particular, oil tank farms on Chelsea
Creek and the Island End River.
OEA Office of Technical
Assistance for Toxics Use
Reduction (OTA)
5.6 Continue to perform on-site assessments
and provide instructional materials to help
businesses and industries in the Massachusetts
Bays region reduce the use of toxic substances.
US Coast Guard (USCG)
6.3 In collaboration with other federal^ state,
and local agencies, continue to update and
implement the Massachusetts coastwide^rai
Contingency Plans to assure a rapid and
effective response to discharges of oil and other
hazardous substances into the marine
environment.
-------
Responsible Agency
OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
=======
ACTION PLAN #7 - Managing Municipal Wastewater
7A. Managing Centralized
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
7B. Managing On-Site
Sewage Disposal Systems
7C. Decentralized
Wastewater
Management and
Treatment
Municipalities
7B.1 Identify resource areas sensitive to
wastewater and develop management
plans appropriate to these areas, focusing
on the capacities of natural systems to
assimilate wastewater.
7B.2 hi cooperation with DEP, develop
and implement regular inspection and
maintenance (I/M) programs for on-site
wastewater systems.
7B.3 Employ full-time, professionally-
trained public health staff to provide
ongoing technical and administrative
support to the local Boards of Health.
Note:
Specific recommended
actions for this Action Plan
will be developed by the
Massachusetts Bays
Program and incorporated
in future supplements to the
CCMP.
Coastal Regional
Planning Agencies
7B.4 Establish a Title 5 and alternative
systems technical assistance program
directed to local Boards of Health and
health agents, systems engineers /
installers, and homeowners.
Department of
Environmental
Management (DEM)
7A.1 In collaboration with other state
and federal agencies, continue to
implement the Ocean Sanctuaries Act
by closely monitoring all facilities
plans which propose increased waste-
water treatment plant discharges into
an ocean sanctuary.
Department of
Environmental
Protection
7B.5 Evaluate and build upon the
centralized statewide repository for
testing information on alternative tech-
nologies, to be established as part of the
Buzzards Bay Project's two-year
Environmental Technology Initiative
Project.
Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA)
7A.2 Support the control of combined
sewer overflows in the Massachusetts
Bays watersheds, especially the lower
Charles River, and target National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
Systems (NPDES) permitting to
implement technology- and water
quality-based requirements in the
Merrimack River watershed.
Environmental
Protection Agency,
Exec. Office of
environmental Affairs,
Dept of Environmental
Protection, and Coastal
Zone Management
Office
7A.3 Work collaboratively to develop
and implement an effective program
for monitoring and enforcing point
source discharges from wastewater
treatment plants and energy-
producing facilities.
25
-------
Responsible
Agency
Municipalities
ACTION PLAN #8
Managing Boat Wastes
and Marina Pollution
8.1 Work cooperatively
with neighboring
communities, private
boatyards and marinas, and
state agencies (DFWELE and
CZM) to establish, promote,
and maintain BoatPumpout
Programs in targeted embay-
ment areas.
8.2 With assistance from
CZM and DEP, require
private boatyards and marinas
to implement effective storm-
water runoff control strategies
which include the use of
pollution prevention measures
and the proper design and
maintenance of hull servicing
areas.
ACTION PLAN #9
Managing Dredging
and Dredged
Materials Disposal
ACTION PLAN #10
Reducing Beach
Debris and Marine
Floatables
«M^M^HH«^^HH
10.1 Work cooperatively
with the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone
Management Office,
neighboring communities,
and waterfront users to
design and implement
Beach and Marine Debris
Reduction Programs.
ACTION PLAN #11
Protecting Nitrogen-
Sensitive Embaymcnts
irmy Corps of
Engineers (ACOE)
9.1 Continue to
monitor dredged material
disposal sites in the
Massachusetts Bays
region and initiate the
planning necessary to
begin a capping
demonstration project at
the Massachusetts Bay
Disposal Site.
)epartment of
Environmental
'rotection (DEP)
11.1 Strengthen Massachusetts
Water Quality Standards to en-
hance and protect nitrogen-
sensitive coastal embayments.
Executive Office
f Environmental
ffairs (EOEA)
9.2 Coordinate the
development of a
comprehensive Dredging
and Dredged Materials
Disposal Plan to
improve and maintain
access to the
Commonwealth's ports,
larbors, and channels,
and to minimize adverse
impacts to the marine
environment.
Regional Planning
gencies,
lepartment of
Environmental
'rotection, and
Municipalities
11.2 Work collaboratively to
expand upon current
Massachusetts Bays Program
efforts to identify nitrogen-
sensitive embayments, determine
critical loading rates, and
recommend actions to manage
nitrogen so as to prevent or reduce
excessive nitrogen loading to coas-
al waters and grouridwater.
26
-------
Responsible Agency
Municipalities
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
ACTION PLAN #12
Enhancing Public
Access and the
Worlcimg Waterfront
12.1 Develop and implement
Municipal Harbor Plans
which: 1) promote marine-
dependent waterfront uses, 2)
enhance public access to the
water, and 3) protect habitat of
shellfish and other living
resources.
ACTION PLAN #13
Planning for a
Shifting Shoreline
13.1 Adopt and implement
strict development/
redevelopment standards within
FEMA A and V flood hazard
zones and other areas subject to
coastal flooding, erosion, and
relative sea level rise.
ACTION PLAN #14
Managing Local Land
Use and Growth
14.1 Develop and implement
Local Comprehensive Plans
(LCPS) which: 1) direct
development into areas in the
community capable of absorbing
the impacts of growth and its
associated facilities, and 2)
preserve and protect the
community's important natural
resources.
Coastal Zone
Management Office
(CZM)
12.2 Enhance the Designated
Port Area (DPA) program with
new planning and promotional
initiatives.
12.3 Establish a new technical
assistance program to accelerate
municipal efforts to identify and
legally reclaim historic rights-
of-way to the sea.
12.4 In collaboration with the
Department of Environmental
Management and MassGIS,
prepare and distribute a
statewide Coastal Access Guide
to facilitate public access to the
shoreline.
Department of
Environmental
Management (DEM)
13.2 Continue to assist
communities in the development
of effective Floodplain
Management Regulations.
Executive Office of
Environmental
Affairs (EOEA)
12.5 In collaboration with
coastal municipalities, develop
and implement an Access-Via-
Trails program to enhance
public access along the coast.
27
-------
ACTION PLAN #15
Enhancing Public Education and Participation
Responsible Agency
ISA. Educating Teachers, Students, and
the Public About the Bays
15B. Developing a State Nonpoint Source
Education and Outreach Strategy
Department of Education
(DOE)
ISA. 1 In collaboration with the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, continue to develop and integrate
environmental education as an important component of the
curriculum in the public schools of the Commonwealth,
making broad use of the Benchmarks for Environmental
Education developed by the Secretaries' Advisory Group on
Education (SAGEE).
Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs
(EOEA)
15A.2 Continue to work closely with the Department of
Education through the Secretaries' Advisory Group on
Environmental Education (SAGEE) in order to develop a
strategy for the implementation of the "Benchmarks for
Environmental Education". Further, EOEA should continue to
place a priority on the role of environmental education and
provide adequate staffing to insure that appropriate state
leadership is maintained.
15A.3 In cooperation with the Department of Education,
continue to develop a grant relationship with the National
Science Foundation and other funding agencies in order to
provide technological outreach aimed at enhancing
environmental literacy. The goal is to make resource and
curriculum materials widely accessible and to provide ongoing
coordination among the various members of the education
community. The Massachusetts Bays Program represents an
important aspect of the total environmental picture and should
play a key role in this effort, helping to establish a unified
voice to speak for environmental education concerning the
Bays region.
15B.1 Develop and maintain a
clearinghouse of NFS education,
information, and technical assistance
materials, as well as a database of available
state NFS materials and programs.
1SB.2 Develop and maintain a matrix, by
topic, of NFS education, information, and
technical assistance materials produced by
state agencies and associated organizations.
1SB.3 Expand upon Massachusetts Bays
Program efforts and develop a strategy for
NPS outreach and technical assistance state-
wide that would coordinate the development
and production of NPS education,
information, and technical assistance
materials, and provide technical assistance ir
order to implement NPS pollution controls.
Exec. Office of
Environmental Affairs
(EOEA) and the
Department of Education
(DOE)
15A.4 Empower exemplary teachers, administrators, and/or
schools who demonstrate the competence to carry out formal
and non-formal environmental education initiatives that
complement the Commonwealth's environmental education
programs.
Massachusetts Bays
ducation Alliance
(MBEA)
15A.5 Continue arid expand its current efforts to build a
community of educators who can ably teach about and promote
the protection of the Massachusetts Bays, their shores, and
watersheds.
Coastal Advocacy Net-
work (CAN)
15A.6 Continue ,to serve as a vehicle for bringing information
to and from the government on environmental issues affecting
the Bays, with a particular emphasis on proposed projects or
regulatory changes.
Massachusetts Bays
Business and Users
roup (BUG)
15A.7 Continue to provide a public forum for the exchange of
information and ideas on CCMP development and
implementation among the Bays' business community and
resource users.
Marine Studies
Consortium
15A.8 Continue to offer undergraduate marine science and
policy courses; and, through the bi-annual Massachusetts
Marine Environment Symposium, bring together diverse
marine interests to promote a better understanding of marine
policy issues.
28
-------
Implementing the CCMP
Introduction
The Massachusetts Bays area is an estuarine system in
transition. Increased development along its shores and in
upland watershed areas, coupled with decades of discharg-
ing municipal and industrial wastes into its waters, has
placed the Bays ecosystem in jeopardy. Fortunately, it is not
too late to reverse the trend of declining water quality and to
restore the Bays. Indeed, there are positive signs that this
has already begun to occur in places, most notably Boston
Harbor.
The action plans presented in Chapter V articulate a
number of recommended steps that should be taken now
and in the future to restore and protect the Massachusetts
Bays ecosystem. The action plans also identify the organi-
zations that are responsible for taking those steps. These
organizations include regulatory and planning agencies at
the federal, state, regional, and local levels; legislative bod-
ies; business community representatives; and citizen
groups.
