MASSACHUSETTS BAYS
1991 COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
An Evolving Plan for Action
MASSACHUSETTS BAYS PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Public Draft 12/91
-------
A MESSAGE TO THE READER
A common thread running through many sections of this plan is the need for
carefully-coordinated efforts among different public agencies. Contradictory
regulations, overlapping jurisdictions, and a confusing multiplicity of bureau-
cratic requirements make planning difficultfor everyone, from public officials, to
private citizens eager to enjoy or utilize marine and coastal resources. All
Massachusetts Bays Program dements, from research to outreach, are designed
to build our capacity for coordinated, region-wide planning and action.
Central to the success of this Program is its ability to encourage coordination and
cooperation across agency lines. Differentagencieswithin state government need
to work together more effectively, and better lines of contact and coordination
need to be established between andamonglocal governments, andbetween local
governments and state and federal offices. The Local Governance Advisory
Committee envisioned in this plan is an important first step in enlivening and
institutionalizing comprehensive, region-wide planning. We will also need to
deepen our understanding of both the impediments to, and possibilities for,
mteragencycoordination.Byexampleandthroughgrantsprograms,wewillneed
to encourage and reward agency cooperation. While this region knows a long
historyofproudandmdependent institutions in thepublicandprivate sectors, the
environmental challenge commonto us all demands thatwebuildinstitutions that
help us work together more effectively and efficiently. While the challenge is great,
we dare not fail to try to meet it
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
List of Figures
Chapter I. Introduction
History of Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) '. 1-1
Structure and Goals of the MBP 1-1
Overview of CCMP 1-2
Chapter n. Background
Geographic Scope 11-1
Physical Setting n-2
Population 11-10
LandUse 0-12
Commercial and Recreational fisheries Resources 11-14
Habitats and Other Living Resources 11-16
Beaches and Recreational Resources 11-21
Megaprojects n-23
Chapter m. The Priority Problems Facing Massachusetts Bays
Users and Use Impairments: The Unbroken Circle m-1
OverviewofContaminantSources m-1
Priority Problems m-3
Chemical Contamination of Water and Sediments
Bioaccumulation and Effects of Chemical Contamination
Pathogen Contamination
Water Quality
Habitat Loss and Modification
Sea Level Rise
Chapter IV. Action Plan
Public Health Risks IV-1
Living Resources and Habitat Protection IV-11
Aesthetic Quality IV-26
Waterfront Access: Public Access and The Working Waterfront IV-36
Chapter V. The Massachusetts Bays Program Unfinished Agenda
Planning for the Future V-l
Research Agenda, 1991-1995 V-2
Public Outreach Agenda, 1991-1993 V-5
Financing Agenda, 1991-1993 V-10
Proposed Massachusetts Bays Program Data Management Strategy 1991-1993 V-12
Embayment Management Strategies V-17
Bibliography
Appendix A. Management Framework
Appendix B. EOEA Long-Range Habitat Research and Monitoring Agenda
Appendix C Acronyms
Appendix D. Glossary
Appendix E, Massachusetts Bays Program Grants—1991
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Tablell-l Coastal Communities in the Massachusetts Bays Program 11-1
Table 11-2 Coastal Drainage Areas Within the Massachusetts Bays Drainage Basin
(MassGIS) n-5
Table n-3 Estimated Population in the Massachusetts Bays Drainage Basin, 1970-1990 11-10
Public Outreach Agenda, 1991-199
Table 0-4 Coastal Community Population Changes, 1970-1990 11-11
TableC-5 Land Use Change in the Massachusetts Bays Drainage Basin, 1971-1985 0-13
Table n-6 Massachusetts Communities With Highest Estimated Land Consumption
(acres), 1981-1986 11-14
Table n-7 1989 Massachusetts Shellfish Statistics Based on Reports from Local
Shellfish Officers 0-15
Table 0-8 Acreages of Coastal Habitats in Massachusetts Bays Communities 0-20
Table 0-9 Representative Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Forests, and Historic Sites in the
Massachusetts Bays Region : 0-21
Table 0-10 State-Supported Public Boat-Launching Sites Along the Massachusetts
BaysCoast 0-22
Table IV-1 Oil Input to the Marine Environment IV-28
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 0-1 Geographic Scope of the Massachusetts Bays Region 0-2
figure 0-2 Massachusetts Bays Drainage Basin
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
1-1
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
The Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) was launched in 1988 to actively address the mounting
environmental threats to the health of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays (the Massachusetts
Bays). The program is sponsored jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office (CZM), and the Massachusetts Environmental
Trust Initial funding of $ 1.6 million from the Massachusetts Environmental Trust was the result
of settlement fines from a federal suit against the Commonwealth for violations of the Clean Water
Act in Boston Harbor.