For many of the recommendations, these organizations
share overlapping responsibility, and close coordination will
be required to ensure that proper actions are taken without
duplication of effort or the wasting of limited resources. For
other recommendations, a single organization can achieve
the desired result. For still others, the implementing respon-
sibility may belong to one organization, but another organi-
zation may be called upon to provide technical or financial
assistance.
In working together to implement the CCMP, it will be
important for all participants to view the Bays ecosystem as
a regional resource to be shared and protected by many
Massachusetts cities and towns (in all, 49 coastal communi-
ties and 112 inland communities). Achieving the
Massachusetts Bays Program's principal goal - the preser-
vation and management of a healthy ecosystem of living
resources, useable by the public - will depend to a great
extent on regionally-based implementation of the CCMP
actions, while recognizing Massachusetts' strong home rule
tradition and significant potential for environmental protec-
tion at the local level.
Regional Approach to Implementation
MBP's advocacy for a regional approach to CCMP
implementation is based on three recent and highly suc-
cessful models, described as follows:
• Utilization of Regional Planning Agencies.
The Commonwealth's Regional Planning Agencies
(RPAs) have historically provided regionally-based techni-
cal and planning assistance to communities and watershed
organizations. In particular, through RPAs, the MBP funds
staff support to the five Local Governance Committees
(LGCs) geographically located throughout the 49 coastal
communities in the Massachusetts Bays area. Members of
each of the LGCs are appointed by the chief elected officials
of each community. LGC staff currently assist these com-
munities with activities such as water quality monitoring,
protective bylaw development, grantsmanship, and public
education - all with the ultimate goal of helping to shape and
implement CCMP actions. Using the geographical frame-
work and expertise of the Commonwealth's RPAs, the
LGCs have been successful in building local capacity to
address coastal water quality issues through a combination
of technical assistance, outreach/education, and implemen-
tation approaches.
• Shellfish Bed Restoration Program.
Shellfish beds which are closed to harvesting, either
temporarily or permanently, are an indicator of declining
water quality in the Massachusetts Bays and other marine
waters. In October of 1993, an interagency team recognized
that the actions needed to reopen these beds were not the
sole responsibility of any one agency, as no one agency has
all the necessary resources to address the problems. This
team includes representatives of the MBP, Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, U.S.D.A. Natural Resources
Conservation Service, County Conservation Districts, and
municipalities with impacted shellfish beds. The
MBP/RPA/LGC framework described previously is an inte-
gral part of the Shellfish Bed Restoration Program "team"
29
-------
approach, providing the local technical assistance and com-
munity participation that is key to the program's success.
To date, the coordinated work of the Shellfish Bed
Restoration Program (SBRP) team has resulted in the secur-
ing of grant funds for the identification of stormwater pol-
lution sources and for mitigation of pollution problems at
two of the 12 priority beds identified by the team. In addi-
tion, the SBRP is credited with the successful reopening of
over 400 acres of shellfish beds. The team plans to seek
additional funds to support remediation measures which
could result in the reopening of additional shellfish beds.
Lastly, this effort also includes a commitment to proactive
education and outreach in order to insure measures which
will keep currently usable, but threatened, beds open.
• Participation in the State Watershed Initiative.
The state Watershed Initiative builds upon the state's
basin assessment schedule. For the purposes of assessing
water quality and managing the state's water resources, the
Massachusetts DEP conducts water quality assessment,
planning, and implementation in the state's basins on a
rotating five-year schedule. The Watershed Initiative
expands this approach to create EOEA Basin Teams, made
up of state and federal agency staff, who will perform water-
shed-wide water quality and habitat assessments for use by
the Watershed Community Council in watershed planning.
A pilot river basin (the Neponset) was selected in 1994 to
explore and develop the coordinated river basin manage-
ment approach. Within the Neponset Basin, local
citizen/community sub-basin "stream teams" were devel-
oped, to perform shoreline surveys and other local assess-
ments and to help develop action plans for each segment of
the river. The Massachusetts Bays Program assisted in the
development of the estuarine sub-basin plan. The results of
citizen efforts and the EOEA Basin Team for the Neponset
are being combined to create a watershed management plan
for the Neponset Basin.
The watershed management process, adapted from the
Neponset model, is seen as consisting of a series of four
steps, each building on the other and carried out in an ongo-
ing fashion by the Watershed Community Council, Stream
Teams, EOEA Basin Teams, municipal governments, and
businesses. The steps are: outreach, education, and techni-
cal assistance; resource assessment; water resources plan-
ning; and plan implementation (including permitting, com-
pliance, and enforcement). Through these steps, watershed
stakeholders would collaborate in the identification of envi-
ronmental problems, and in the development of
Subwatershed Action Plans and Watershed Action Plans.
The Action Plans would describe protection and restoration
measures, assign responsibilities for these measures, and set
forth a schedule for implementation.
A Regional Approach to CCMP
Implementation: Future Efforts
This section describes the position of the
Massachusetts Bays Program regarding regional implemen-
tation of the Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan for the Bays, through consideration of
current efforts and by listing recommendations for future
efforts:
• The MBP believes that the MBP/RPA/LGC Technical
Assistance Team model described in the previous section
should be institutionalized to ensure future CCMP imple-
mentation. This cooperative and mutually beneficial rela-
tionship should be targeted for dedicated funding (refer to
latter portions of this section) and legislative recognition.
• The interagency technical assistance team approach
developed for the Shellfish Bed Restoration Program should
be applied to other "teams" which will be created to imple-
ment various CCMP actions, such as those relating to
stormwater management, toxics control, and protecting
nutrient sensitive embayments.
• Further, the MBP believes that the MBP/RPA/LGC
model and technical team approach should be extended into
the Massachusetts Bays drainage area (i.e., outside the 49
coastal communities), in order to be comprehensive in its
efforts to improve and manage coastal water quality on a
watershed basis. This could be accomplished through coor-
dination of the existing coastally-based Local Governance
Committees with the multi-town planning committees
which currently exist within the RPA geographic areas,
serving the Bays' watershed communities. Since these
multi-town committees are typically general purpose, they
could enhance their productivity with a specific agenda of
CCMP implementation activities or possibly serve as the
"umbrella" for a CCMP-specific subcommittee within that
multi-town planning committee.
• Finally, by organizing these committees around issues
on a subwatershed/watershed basis, they could serve as a
key component of the Massachusetts Watershed Initiative.
This initiative involves coordinating the efforts of multiple
state agencies, communities, and citizen organizations to
improve water quality planning and management. The
technical assistance component of the MBP/RPA/LGC
model could also serve to support implementation of the
state's Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Plan.
30
-------
Funding and Implementation
• Dedicated funding for continuing and expanding the
RPA/LGC and Watershed Initiative models into the
Massachusetts Bays watershed can be obtained through
sources which could include federal funds targeted to
CCMP priorities in program guidances; state bond funds
(e.g., the Open Space Bond); a small percentage of appro-
priate state agency operating budgets; the State Revolving
Fund; the proposed Clean Water Act provision for water-
shed planning; the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act, which links transportation improvements
with water quality implementation; or through establish-
ment of a non-profit organization.
• For proposed federal projects in the Bays' watershed
which have the potential to impact the Bays, the
Massachusetts Bays Program should request Federal
Consistency procedures by the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Office, with comments to be provided by the
Massachusetts Bays Program.
• The regional approach to CCMP implementation also
should be utilized to assist with implementation of the
Commonwealth's Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Plan (also known as the "6217" program). Under
§6217 of the federal Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments, the Massachusetts CZM program is required
to develop and implement a NPS Control Plan, which con-
tains many of the same coastal water quality management
and improvement measures as the CCMP (e.g., stormwater
management). The guidance for development of the NPS
Control Plan includes the requirement to develop enforce-
able measures for controlling nonpoint sources of pollution.
• The regional approach also should be used to support
the development and implementation of watershed plans
within the river basins which drain into the Bays, an
approach strongly supported by EOEA and currently being
piloted in the Neponset River Basin as part of the
Massachusetts Watershed Initiative.
For purposes of assessing water quality and managing
the state's water resources, the EOEA Basin Teams under-
take water quality and habitat assessment, planning, and
implementation in the state's major river basins on a rotat-
ing five-year schedule. As individual river basins in the
Massachusetts Bays watershed go through the EOEA basin
schedule, members of the MBP/RPA/LGC Technical
Assistance Team will actively participate, providing ongo-
ing support and guidance to Bays watershed communities.
Initial steps to coordinate the coastal MBP/RPA/ LGC pro-
gram with the EOEA basin teams are already underway.
31
-------
Management Conference Structure and Role
• During the spring of 1996, the MBP Management
Committee will begin to define in detail the post-CCMP
processes which will be used to: review and update CCMP
policy, goals, and objectives; approve annual workplans;
and guide and closely monitor implementation, including
the progress of the cooperative MBP/RPA/LGC Technical
Assistance Teams.
• As a result of a Bays-wide retreat held in January,
1996, the LGCs have already affirmed their commitment to
continue to serve as liaison between the communities and
the Massachusetts Bays Program, initiating, prioritizing,
and facilitating CCMP implementation actions at the local
and regional levels. Specific LGC workplans defining
implementation and monitoring strategies will be developed
over the spring and summer.
• The other MBP advisory committees (e.g., Technical
Advisory Committee) also will meet over the spring and
summer to detail their future roles in CCMP implementa-
tion and monitoring.
• Following approval of the CCMP, the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management Office will continue to provide
leadership to the Management Conference. MBP staff,
funded by the National Estuary Program, will continue to
provide guidance and technical assistance as the MBP
moves into the implementation phase.
ority concern, stormwater runoff is a serious concern for
Salem Sound communities. The geological, socioeconom-
ic, and environmental diversity of the Massachusetts Bays
region will be reflected in the regional and community
implementation priorities and strategies developed within
and by the LGCs.
Commitment to Implementation
The action recommendations in the CCMP represent
five years of coordinated planning within and among the
participating agencies and communities. As a result, they
represent the priorities and commitments of the participants.
All four of the coastal Regional Planning Agencies
have signed a resolution of support for, and commitment to,'
implementation of the^CCMP. In December of 1995, LGC
community representatives and MBP/RPA/LGC technical
assistance staff began a series of ongoing meetings with the
chief elected officials of the Massachusetts Bays' coastal
communities. As a result of these meetings, many of the
coastal communities have signed a formal resolution of sup-
port for the CCMP, which includes a voluntary commitment
to implement the municipal actions appropriate to each
community. In addition, each of the state and federal agen-
cies has signed a letter committing to implement the CCMP
action recommendations addressed to that agency. All of
these documents are included in the full CCMP.
Implementation Priorities
The CCMP Action Plans reflect the overall priorities of
the Management Conference. In turn, regional and com-
munity implementation of the CCMP will reflect the diverse
environmental needs and priorities of the extensive
Massachusetts Bays coastal area. For example, while Cape
Cod communities confront groundwater pollution as a pri-
Taking Legislative Action
Implementation of a number of CCMP recommenda- „
tions will either depend upon, or would be facilitated by,
certain legislative actions at the state and local levels. Please
contact the Massachusetts Bays Program office for up-to-
date information regarding proposed legislation which sup-
ports CCMP implementation.
32
-------
Financing the CCMP
Introduction
Chapter VII of the CCMP describes the range of
financing sources and mechanisms available to implement
the CCMP's recommended actions. Some of the recom-
mended actions are already underway and can be achieved
with little or no additional financial resources; many oth-
ers will require substantial additional funds, the source(s)
of which may not be readily apparent, especially at the
local level.
In this time of dwindling funds for environmental
projects and increasing competition for the remaining
funds, detailed and sound financial information is essential
for the successful implementation of the CCMP actions.
Accordingly, the MBP contracted with Northbridge
Environmental Management Consultants to inventory and
compile detailed information on funding sources and
mechanisms. In December 1994, Northbridge produced a
report entitled, Financing (he Massachusetts Bays CCMP:
Federal, State, and Local Funding Sources and
Mechanisms (Financing Report, for short) with appen-
dices and supplemental information added in early 1995.
(A copy of the complete report may be obtained from your
Regional Planning Office or the Massachusetts Bays
Program office. Further assistance with respect to grant
applications or other financial questions may be obtained
from your community's representative to the MBP Local
Governance Committee, or from the staff to that
Committee housed at your Regional Planning Agency
office).
33
-------
Monitoring CCMP Implementation
Introduction
Chapter VIE of the CCMP describes an ambitious,
long-term program that will be undertaken by the MBP to
ensure that the CCMP recommendations are implemented
and that the Program's overall goal - the preservation and
management of a healthy ecosystem of living resources, use-
able by the public - is achieved.
Scientific Monitoring
Since 1990, the MBP has supported numerous scien-
tific research and management endeavors designed to
improve marine environmental quality. Research has
focused on the physical processes that affect distribution
and transport of constituents in the Massachusetts Bays
region, the quantification of sources of contaminants such
as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and the
effects of contaminants on living resources. In addition,
through the Mini-Bays Program, the MBP has funded three
projects to provide in-depth analysis of embayments and
their watersheds, each with unique natural attributes and dif-
ferent management needs. Through these projects, the
MBP has been able to develop priority issues on which to
focus its management efforts and to develop measurable
goals for the Massachusetts Bays as a whole.
The MBP Monitoring Plan is designed to measure the
effectiveness of various management actions taken as part
of the CCMP. Fifteen categories of activities affecting or
contributing to the priority problems are listed in the CCMP.
Nutrients, pathogens, toxic contaminants, and habitats have
been identified as topics requiring immediate and focused
attention due to their extensive occurrence in coastal
Massachusetts, as well as the environmental and economic
consequences of habitat degradation caused by these conta-
minants. Because of the need to lessen the environmental
impact caused by nutrients, pathogens, and toxicants, spe-
cific measurable goals were developed for these topics and
are discussed briefly in the following section. These mea-
surable goals form the basis for one component of the mon-
itoring plan, which is, designed to measure the success of
CCMP management actions. The first-tier monitoring
activities associated with the measurable goals will be
implemented this year. Long-term monitoring questions
have been developed based on MBP-funded research pro-
jects, the Mini-Bays projects, and the need for special stud-
ies to accompany any long-term monitoring program.
In addition, a draft coastwide monitoring plan is under
development by the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Office. An integrated approach, to monitoring
programs for the Commonwealth's marine waters is
desired, and both the MBP's and the state's monitoring
plans have been developed concurrently. However, in order
to assess the success of CCMP implementation within a
short time period (1-2 years) and within the available fund-
ing, the MBP's current monitoring program focuses on the
Program's four measurable goals (see below). The state's
monitoring plan focuses on collection of baseline data in
specific embayments, long-term data collection, and
ecosystem modelling. Monitoring results to date from the
MBP will help formulate specific monitoring questions for
the state. Data from all activities will be made available to
both programs, and every effort will be made to coordinate
monitoring and data collection:
The MBP marine monitoring program is also coordinat-
ed, to the extent possible, with marine and watershed moni-
toring efforts by other programs and agencies, including the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's
Office of Watershed Management (DEP/OWM), the Division
of Marine Fisheries (DMF), and citizen groups.
To the extent possible, the MBP Management
Conference and staff will track scientific monitoring efforts
and management achievements. Based on the availability of
funds, reports will be released on a regular basis. The sched-
ule for review and reporting will be developed through the
spring and summer of 1996.
Measurable Goals
The four topics for which measurable goals have been
developed were chosen as issues requiring scientific and
management attention throughout the Massachusetts Bays
(and, in particular, through this CCMP's Action Plans).
Measurable goals were developed for the four issue areas by
the MBP Measurable Goals Committee, and these form the
cornerstone of the Monitoring Plan. The Technical
Advisory Committee (TAG) has approved the goals and
refined them as necessary based on the development of the
Monitoring Plan.
34
-------
Nutrients
Excess nutrient inputs to coastal waters can cause
water quality degradation through eutrophication, low dis-
solved oxygen levels, changes in community structure, and
habitat loss.
Measurable Goal: Identify embayments at risk of
eutrophication.
Pathogens
Improper treatment and disposal of human wastes
(or other sources of pathogens) in the marine environ-
ment pose a risk to human health through contamination
of shellfish beds and swimming beaches. The closure
of shellfish beds due to pathogen contamination results
in substantial economic loss to a number of coastal com-
munities.
Measurable Goal: Re-open 12 shellfish beds closed due to
pathogen contamination from nonpoint sources of pollution.
Toxic Contaminants
Toxic substances in coastal waters and sediments may
be present at levels that cause contamination, adversely
impact living resources, and further degrade the coastal
environment. These effects may result in significant eco-
nomic loss through a decline in harvestable fish stocks and
tourism, and through the need for expensive alternatives for
disposal of dredged material.
Measurable Goal: Quantify the reduction in loadings
from targeted toxicant sources contributing to an identi-
fied habitat location and monitor improvement in select-
ed biological indicators - e.g., reduce body burdens of
toxic contaminants in biological resources below levels
of demonstrable population effects.
Habitats
Loss of habitat such as coastal wetlands and anadro-
mous fish runs reduces important nursery and breeding
grounds for many species of marine animals, including com-
mercial and recreational species. The loss of these resources
creates economic hardship through lost revenue from
decreased tourism and reduction or elimination of local fish-
eries businesses. In addition, loss of habitat can impair water
quality and impinge upon other valued coastal amenities,
such as bathing beaches and aquaculture facilities.
Measurable Goals:
• Restore 12 coastal wetland areas that have been
adversely impacted due to restricted saltwater flow.
• Monitor and report the number of acres of coastal wet-
lands every five years to ensure no net loss of wetlands.
• Work with the Division of Marine Fisheries to provide
an updated list of the locations and condition of
anadromous fish runs. Based on the inventory, restore
and monitor 5 anadromous fish runs.
• Define the critical habitat for 5 to 10 important species
and monitor habitat conditions suitable for these select-
ed species.
Mini-Bays Program
The Mini-Bays Program provided the opportunity to
perform in-depth analysis of three embayments: Plum
Island Sound, Weymouth Fore River Estuary, and Wellfleet
Harbor. Each embayment project has a different focus
because the locations, environmental conditions, and man-
agement challenges of each embayment are unique.
Extensive baseline information is available for the Mini-
Bays sites, and management activities have been imple-
mented in the sub-watersheds, providing the opportunity to
develop monitoring plans to evaluate management actions
over the long-term.
Potential hypotheses for the long-term monitoring pro-
jects for the Mini-Bays Program follow:
• Plum Island Sound: What are the relative contribu-
tions of pathogens and nutrients from the major sources to
Plum Island Sound, including the Parker River, the Ipswich
River, and the Ipswich WWTP? Will the repairs to the
Ipswich WWTP mitigate pathogen and nutrient flux to
Plum Island Sound?
35
-------
• Weymouth Fore River: Certain projects are being
implemented in the Fore River watershed (e.g., decommis-
sioning of the Nut Island wastewater treatment facility, the
Braintree-Weymouth Interceptor project) that have environ-
mental implications. The success of these projects will be
monitored with respect to reduced loadings of toxic conta-
minants, nutrients, and pathogens to Fore River and
Hinghafn Bay sediments and organisms, and for the reopen-
ing of swimming beaches and shellfish beds.
• Wellfleet Harbor: The Town of Wellfleet is develop-
ing a model to predict nitrogen loading to the embayment
and the possible impacts of nitrogen on shellfish resources
and habitats. The groundwork for this model (i.e., embay-
ment flushing calculations, land-based and oceanic nitrogen
loading estimates, and watershed build-out analysis) has
been completed. However, additional field data may be
needed to verify the model predictions and determine
whether additional parameters should be included, such as
nutrient flux from the sediments in Duck Creek.
Additionally, the distribution and biomass of macroalgae in
selected intertidal areas may need to be assessed and docu-
mented.