In 1988, Congressman Gerry Studds, acting on behalf of the Massachusetts Congressional Delega-
tion, drafted an amendment to the Clean Water Act, giving priority consideration to Massachusetts
andCapeCod Bays to becomepartoftheNational Estuary Program. TheNational Estuary Program
was established 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 June 1989, Governor Michael Dukakis formally submitted the nomination
package for Massachusetts Bays.
In April 1990, President Bush proclaimed Massachusetts Bays an "Estuary of National Signifi-
cance" and added it to the National Estuary Program. On November 13,1990, EPA and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts signed a Management Conference Agreement which set forth
work to be accomplished over the next five years.
Thefirststep in carrying out the estuary program was to establish aforum for open discussion and
collaborative decision-making. This forum is called the Management Conference. The Manage-
ment Conference oversees the activities of the estuary program and consists of representatives
from appropriate federal, state, and local government agencies, regional planning agencies,
various user groups, public and private education institutions, and the general public
The Massachusetts Bays Management Conference is organized into four distinct committees:
Policy Committee, Management Committee .Technical Advisory Committee, and Citizens Advisory
Committee. 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 maj or decision-making committee in the Conference. The Manage-
ment Committee receives input and advice from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC).
The ultimate goal of the Massachusetts Bays Program is to institutionalize the planning process so
that there are rolling five-year research and action agendas to protect, maintain, and, where
necessary, restore or improve the Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay ecosystem. Work under
the program will be geared to:
• Improve the habitats of living resources in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.
• Protect public health by minimizing risk from environmental contaminants.
• Protect and improve water and sediment quality.
• Enhance the aesthetic quality of Massachusetts' coast and coastal waters.
History of Massachusetts
Bays Program
Structure and Goals
of the MBP
-------
1-2
Chapter I. Introduction
Overview of CCMP
• Encourage pollution prevention and other environmentally and fiscally sound
methods of treatment, cleanup, and restoration.
• Improveaccess, educational.andappropriaterecreationalopr^rtimitiesinandanxind
the waters of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.
To accomplish these, the Massachusetts Bays Program is developing aComprehensive Conser-
vation and Management Plan (CCMP) for Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. This plan will be
a blueprint for coordinated action aimed at restoring and protecting water quality and the diverse
natural resources of the Massachusetts Bays estuary.
CHARTING A NEW COURSE
The Massachusetts Bays Program is charting an innovative course among the nation's seventeen
National Estuary Programs by producing an early version of the Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan during the first year of the program's federal funding. Other similar national
programs have typically completed several years of scientific research before recommending a
course of action. The Management Conference believes that, while much remains to be learned
about Massachusetts Bays, enough is known already to begin to take action to prevent further
degradation and restore the integrity of the Bays ecosystem.
This initial plan, will be revised and updated as more information about the Bays is developed
through the program's research and demonstration projects. A second, more expansive, plan will
be produced in 1993, followed by the full Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan in
1995.
DEVELOPING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN
To help galvanize support and elicit ideas for developing this initial plan, the Massachusetts Bays
Programhosteda"CCMP Development Workshop" inMarch 1991. This all-day meeting brought
together over 75 environmental advocates, business leaders, citizens, and state, local, and federal
officials to focus their diverse viewpoints and expertise on designing a challenging plan develop-
ment process. Participants included members of the four Bays Program committees — Policy,
Management, Technical Advisory, and Citizens Advisory Committees—and representatives from
numerous coastal and inland communities.