The monitoring plans for the Mini-Bays projects
should be refined as the final project synthesis reports are
completed this year.-
Additional Monitoring
Follow-up monitoring of MBP-funded research projects
can be revisited on a time-scale appropriate for a given pro-
ject For example, depending on the results of the nutrient
dynamic study in the Bays (Gardner et al., in progress), a
small-scale sampling of selected sites may be warranted to
determine changes in the ecosystem. Other projects that may
require follow-up monitoring include the Merrimack River
study (Menzie-Cura, 1991), nonpoint source runoff study
(Menzie-Cura, 1995), and atmospheric loadings study
(Golomb et al., 1995). The data from these studies can be
used to gauge progress toward attaining the stated measurable
goals, in addition to providing a broader assessment of the
status and trends of the Massachusetts Bays environment.
Special Studies
The Massachusetts Bays Program recognizes that out-
standing questions remain to be answered which do not fit
directly into one of the monitoring categories listed above but
have relevance to the overall health and understanding of the
functioning of the Bays ecosystem. As monitoring projects
proceed, additional questions may arise that will need to be
answered to allow proper interpretation of the collected data.
A draft of the Scientific Monitoring Plan was complet-
ed and distributed for review in June 1995, and the final
draft was completed in September 1995. The complete
Scientific Monitoring Plan is available through the
Massachusetts Bays Program office.
Management Monitoring
In addition to "scientific" monitoring, the MBP will
periodically undertake "management" monitoring to quali-
tatively assess the effectiveness of various implementation
measures which do not lend themselves to monitoring of
specific environmental indicators. The following three sec-
tions of the CCMP, for example, contain milestones, prod-
ucts, or other actions that are readily subject to this type of
periodic, qualitative review:
What Gets Monitored?
• Chapter HI, "Overview of Coastal Subregions," which
includes summaries of the status of individual communities'
efforts involving planning, bylaw development, and
resource use and protection;
• Chapter IV, "Projects of Regional Scope and Impact,"
which summarizes a number of the "megaprojects" that
commit state and federal agencies to certain actions in sup-
port of both the original megaproject design and the goals
of the CCMP; and
• Chapter VT, "Implementing the CCMP," which estab-
lishes a framework for institutionalizing and implementing
the CCMP through the Regional Planning Agencies and
MBP Local Governance Committees.
Who Will Do This Monitoring, And How Will It Be
Undertaken?
As previously noted, the Management Conference is
the governing body for the MBP, and as such, it has overseen
all aspects of the CCMP for the Massachusetts Bays. In par-
ticular, this includes establishing a network of committees
who represent federal, state, and local agencies; scientists;
business interests; the general public; educators; and user
groups. These committees have supported development of
the recommendations in the CCMP through scientific study
and analysis, policy development, and education and out-
reach. Additional efforts will include the tacking, review,
and evaluation of activities identified in the previous section.
36
-------
The specific assessments to be undertaken by both the post-
CCMP Management Conference, and by the MBP staff who
report to the Conference, are summarized as follows:
• Community Resource Survey: Poll communities in
the Survey to identify recently undertaken, appropriate
actions which may constitute or otherwise support CCMP
implementation.
• Megaprojects: Determine the extent to which the
responsible party(ies) have implemented the recommended
actions; also, assess whether the recommendations them-
selves continue to be appropriate.
• Action Plans: Interview the various parties responsible
for each action to determine the status of their efforts regard-
ing implementation; this applies to Action Plans which do
not lend themselves to quantitative assessment.
• Implementation Strategy: Since this is the frame-
work within which the above actions will be taken, the suc-
cess of the Implementation Strategy will reflect the suc-
cessful implementation of these actions.
When Will This Monitoring Be Undertaken?
As previously noted, the Management Conference,
as the governing body for the MBP, will continue to exist
upon completion of this CCMP and as such, will ulti-
mately be responsible for evaluating the success of
CCMP implementation. Further, with continuation of
federal funding (albeit at reduced levels), and with poten-
tial funding through the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, staff support for the Management
Conference will also continue. This aspect is particular-
ly significant regarding the regional technical staff who
assist the coastal communities in the MBP area, since a
number of the CCMP actions identify local officials as
the responsible implementing agents. These same staff
also will work with state and federal agencies to facilitate
additional implementation efforts.
Data Management
All MBP data sets will be made available in widely
used, standard desktop formats (comma-delimited ASCII
format, Excel, and Quattro Pro), and will be accompanied
by digital documentation that will include a description of
each data file, Quality Assurance Plan, and the Final
Research Report. These data file formats can be easily
incorporated into any future data bases, and the documenta-
tion will make the files discernible to future users. The data
and documentation will be available for viewing and down-
loading via CD-ROM and/or the Internet.
MBP data include:
• MBP-funded research, demonstration projects, and
Mini-Bays data sets;
• Digital files of Massachusetts Bays community map
overlays; and
• New GIS data on Stellwagen Bank, Massachusetts
Bays bathymetry, etc.
The MBP Data Management agenda has changed over
the years from the initial vision of putting the data into a
specialized, centralized structure like that of ORACLE or
ODES, to an open data structure with detailed documenta-
tion and easy public access that will make the data easily
available for years to come with little or no maintenance.
Open formats will allow access for all potential users (e.g.,
Regional Planning Agencies, community officials, the
MWRA, other state agencies, and private organizations),
regardless of software, analytical needs, or expertise. Any
future monitoring programs in Massachusetts Bays could
have very specific data standards and still easily incorporate
MBP data into their structure from the open formats in the
MBP data base.
For more information on the MBP data sets, contact the
Massachusetts Bays Program office.
37
-------
Appendix A
MBP Research & Demonstration Projects
38
-------
, v APPENDS A
MBP RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Funded Research Report (1990 - 1996)
Report Title
Sources and Loadings of Pollutants to the
Massachusetts Bays (337 pp.)
Evaluation of Elemental Tracers for
Monitoring the Transport of Sewage
Sludge in the Marine Environment (57
PP.)
Physical Oceanographic Investigation of '
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays (445
pp. plus figures and appendices).
'Survival and Deposition of Fecal Bacteria
in Boston Harbor Sediments (94 pp.)
The Massachusetts Bays Management
System: a Valuation of Bays Resources
and Uses and an Analysis of its
Regulatory and Management Structure
(309pp.)
Bioavailability and Biotransformation of
Hydrocarbons in Boston Harbor (68 pp.)
Examining Linkages between
Contaminant Inputs and their Impacts on
Living Marine Resources of the
Massachusetts Bays Ecosystem through
Application of the Sediment Quality Triad
Method (210 pp.)
Organic Loadings from the Merrimack
River to Massachusetts Bay (1 82 pp.)
Evaluation of Chemical Contaminant
Effects in the Massachusetts Bays (120
pp.)
Measurements and Loadings ofPolycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in
Stormwater, Combined Sewer Overflows,
Rivers, and Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs) Discharging to
Massachusetts Bays (236 )
Principal Author/Grantee
Charles Menzie, Principal Investigator,
Menzie-Cura & Associates
David K. Ryan
Univ. of Massachusetts/Lowell et al.
W. Rockwell Geyer
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, et
al.
Michael Shiaris
Univ. of Massachusetts/Boston
Robert Bowen
Univ. of Massachusetts/Boston et al.
Anne McElroy, Principal Investigator,
State University New York/Stonybrook;
New York Sea Grant, et al.
JeffHyland
Helder Costa
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Charles Menzie, Principal Investigator,
Menzie-Cura and Associates, et al.
Michael Moore, Principal Investigator,
Biology Dept. Woods Hole
Oceanographic institution, et al.
Charles Menzie, Principal Investigator,
Menzie-Cura & Associates, et al.
Status
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Doc, Numbei
MBP-91-01
October 1991
MBP-92-02
February 1992
MBP-92-03
October 1992
MBP-92-04S
MBP-92-05
(Full)
October 1 992
MBP-93-01
June 1993
MBP-95-02
November 1 994
MBP-95-03
March 1995
MBP-95-04
April 1995
MBP-95-05
July 1995
MBP-95-06
August 1995
39
-------
Report Title
Atmospheric Deposition of Contaminants
onto Massachusetts & Cape Cod Bays
Evaluating Costs to Communities of
Management Measures to Reduce Loads
to Sediments of Urban and Semi-Urban
Harbors in Massachusetts Bays
Biological and Physical Processes
Controlling Nutrient Dynamics and
Primary Production in Cape Cod Bay
Inventories and Concentration Profiles of
Organic Contaminants in Sediment Cores
from Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays
Population Processes ofMya Arenaria
from Contaminated Habitats in
Massachusetts Bay
Geographic Analysis of Bacterial
Loadings to Selected Massachusetts Bays
Program Embayments
Principal Author/Grantee
Dan Golomb, Principal Investigator,
Univ. of Massachusetts at Lowell, et al.
Mark D. Curran
Battelle Ocean Sciences
Duxbury,MA02332
George B. Gardner, Principal
Investigator, Univ. of
Massachusetts/Boston, et al.
Damian Shea, Principal Investigator, No.
Carolina State University, et al.
Judith E. McDowell, Woods Hole Ocean-
ographic Institution, et al.
Scott Horsley, Vice President Horsley &
Witten, Inc.
Status
Draft Rec'd '
Draft Rec'd
In Process
In Process
In Process
In Process
Doc, Nitmfcei
In Final Review
Print 3/96
(MBP-95-07)
In Final Review
Print3/96
Draft Due 2/96
Draft Due 3/96
Draft Due 3/96
Draft Due 3/96
OTHER HJNDED STUDIES
Identifying Southeast Asian Immigrant
Populations at Risk from Eating
Contaminated Shellfish
The Functions of Coastal Wetlands and
the Economic Value of Coastal Wetland
Restoration in Massachusetts
Impact of Contamination and Overfishing
to Fisheries Resources
Jennifer Charles, Charles Consulting;
Charles Menzie, Menzie-Cura &
Associates
Dennis King, Project Manager, King &
Associates
Robert Buchsbaum, Mass. Audubon:
North Shore
Final
In Process •
, In Process
MBP-95-1D
May 1995
Draft Due 2/96
Draft Due 2/96
Massachusetts Bays Monitoring Plan Components; ' ,
An Inventory of Organic and Metal
Contamination in Massachusetts Bay,
Cape Cod Bay, and Boston Harbor
Sediments and Assessment of Regional
Sediment Quality
Identification of Embayments at Risk of
lutrophication
Assessing the Health of Mussels, mytilus
edulis L., sampled during the 1995 Gulf-
Vatch Project.
Jeanne Cahill and Karen Imbalzano, U. .
Mass./Boston
Charles Menzie, Menzie-Cura &
Associates
William Robinson, U.Mass./Boston
Final
1991
In Process
In Process
N/A
Due 3/96
Due 6/96
40
-------
Demonstration Projects (1990 - 1996)
1991-1992
North Shore
Gloucester Dye Testing
Boston
Quincy Tidegate Project
South Shore
Stormwater Drainage
System Monitoring
Cape Cod
Scudder Lane Stormwater
Infiltration System
Installation
$ 1 6,000 ! Expansion of an existing dye-testing project
j conducted by City of Gloucester Health
] Department. Intended result: to control direct
! sewage discharges from inadequate septic
! systems.
i
$35,000 j Installation of a tidegate to control tidal influx
i into the storm water system for the City of
j Quincy.
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
$33,000 j Maintenance, upgrade, and monitoring of
i Stormwater drainage systems discharging into
j the North River in Marshfield, Norwell,
! Hanover, and Pembroke.
i
i
i
i
i
$ 1 5 ,000 ! Install ation and subsequent monitoring of a
! Stormwater infiltration system at the parking
j area and boat ramp at Scudder Lane in Bam-
j stable, and important shellfish relay area in
| Cape Cod Bay.
i
i
i Walter Meyer, Health Agent
! City of Gloucester Health Dept.
[Poplar Street
[Gloucester, MA 01 930
1(508)281-9771
i
i
[Michael C. Wheelwright
! Program Manager
{ Quincy Dept. of Public Works
j 55 Sea Street
i Quincy, MA 02 169-2572
[(617)376-1900
i
i
i Debbie Linehan, Executive Director
iNo. & So. Rivers Watershed Assn.
[P.O. Box 43
[Norwell, MA 02061
|(617)659-8168
i
i
! Stephen Seymour, Proj. Engineer
! Town of Bamstable
1 367 Main Street
[Hyannis, MA 02601
! (508)790-6300
i
i
1992 -1993
Boston
Winthrop Conservation
Commission and
Board of Selectmen
$31,000 [ "Lewis Lake Restoration Project": to improve
! water quality in a degraded coastal lake
[ through a quantitative baseline assessment of
] the water quality, vegetation, and hydrology
! of the lake. Automate the existing manually
[ operated tidegate, clean the area of debris,
[review the use of fertilizers and pesticides in
Ithe adjacent golf course, stencil storm drains
j which empty into the lake, and monitor re-
] covery.
Mary Kelly, Chair
Winthrop Conservation Commission
Town Hall
One Metcalf Square
'Winthrop, MA 02150
(617)846-1077
41
-------
1992 -1993 (conf'd.)
> 5-
Boston (cont'd.)
Friends of the Boston
Harbor Islands
Cape Cod
Orleans / Brewster / East-
ham Groundwater
Protection District and
Bourne Board of Health
i 1 1
$15,000 j "Greater Boston Harbor Eelgrass Study and jMarshaBach
! Island Revegetation Project" to renew and ! Friends of the Boston Harbor
j protect the native and naturalized vegetation j Islands, Inc.
i on the harbor islands through data collection, | P.O. Box 9025
! propagation, and transplanting. Create an on- ! Boston, MA 02 1 1 4,
j island nursery with seeds and cuttings j (6 1 7)740-4290
j collected from all of the islands. Create a |
i better understanding of coastal erosion i
| techniques through bioengineering which can [
I be used throughout the islands and along the j
! New England coast. i
! i
i i
$15,000 | "De-nitrifying septic system" to perform site | Wayne McDonald
! evaluation, and install and monitor an ! District Administrator
j alternative on-site septic system: a peat j Orleans, Brewster, Eastham Ground-
j system in Eastham. This system has the | water Protection Dist.
! capacity to de-nitrify wastes. Work with DEP i Overland Way -P.O. Box 2773
j to get these systems approved as alternatives j Orleans, MA 02653
j to the current Title V system. Conduct one j (508)255-5744
i educational workshop on the operation, i
j maintenance, and regulations necessary for j
i these systems. |
i i
i i
i !
1993 -1994
South Shore
Duxbury / Kingston /
Plymouth: Bluefish River
Water Quality Monitoring
/ Habitat Restoration
$32,000
j Goal of the project is improvement of near-
! shore water quality of Kingston-Plymouth /
| Joseph M. Grady, Jr.
! Duxbury Conservation Commission
j Duxbury embayment such that shellfish beds j 878 Tremont Street
! can be opened for commercial and
i Duxbury, MA 02332
i recreational harvest. Cooperative working i (617)934-6586
j agreement among the three towns. j
Other 1993 Demonstration Project funding was based upon projects submitted by the five regional Local Governance
Committees (LGCs). Included is a 25% non-federal match from local communities, agencies, or companies. Award:
September, 1993; Completion: 1995.
North Shore LGC (8 Towns & the Bay)
Coastal Water Quality
Task Force Development
$ 18,090 ! Task forces to be established in each
! Lisa Nicol
i community in a cooperative effort to identify, i MBP Technical Assistant
[monitor and mitigate non-point pollution jMVPC
! sources. Perform shoreline surveys, conduct j 160 Main- Street
I water quality sampling and data analysis, and iHaverhill, MA 01830
j enter into agreements with local sewer and j (508)374-0519
] water filtration labs for fecal coliform testing. '
42
-------
195)3 -1994 (cont'd.)
Salem Sound 2000 LGC
Salem Sound Monitoring
Project and Source
Identification Survey
Metro Boston LGC
Pilayella littoralis Re-
search
South Shore LGC
Water Quality Monitoring
Project
Cape Cod LGC
Alternative On-Site Waste
Technologies
Development
i ,
$ 1 7,000 j Shoreline survey and source identification
i project; teams of volunteer monitors collect
j weekly water samples analyzed for fecal
j coliform bacteria. Sharing of data with
i appropriate municipal officials and staff.
] Program.
$6,000 ! Funding to Northeastern University's Marine
! Science Lab in Nahant for study of the
(biology of Pilayella littoralis. Results to
j provide information for the successful timing
i and location of harvesting efforts.
i
i
$ 1 7 ,000 | Monitoring to occur in the communities of
! Weymouth, Cohasset, Scituate, and Marsh-
| field.
i
i
i
i
i
$ 1 7,400 ! Hiring of part-time technical assistant to work
i with Cape Cod communities in the
] development of alternative septic tech-
' | nologies.
i
i
i
1994 - 1995
-i
| Nancy Goodman
IMBP Technical Assistant
jMAPC
i 60 Temple Place
! Boston, MA 021 11
1(617)451-2770
! Dr. Don Cheney
! Northeastern University
| East Point Marine Science Lab.
! Nahant, MA 01 908
1(617)581-7370
i
i
! Bill Clark, MBP Tech. Asst.
JMAPC
1 60 Temple Place
[Boston, MA 021 11
|(617)451-2770
! Patricia Hughes, MBP Tech. Asst.
i Cape Cod Commission
j 3225 Main Street
IBarnstable, MA 02630
1(508)362-3828
North Shore (8 Towns & the Bay)
Town of Essex Septic
System Evaluation
$ 1 9,000 ! Town-wide door-to-door survey of existing
! septic systems, examination of Board of
j Health records, and compilation of data
i resulting in remediation recommendations.
jLisa Nicol, MBP Tech. Asst.
JMVPC
1160 Main Street
jHaverhill,MA01830
1(508)374-0519
Salem Sound 2000
Water Quality Monitoring
i
$ 19,000 ! Ongoing water quality monitoring program
I and establishment of coastal water quality
1 task forces in each community to work on
| specific projects (continuation funding).
| Nancy Goodman, MBP Tech. Asst.
MAPC
1 60 Temple Place
!Boston,MA02111
(617)451-2770
Metro Boston LGC
Waste Oil Collection Cen-
ter
' $4,400 ! Establishment of waste oil collection center in ] Bill Clark
! Revere to reduce pollutants entering i MBP Technical Assistant
' municipal storm water systems. A tank will j MAPC
! be purchased, installed and operated for 160 Temple Place
! several years. It will be the city's
! Boston, MA 02111
i responsibility for additional construction | (617)451-2770
| costs/operation, promotion, and disposal. |
43
-------
Metro Boston LGC (cont'd.)
Metro Boston Area
Contaminated Shellfish
Harvesting Study
$5,000 [Phase I of project to identify geographic areas
i and ethnic populations that are at risk from
j eating contaminated shellfish.
i Nancy Goodman
IMAPC ,
j 60 Temple Place
[Boston, MA 02111
'(617)451-2770
Neponset River
Watershed Bylaw
Development
South Shore
I 1 • • — —
$8,000 ! Development of a stormwater bylaw, based
! on stormwater modeling, for communities in
j the Neponset River basin. Developed by
JMAPC in partnership with MA Coastal Zone
i Management, US Natural Resources
| Conservation Service, Boston Water & Sewer
jDept., and Neponset River Watershed
i Association.
t
! Martin Pillsbury
JMAPC
! 60 Temple Place
i Boston, MA 021 11
j (6 17)45 1-2770
i
i
i
Water Quality Monitoring
$2,000 j To identify pollution sources in the Herring
1 River in Scituate.
i Debbie Linehan,
iNo. & So. Rivers Watershed Assn.
|P.O. Box 43
[Norwell, Ma 02061
1(617)659-8168
Cape Cod
Alternative On-Site Waste
Technologies
Development
$20,000 i Continuation of part-time technical assistant
I to work with Cape Cod communities in the
j development of alternative septic tech-
! nologies.
! Patricia Hughes
!MBP Technical Assistant
jCape Cod Commission
i 3225 Main Street
iBamstable, MA 02630
|(508)362-3828
1995-1996
North Shore (8 Towns & the Bay)
Four Community Projects
(in the planning stages)
$15,000
iLisaNicol
|M!V.P.C'.
j 160 Main Street
|Haverhill,MA01830
1(508)374-0519
Salem Sound 2000
Water Quality Monitoring
$15,500
Ongoing water quality monitoring program
and establishment of coastal water quality
task forces in each community to work on
specific projects they develop (continuation
funding).