Several key recommendations emerged from the workshop:
• The 1991 Plan should be addressed to all members of the Management Conference
and their constituencies (the research community, state/federal managers, local
governments, and the public) through a public outreach strategy.
• The Priority Problems currently identified by the Massachusetts Bays Program should
be redefined in terms of "uses" of the Bays and organized in a readable, "user-
friendly" format
• The Plan should summarize whatis known about the Bays and what is being done from
both a scientific and management perspective.
• ThePlanshouldcontauialistormenuofoptionsthatshouldorcouldbeundertaken
by local governments.
• The Plan should recommend a set of ACTIONS to be undertaken by the constituent
groups and should serve as a guide to the activities of the Management Conference
(MC, TAC, CAC) between 1991 and 1993.
• The Plan should contain appendices with the supporting technical information, a
glossary of terms, and a bibliography.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
I-3
Following the workshop, the Management Committee formed a Working Group to oversee devel-
opment of the 1991 CCMP. This Working Group met on a regular basis throughout the summer to
advise program staff on the key issues and problems affecting the Bays and on appropriate actions
to address these problems. Additional meetings and conversations were held with noted experts
in the fields of marine ecology and public health to gain further insight on the issues and identify
possible management solutions.
In framing the discussion of the major, or "priority," problems affecting the Bays, the CCMP
Working Group decided that the problems should be discussed in terms of particular "uses" or
"users." In this way, the general public will be better able to understand the impact of these
problems and the reasons why they, as citizens, should be concerned about "toxicants" or "habitat
modification," for example. Up until this time, the major problems had been defined strictly in
scientific terms and within the context of a research-oriented agenda. The Working Group
believed that redefining the problems in non-technical terms would not detract from the scientific
nature of the problems, but will facilitate communication with the public about the important
issues facing Massachusetts Bays. It will also set the stage for articulating the benefits that can be
achieved by restoring and protecting the Bays. Ultimately, this will help to build the long-term
public support needed for implementation of the management plan recommendations.
PLAN ORGANIZATION
This 1991 plan is organized into five chapters. Chapter I introduces the Massachusetts Bays
Program and describes its evolving management plan. Chapter D provides background informa-
tion on various physical, biological, and socioeconomic features of the Bays, as well as on several
large-scale projects that could have significant impacts on water and sediment quality and living
resources in the Bays. Chapter in examines the six Priority Problems identified by the program:
• Chemical contamination of water and sediments
• Bioaccumulation and effects of chemical contamination
• Pathogen contamination
• Water quality
• Habitat loss and modification
• Sea level rise
The six problems are discussed in terms of certain valued uses they impair (e.g., closure of
swimming beaches due to pathogen contamination). Chapter IV, the centerpiece of the plan,
contains a series of action plans that prescribe immediate and long-range actions that the Massa-
chusetts Bays Program, various governmental agencies, and the general public can initiate to
reduce pollution in Massachusetts Bays. Chapter V discusses the unfinished agenda, which
includes, among other things, ongoing and proposed scientific research, public outreach and
education, data management, and financing. A list of acronyms, a glossary, a bibliography, a
summary of the region's governmental management framework, and a marine research agenda
proposed for the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs are provided at die end of the docu-
ment
PLANPRESENWION
This initial plan will be widely distributed in a loose-leaf binder to underscore its development as
a "living" document, subject to further review and revision. As individual pages or whole chapter
sections are revised and improved, they can be incorporated without recopying the entire docu-
ment The same binder can be used for the 1993 and 1995 versions of the management plan
simply by replacing outmoded material with the updated plan and tide page.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
11-1
CHAPTER H. BACKGROUND
GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE
The "Massachusetts Bays" region is a large, complex estuarine ecosystem located on the
southwestern edge of the Gulf of Maine (Figure D-1). The region extends from Cape Ann on the
North Shore to Race Point on the tip of Cape Cod, and encompasses both Massachusetts Bay and
its southeast extension, Cape Cod Bay. The Bays cover an expanse of ocean 84 miles long and 24
miles wide and comprise 63,000 acres of coastal habitat Seaward, the region extends to, and
includes, Stellwagen Bank, a shallow, fertile fishing ground under active consideration for
designation as a National Marine Sanctuary. Landward, the region extends to the edge of the
watersheds which drain to the bays.