! Nancy Goodman
! MBP Technical Assistant
IM.A.P.C.
160 Temple Place
! Boston, MA 02111
1(617)451-2770
Metro Boston Area
Youth Environmental
Action Summer Program
$5,000
Funding of 10-week "Harbor Vision Crew
'95" peer education and service program for
schools in the cities of Cambridge, Chelsea,
Somerville, and Boston.
! Jodi-Sugerman
! Save the Harbor/Save the Bay
S 25 West Street
! Boston, MA 02111
.j (617)451-2860
i
44
-------
Metro Boston Area (cont'd.)
Neponset River Water
Quality Monitoring •
Storm Drain Stenciling
South Shore
Water Quality Monitoring
Water Quality Monitoring
Title 5 Septic System
Municipal Data Base
Pollution Source
Identification
ACEC Management Plan
$2,500 j Citizen monitoring program to identify
! potential pollution sources in the Neponset
j River between Mother Brook section and the
I Lower Mills Falls.
i
i
i
i
i
$4,000 ! Stenciling of storm drains throughout the
! metropolitan Boston area, indicating that the
J storm drains dump directly into Boston
j Harbor.
i
i
i
! Ian Cook
j Neponset River Watershed Assn.
J2438 Washington Street
j Canton, MA 02021
1(617)575-0354
i
i
j Nancy Goodman
JMAPC
1 60 Temple Place
jBoston,MA02111
1(617)451-2770
i
$2,000 j To identify pollution sources in the Herring
i River in Scituate. North and South Rivers
j Watershed Assn.
i
i
i
i
$2,055 ! To determine nitrogen levels and fecal
! coliform bacteria counts in the Billington Sea,
j Plymouth, in conjunction with Old Colony
| Planning Council, Natural Resources
! Conservation Service, and Massachusetts
[Department of Environmental Protection.
i
$ 1 1 ,400 j Purchase of FoxPro software, one copy for
! each South Shore Local Governance
j Committee municipal Board of Health, to
| compile DEP-required information on each
! septic system in a municipality.
i
i
i
! Contract to develop database and translate
! municipal assessor data to the system.
| Input data to municipal computers.
i
i
$ 1 ,600 ! Purchase of smoke testing equipment for use
! by all South Shore communities (via DP W
'/Board of Health) in conjunction with the
j Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries.
i
i
j . —
$2,500 i Work with the Back River Committee in
1 Weymouth and Hingham to develop a
1 resource management plan for their ACEC.
i
i
i
i
j Debbie Linehan
| P.O. Box 43
JNorwell, Ma 02061
1(617)659-8168
i
i
! Mike Conrad
! Director of Water Monitoring
j Billington Sea Association
! 33 Hopkins Road
I Plymouth, MA 02360
|(508)747-5510
i
i
! Bill Clark
JMAPC
{60 Temple Place
i Boston, MA 021 11
|(617)451-2770
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
-1 _ ., —
! Bill Clark
JMAPC.
1 60 Temple Place
[Boston, MA 021 11
j (6 17)45 1-2770
! Tom Burbank
1 17 Andrews Isle/P.O. Box 185
| Hingham, MA 02043
1(617)749-9473
i
i
45
-------
Appendix B
MBP Committees and Staff
POLICY COMMITTEE
Trudy Coxe, Secretary, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Co-Chair
John DeVillars, Regional Administrator, US Environmental Protection Agency - New England, Co-Chair
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Diane Gould, Massachusetts Bays Program, Chair
Peg Brady, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office
Leigh Bridges, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
Faith Burbank, Education Alliance Steering Committee
Gay lord Burke, Merrimack Valley Planning Commissio~h
Michael Connor, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Ralph Cox, Massachusetts Port Authority
Richard Delaney, Urban Harbors Institute
Cathy Demos, US Army Corps of Engineers - New England Division
Jane Downing, US Environmental Protection Agency - New England
* Stewart Fefer, US Fish and Wildlife Service/Gulf of Maine Project
Pat Eldridge, c/o Senator Henri Rauschenbach/Coastal Caucus
Joan Foster, South Shore Local Governance Committee (LGC)
*Peter Gagnon, Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Stephen Greene, Business and Resource Users Group
*Janeen Hansen, Massachusetts Port Authority
*Carol Hanson, US Natural Resources Conservation Service
Pat Hughes, Cape Cod Commission
Russell Isaac, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Elaine Krueger, Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Peter LaPolla, Metro Boston LGC
*Wendy Leo, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Leslie Luchonok, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management
Marc MacQueen, US Natural Resources Conservation Service
Sharon McGregor, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Judy Pederson, Technical Advisory Committee
Martin Pillsbury, Metropolitan Area Planning Council
James Povey, Salem Sound 2000 LGC
Henri Rauschenbach, Massachusetts Senate
William Robinson, University of Massachusetts-Boston
Jodi Sugerman, Coastal Advocacy Network (CAN) Co-Chair
Frederick (Ted) Tarr, 8 Towns and the Bay .LGC
Patricia Trombly, Massachusetts Highway Department
Maria Van Dusen, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement
James Watson, Old Colony Planning Council-
Mason Weinrich, CAN Co-Chair
Mark Zivan, Cape Cod Coastal Resources Committee LGC
46
-------
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Judy Pederson, MIT Sea Grant Program, Co-Chair
Bill Robinson,.University of Massachusetts-Boston, Co-Chair
Eric Adams, MIT-Civil Engineering Department
Andrea Arenovski, Marine Studies Consortium
Arnold Banner, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Gulf of Maine Project
Leigh Bridges, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
Robert Buchsbaum, Massachusetts Audubon Society: North Shore
Brad Butman, US Geological Survey-Woods Hole
Mark Chandler, New England Aquarium
Michael Connor, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Martin Dowgert, US Food and Drug Administration
Kenneth Finkelstein, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/US Environmental Protection Agency
New England
Mike Gildesgame, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management
* Debbie Graham, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management
Paula Kullberg, US Army Corps Engineers
Robert Lent, US Geological Survey
*Wendy Leo, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Matt Liebman, US Environmental Protection Agency - New England
*Mike Mikelson, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Julianne Nassif, Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Jerry Pesch, US Environmental Protection Agency/Environmental Research Lab
Dave Ryan, University of Massachusetts-Lowell
Dale Saad, Barnstable Health Department
Mike Shiaris, University of Massachusetts-Boston
David Terkla, University of Massachusetts-Boston
Tracy Villareal, University of Massachusetts-Boston
BUSINESS AND RESOURCE USERS GROUP
Business Participants
Stephen Greene, Polaroid Corporation, Chair
Scott Cassel, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Joy Conway, Greater Boston Real Estate Board
Roy Crystal, Goldman Environmental
Diane Davis, Schneider and Associates
Betty Diener, Environmental Business Council of New England
Peggy Fantozzi, R.H. Cole Associates
Larry Goldman, Goldman Environmental/Small Business Association of New England
Bob Ingram, Daylor Consulting Group
Vivien Li, The Boston Harbor Association
Renato Miele, Environmental Business Council/University of Massachusetts
Dan Moon, Longwood Environmental Management
Joseph Newman, Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce
Bob Ruddock, Associated Industries of Massachusetts
Claudia Smith-Reid, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
47
-------
BUSINESS AND RESOURCE USERS GROUP Continued
Resource Users Participants
Bill Adler, Massachusetts Lobster-men's Association
Andy Ayer, Quincy Shellfish Department/Massachusetts Shellfish Officer's Association
Al Frizelle, Boston Shipping Association/Charlestown Navy Yard
Tom Gloria, New England Aquarium Divers Club
John Grabski, Massachusetts Bay Yacht Club Association
John Hicks-Courant, Divers' Environmental Survey
John Sheehy, Massachusetts Harbormasters Association
COASTAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
Jodi Sugerman, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay, Co-Chair
Mason Weinrich, Cetacean Research Unit, Co-Chair
Steve Aubrey, Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod
Gaye and Tom Berube, Massachusetts Sportsmen's Council
Polly Bradley, S.W.I.M. (Safer Waters in Massachusetts)
Robert Buchsbaum, Massachusetts Audubon: North Shore
Paul Burns, MassPIRG (Public Interest Research Group)
Priscilla Chapman, Fall River Conservation Commission
Russell DeConti, Center for Coastal Studies
Richard Delaney, Urban Harbors Institute
Gay Gillespie, Westport River Watershed Association
Tom Gloria, New England Aquarium Divers Club
Eileen Gunn, Coalition for Buzzards Bay
Nancy Ho, Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod
Joan LeBlanc, The Boston Harbor Association
Vivien Li, The Boston Harbor Association
Mary Loebig, S.T.O.P (Stop the Outfall Pipe)
Bob Loring, Clean Water Action
Jay McCaffrey, New England Sierra Club
Valerie Nelson, Coalition for Alternative Wasjewater Treatment
Susan Nickerson, Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod
Stephan Nofield, Bays Legal Fund
Susan Redlich, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority/Wastewater Advisory Committee
Peter Shelley, Conservation Law Foundation
Caroline Simmons, New England Environmental Network
Roger Stern, Marine Studies Consortium
Alison Walsh, Save the Bay
Metti Whipple, Plymouth First
Jack Wiggin, Coastal Resources Advisory Board/Urban Harbors Institute
John Williams, Massachusetts Toxics Campaign
Paul Wingle, Environmental League of Massachusetts
Julie Wormser, New England Environmental Network
48
-------
EDUCATION ALLIANCE STEERING COMMITTEE
Reed Stewart, Bridgewater State College, Chair
Faith Burbank, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service, Facilitator
Janis Burton, Manomet Bird Observatory
Ellie Calhoun, New England Aquarium
Susan Carver
Jack Crowley, Hingham High School
Cindy Delpapa, Saugus River Watershed Council
Barbara Egon, Massachusetts Audubon Society/Ipswich River Wildlife Sanctuary
Laura Kursman, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Stafford Madison, US Environmental Protection Agency - New England
Jay Moore, Salem State College (retired)
Alan Morich, Cape Cod Museum of Natural History
Rhoda Peck, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service
Jean Pena, Marine Education Center of Cape Ann
Bobbie Robinson, Commonwealth Museum
Ann Rodney, US Environmental Protection Agency - New England
Agnes Smith, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service
Anne Smrcina, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
Maria Van Dusen, Massachusetts Riverways Program
Barbara Waters, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service
Janey Winchell, Peabody-Essex Museum
David Woolley, Cetacean Research Unit
LOCAL GOVERNANCE COMMITTEES
Eight Towns and The Bay (Upper North Shore LGC)
Steve Barrett, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Derek Brown, Town of Essex
Curtis Bryant, Town of Rowley
Gaylord Burke, Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Wayne Castonguay, Town of Ipswich
Robert Cram, Town of Ipswich
Wayne David, Town of Salisbury
Stephan Gersh, Town of Essex
Jill Haley-Murphy, City of Newburyport
Alan Macintosh, Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Ruth Perrault, Town of Rockport
Dave Sargent, City of Gloucester
Frederick (Ted) Tarr, Town of Rockport
Salem Sound 2000 LGC
Russell Vickers, Hawthorne Cove Marina, Chair
Curt Bellavance, City of Peabody
Helen Bethell, Town of Manchester
Joan Cannon, New England Power Company
Brad Chase, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries - Cat Cove Marine Laboratory
49
-------
LOCAL GOVERNANCE COMMITTEES Continued
Salem Sound 2000 LGC Continued
Sam Cleaves, Salem Sound 2000 Program Coordinator
Fara Courtney, The Industrial Services Program
Rebecca Curran,, Town of Marblehead
Steve De Crosta, Town of Danvers
Steve Dibble, City of Salem
Lisa Evans, Town of Marblehead
Peter Gilmore, City of Beverly
Debra Hurlburt, City of Beverly
Christy Jones, Peabody-Essex Museum
Marline Kellett, New England Biolabs Foundation
Joan LeBlanc, City of Salem
John Marino, City of Peabody
Jay Moore, Town of Marblehead
Peter Ness, Stahl, USA
Faith Ortins, Northeast Scuba
James Povey, City of Beverly
Juli Riemenschneider, City of Salem
David Rimmer, The Trustees of Reservations
Tracey Roberts, Town of Danvers
David Roy, Eastman Gelatine Corporation
Thomas Schley, Salem Maritime National Historic Site
Ruth Taylor, South Essex Sewerage District
Janey Winchell, Peabody-Essex Museum
Dr. Alan Young, Salem State College
Metro Boston LGC
Peter LaPolla, Town of Braintree, Co-Chair
Mark Reich, Esq., City of Everett, Co-Chair
David Colton, City of Quincy
Mary Corcoran, Town of Winthrop
John DePriest, City of Chelsea
Lorraine Downey, City of Boston
Geralyn Falco, Town of Swampscott
Jean Fasano, Town of Saugus
Ken Fields, City of Boston
Jim Greene, Town of Milton
Betsy Russell Hickey, Town of Nahant
Amy Keith, Boston Water and Sewer Commission
Richard Mertens, Boston Redevelopment Authority
Martin Pillsbury, Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Steven Smith, City of Lynn
Frank Stringi, City of Revere
*Mike Wheelwright, City of Quincy
Jack Wiggin, Urban Harbors Institute
50
-------
LOCAL GOVERNANCE COMMITTEES Continued
South Shore LGC
Joan Foster, Town of Scituate, Chair
Sara Altherr, Jones River Watershed Association/Town of Kingston
Linda Beres, Town of Hull
Faith Burbank, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service/Education Alliance Steering Committee
*Jean Christensen, Metropolitan Area Planning Council
*Clifford DeBaun, Town of Plymouth
Peter Dillon, Town of Norwell
Joe Grady, Town of Duxbury
John Hartshorne, Gulf Association
Bruce Hughes, Old Colony Planning Council
Bill Johnson, Back River Committee/Town of Weymouth
Jack Lennox, Town of Plymouth
Marc MacQueen, US Natural Resources Conservation Service
Deborah McICie, Jones River Watershed Association/Town of Hanover
*Brian Murphy, Town of Cohasset
Joanne Owen, Town of Pembroke
Peter Rosen, Town of Hingham
Jim Watson, Old Colony Planning Council
Cape Cod Coastal Resources Committee LGC
*Mark Zivan, Town of Orleans, Chair
*Neil Allen, Town of Eastham
*Robert Bainton, Town of Yarmouth
Brenda Boleyn, Town of Truro
Thomas Broidrick, Town of Yarmouth
*David Carlson, Town of Brewster
Bill Burt, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service
Russell Cookingham, Town of Bourne
Tanya Dagneault, Town of Dennis
David DeConto, Town of Sandwich
David Ditacchio, Town of Provincetown
Bob Duncanson, Town of Chatham
Alice Fischer, Cape Cod Sierra Club
George Hampson, Town of Falmouth
James Hanks, Town of Mashpee
George Heufelder, Barnstable County Health and Environment Department
*Thomas Leach, Town of Harwich
Muriel Lightfoot, Town of Eastham
Donald Liptack, US Natural Resources Conservation Service
Bob Mant, Town of Brewster
Alan Marcy, Town of Dennis
*Richard Prince, Town of Bourne
Roger Putnam, Town of Wellfleet
Michael Reynolds, Cape Cod National Seashore
Jack Rosenquest, Town of Orleans
51
-------
LOCAL GOVERNANCE COMMITTEES Continued
Cape Cod Coastal Resources Committee LGC Continued
Dale Saad, Town of Barnstable
*Margaret Swanson, Town of Chatham
R. Gregory Taylor, Assembly of Delegates
*Bruce Tripp, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
*Steven Tucker, Town of Sandwich
*Mardee Verdina, Town of Truro
* Alternate Member
MASSACHUSETTS BAYS PROGRAM STAFF
Diane Gould, Ph.D, Executive Director
Bill Clark, Technical Assistant, Metro Boston and South Shore LGCs, Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Nancy Goodman, Technical Assistant, Metro Boston and Salem Sound 2000 LGCs, Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Pat Hughes, Technical Assistant, Cape Cod Coastal Resources 'Committee LGC, Cape Cod Commission
Deirdre Kimball, Manager, Interagency Shellfish Bed Restoration Program
Ruth Kuykendall, Assistant to the Executive Director
Alan Macintosh, Environmental Program Manager, Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Betsy McEvoy, Director of Public Policy and Outreach
Lisa Nicol, Technical Assistant, 8 Towns and the Bay LGC, Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Ann Riley, Grants Administrator, Urban Harbors Institute
Susan Schneider, Public Information Specialist
Dillon Scott, Data Manager
Marie Studer, Ph.D., Staff Scientist
Tara Tracy, Program Manager, US Environmental Protection Agency -New England
Note: All committee members and staff are current as of March, 1996.
52
-------
Appendix C
Bibliograph
Alber, M., and A.B. Chan. 1994. Sources of contaminants to Boston Harbor: revised loadings estimates. MWRA
Environmental Quality Department Technical Report No. 94-1. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston,
MA. 93pp.
Battelle Ocean Sciences. In progress. Evaluating costs to communities of management measures to reduce loads to sedi-
ments of urban and semi-urban harbors in Massachusetts Bay. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Bowen, R., J. Archer, D. Terkla, and J. Myers. 1992. The Massachusetts Bays management system: A valuation of Bays
resources and uses and an analysis of its regulatory and management structure. MBP-90-01. Massachusetts Bays
Program, Boston, MA.
Buchsbaum, R., J. Pederson and W. Robinson (Eds). In progress. The role of overfishing, pollution, and habitat degradation
on marine fish and shellfish populations of New England. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Buchsbaum, R. 1992. Turning the tide: toward a livable coast in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln,
MA.
Cahill, J. and K. Imbalzano. 1991. An inventory of organic and metal contamination in Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod Bay,
and Boston Harbor sediments and assessment of regional sediment quality. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Cavanaugh, E.F., and L.R. Lewis. 1990. The state of our harbors: an examination of Massachusetts Harbor conditions and
related economic parameters. Rivers and Harbors Program Report. Division of Waterways, Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Management, Hingham, MA.
Chase, B. 1994. Massachusetts Bay smelt spawning habitat monitoring program. New England Estuarine Research Society
meeting, June 2-4, Salem State College, MA.
Cooper A., and R. Buchsbaum. 1994. Plum Island Sound/Rivers system final action plan. Massachusetts Audubon: North
Shore, Massachusetts Bays Program Mini-Bay Project. 23 pp., plus appendices.
Correia, S.J. 1992. Flounder population declines: overfishing or pollution? DMF News. MA DMF Publication #17020-
12-7000-7/92. pp. 2-5. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Boston, MA.
Costa, J.E. 1988a. Distribution, production, and historical changes in abundance of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in south-
eastern Massachusetts. Ph.D. Dissertation, Boston University, Boston, MA.
Costa, I.E. 1988b. Eelgrass in Buzzards Bay: distribution, production and historical changes in abundance. U.S. EPA 503/4-
88-002 and BBP-88-05. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water and Region 1, and Buzzards Bays
Program, Boston, MA.
Cura, J.J. 1991. Review of phytoplankton data: Massachusetts Bay. MWRA Technical Report No. 91-1. Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.
Cura, J.J., and J. Freshman. 1992. Nitrogen loading to Massachusetts Bay. New England Estuarine Research Society meet-
ing, November 5-7, WeUs, ME.
53
-------
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 1990. An environment at risk: the first annual report on the state of the
Massachusetts environment. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 129pp.
Gardner, G.R. and RJ. Pruell and L.C. Folmar. 1989. A comparison of both neoplastic and non-neoplastic disorders in win-
ter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) from eight areas in New England. Marine Environmental Research. 28:
393-397.
Gardner, G.B., T.A. Villareal, and T. Loder. In progress. Biological and physical processes controlling nutrient dynamics
and primary production in Cape Cod Bay. Massachusetts Bays Program. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Geyer, W.R., G.B. Gardner, W.S. Brown, J. Irish, B. Butman, T. Loder, and R. Signell. 1992. Physical oceanographic inves-
tigation of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. MBP-92-03. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Golomb, D., D. Ryan, N. Eby, J. Underbill, T. Wade, and S. Zemba. 1996. Atmospheric deposition of trace metals and poly-
cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons onto Massachusetts Bays. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Hankin, A.L., L. Constantine, and S. Bliven. 1985. Barrier beaches, salt marshes, and tidal flats. An inventory of the coastal
resources of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies and MCZM Program
Publication 13899-27-600-1-85 C.R.
Heufelder, G. 1988. Bacterial monitoring in Buttermilk Bay. EPA 503/4-88-001. U.S. EPA Region 1, Boston, MA.
Horsley and Witten, Inc. hi progress. Geographic analysis of bacterial contamination: Ipswich, Beverly and Provincetown
watershed studies. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Hyland, J.L., and H. Costa. 1995. Examining linkages between contaminant inputs and their impacts on living marine
resources of the Massachusetts Bay ecosystem through application of the sediment quality triad method. MBP-95^03.
" Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Ipswich Shellfish Advisory Board. 1991. Shellfishing in Ipswish, 1991: Pollution and its effect on shellfishing. Ipswich,
MA. 28 pp.
Johnson, L.L., C.M. Stehr, O.P. Olson, M.S. Myers, S.M. Pierce, C.A. Wigern, B.B. McCain and U. Varanasi. 1993.
Chemical contaminants and hepatic lesions in winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) from the northeast coast of the
United States, Environmental Science and Technology, 27:2759-2771.
Kelly, J.R. 1991. Nutrients and Massachusetts Bay: A synthesis of eutrophication issues. MWRA Technical Report No.
91-10. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA. 66 pp.
Kelly, J.R. 1993. Nutrients and Massachusetts Bay; An update of eutrophication issues. MWRA Environmental Quality
Department Technical Report No. 93-17. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA. 119 pp.
King, Dennis. In progress. The functions of'coastal wetlands and the economic value of coastal wetland restoration in
Massachusetts. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Knebel, H.J, R. Rendigs and M. Bothner. 1991. Modem sedimentary environments in Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.
Joumalof Sedimentary Petrology 61(5):791-804.
Leonard, D.L., M.A. Broutman and K.E. Harkness. 1989. The quality of shellfish growing waters on the east coast of the
United States. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Strategic Assessment Branch, Rockville, MD.
MacDonald, D. A. 1991. Status and trends in concentrations of selected contaminants in Boston Harbor sediments and biota.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 56, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA.
Massport. 1995. Port of Boston economic development plan. Massport Authority, Boston, MA.
54
-------
McDowell, J., D.F. Leavitt, and D. Shea. In progress. Population processes of Mya Arenaria from contaminated habitats in
Massachusetts Bay. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
McElroy, A., M. Shiaris and J. McDowell. 1994. Bioavailability and biotransformation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
in benthic environments of coastal Massachusetts. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Menzie-Cura & Associates. 1991. Sources and loadings of pollutants to the Massachusetts Bays. MBP-91-01.
MassachusettsBays Program, Boston, MA.
Menzie-Cura & Associates. 1995a. Organic loadings from the Merrimack River to Massachusetts Bay. MBP-95-04.
Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Menzie-Cura & Associates. 1995b. Measurements and loadings of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in storm wa-
ter, combined sewer overflows, rivers, and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) discharging to Massachusetts
Bays. MBP-95-06. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Moore, M. J., B.R. Woodin, and J.R. Stegeman. 1992. Liver pathology of winter flounder: Boston Harbor, Massachusetts
Bay, and Cape Cod Bay — 1991. MWRA Environmental Quality Department Technical Report No. 92-5.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.
Moore, M. J. and J.R. Stegeman. 1993. Liver pathology of winter flounder: Boston Harbor, Massachusetts Bay, and Cape
Cod Bay — 1992. MWRA Environmental Quality Department Technical Report No. 93-7. Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority, Boston, MA.
Moore, M.J., R.M. Smolowitz, D.F. Leavitt, and JJ. Stegeman. 1995. Evaluation of chemical contaminant effects in the
Massachusetts Bays. MBP-95-05. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1990. Estuaries of the United States: Vital statistics of a national
resource base. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Strategic Assessment Branch, Rockville, MD.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1993. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary: Final environ-
mental impact statement/management plan. NOAA Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, DC.
Orth, R.J., and K.A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: An unprecedented decline in submerged aquatic vegetation. Science
222:51-53.
Reback, K.E., and J.S. DiCarlo. 1972. Final completion report. Anadromous fish project MA DMF Publication #6496
(115-50-12-72-CR). Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Boston, MA.
Rex, A.C., K.E. Keay, W.M. Smith, JJ. Cura, C.A. Menzie, M.S. Steinhauer, and M.S. Connor. 1992. The state of Boston
Harbor: 1991. MWRA Technical Report No. 92-3. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.
Roach, D.A. 1992. A sanitary survey of Essex Bay in Essex, Gloucester, and Ipswich, Massachusetts, Area N7.
MassachusettsDivision of Marine Fisheries Shellfish Sanitation and Management Program. 36 pp. plus appendices.
Schwartz, J., N. Duston, and C. Batdorf. 1991. PCBs in winter flounder, American lobster, and bivalve molluscs from
BostonHarbor, Salem Harbor and coastal Massachusetts: 1984-1989. MA DMF Publication #16,966-63-250-10-91-
C.R. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Boston, MA.
Shea, D. In progress. Accumulation, inventory and budget of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Massachusetts Bays sed-
iments. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
55
-------
Sullivan, P.A., and W.E. Robinson. 1990. 'me Health ot winter llounder from Boston Harbor. A summary of results from
FishDay, May 13,1989. Edgerton Research Laboratory, New England Aquarium, Boston, MA.
Townsend, D., L.M. Cammen, J.P. Christensen, S.G. Ackelson, M.D. KeUer, E.M. Haugen, S. Corwin, W.J. Bellows, and
IRBrown. 1990. Seasonality of oceanographic conditions in Massachusetts Bay. Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean
Sciences Final Report to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.
Uhler, A.D., D.E. West, and C.D. Hunt. 1994. Deer Island effluent characterization June - November, 1993. MWRA
Environmental Quality Department Technical Report No. 94-4. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston,
MA.
U.S. EPA Region 1. 1988a. Analysis of risks from consumption of Quincy Bay fish and shellfish. U.S. EPA Region 1,
Boston, MA.
U.S. EPA Region 1. 1988b. Assessment of Quincy Bay contamination: summary report. U.S. EPA Region 1, Boston, MA.
U.S. EPA Region 1. 1993. Assessment of potential impact of the MWRA outfall on endangered species. U.S. EPA Region
1. Boston, MA.
Williams, F.P., and G.S Fout. 1992. Contamination of shellfish by stool-shed viruses: methods of detection. Environmental
Science and Technology 26(4):689-696.
Witman, J.D. 1994. Rocky subtidal communities in Massachusetts:. Lovell Island to Nahant Transect. A final report on the
1992-1993 sampling period. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Report #94-16. 83 pp.
Zemba, S. G. 1996. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen compounds to Massachusetts Bays. Massachusetts Bays Program,
Boston, MA.
56
-------
Acknowledgements
The Massachusetts Bays Program Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) is
the work of many dedicated people. Many thanks to
Secretary Trudy Coxe, Massachusetts Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), and Regional
Administrator John DeVillars, United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for their ongo-
ing involvement and support. The preparation of the
CCMP was the result of an innovative contractual agree-
ment with the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
(MVPC) and we would especially like to acknowledge
Alan Macintosh, Environmental Program Manager for
MVPC, who served with-unflagging commitment and
enthusiasm as CCMP planner and principal author, and
Celine Bernier (MVPC), whose typing and formatting
skills contributed to the preparation of this document.
State staff from the Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP)
who participated in the development of the document
include Diane Gould, Betsy McEvoy, Dillon Scott,
Marie Studer, Ruth Kuykendall, and Susan Schneider.
Regional Planning Agency MBP staff participants
included Lisa Nicol, MVPC; Nancy Goodman and Bill
Clark, Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC);
and Patricia Hughes, Cape Cod Commission (CCC).
Faith Burbank, U. Mass Extension, also assisted. The
Environmental Protection Agency contributors included
Tara Tracy, Matthew Liebman, and Carol Kilbride.
Members of the Massachusetts Bays Program Steering
Committee, including Peg Brady, Director,
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (MCZM);
Jane Downing, EPA; Russ Isaac and Larry Gil, DEP;
Gaylord Burke, MVPC; Armando Carbonell, CCC;
Martin Pillsbury, MAPC; Joan Foster, South Shore
Local Governance Committee (LGC); Peter LaPolla,
Metro Boston LGC; Ted Tarr, 8 Towns and the Bay; Jim
Povey, Salem Sound 2000; Jim Watson, Old Colony
Planning Council; Judy Pederson, MIT Sea Grant; and
William Robinson, U. Mass/Boston, helped to guide the
development of the CCMP.
Many others made invaluable contributions
throughout the five years of planning that led to this doc-
ument. A list of Massachusetts Bays Program
Committee members and staff is found in Appendix B.
We would like to thank each of these individuals for
their assistance and ongoing commitment. We would
especially like to thank our tireless committee chairs for
their dedication. In addition to those names noted in the
list, we would like to thank old friends who served in the
past as chairs of Massachusetts Bays Program commit-
tees, including Alan Hankin, Gwen Ruta, Jack Pitman,
Mark Norton, John Farrington, Gordon Wallace, Jay
Kaufman, Dan Curll, Jack Clarke, and Jeff Benoit.
And finally, many thanks to all the local, regional,
state, and federal officials, planners, scientists, and
interested citizens who generously gave of their time
and who have made the Massachusetts Bays Program
and this CCMP a success.
A copy of the full CCMP will be provided to each
of the 49 coastal communities bordering the Bays. It
can also be viewed at any Regional Planning Agency
office in eastern Massachusetts, or at the Massachusetts
Bays Program office.
57
------- |