Although not physically part of the Massachusetts Bays estuary, six coastal communities and their
watersheds on the Upper North Shore (Essex to the New Hampshire border) are also included in
thescopeofthe Massachusetts Bays Program. These communities areinduded because research
has indicated that the Merrimack River may be a major determinant of water quality in the
Massachusetts Bays region.
Altogether, 168 Massachusetts communities are included within the scope of the Massachusetts
Bays Program. Of these, 49 are coastal communities (Table II-l).
Table 11-1 Coastal Communities in the MBP
(Regional Designation per MCZM Office)
Upper North Shore
Salisbury
Newburyport
Newbury
Rowley
Ipswich
Essex
Lower North Shore
Rockport
Gloucester
Manchester-By-The-Sea
Beverly
Danveri
Peabody
Salem
Marblehead
Swampscott
Lynn
Nahant
Saugus
Boston Harbor
Revere
Winthrop
Chelsea
Everett
Boston
Milton
Quincy
Braintree
Weymouth
Hingham
Hull
South Shore
Cohasset
Scituate
Norwell
Hanover
Pembroke
Marshfield
Plymouth Bay
Duxbury
Kingston
Plymouth
Cape Cod
Bourne
Sandwich
Barnstable
Yarmouth
Dennis
Brewster
Orleans
Eastham
Wellfleet
Truro
Provincetown
-------
11-2
Chapter II. Background
FIGURE 11-1. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BAYS REGION
Ipswich Bay
Massachusetts
fata Jnrn lltssCIS ecapt outtini of
SttUwagm Bank (diyitiitd /ram 1:8000*
NOAA nautical chart) and delineation o]
Can Cod Bay watershed (defined from
1:48000 US.CS. Hi ' ' ' '"
LEGEND
[~j Town areas inside
drainage basin for
Massachusetts Bay
and Cape Cod Bay
H] Town areas outside
drainage basin for
Massachusetts Bay
and Cape Cod Bay
A/ Town Boundaries
A/ Landward edge of river
basins draining to
Massachusetts Bays
PHYSICAL SETTING
Physical Features
Massachusetts Bay, exclusive of Cape Cod Bay, encompasses approximately 1,400 square
miles. Average water depth ranges from less than 10 feet in Boston Harbor to over 300 feet in
Stellwagen Basin. The eastern opening of the Bay is formed by Stellwagen Bank, a sandy and
gravelly rise in the Bay floor that reaches to within 60 feet of the surface.
Cape Cod Bay encompasses an area of more than 600 square miles. Water depths generally
range from 65 to 150 feet in the central part of the Bay, and are less than 200 feet at the deepest
point The sea floor is generally flat and featureless. The single largest topographic feature is
Billingsgate Shoal, a sand spit which extends southwest from Wellfleet in 10 to 33 feet of water.
Boston Harbor covers about 45 square miles of water, coastal islands, and peninsulas. In
general, it is a very shallow estuary. Aimeanlowtide.thewater depth is generallyless than lOfeet,
except in the shipping channels. As a result of the shallow depth and large tidal range, nearly half
ofthewaterintheharbor exits onan ebb tide. The average residence time (the time that the water
remains in the harbor) is about 2 or 3 days. However, the Inner Harbor and shallow areas of the
Outer Harbor are flushed much more slowly.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
I-3
Boston Harbor is an unusual estuary in that nearly one half of its freshwater inflow comes from
sewage effluent from the Deer Island and Nut Island Treatment facilities, and this effluent enters at
the mouth, rather than the head, of the estuary. The major rivers discharging into Boston Harbor
—the Charles, Mystic, Chelsea, and Neponset Rivers—have an average combined flow of about
300 cubic feet per second (cfs). By comparison, die flow of sewage effluent from the Deer Island
and Nut Island facilities is about 560 cfs.
The water in Boston Harbor exhibits little stratification (that is, vertical layering due to tempera-
ture and salinity gradients). Strong tidal currents mix the harbor water, keeping stratification to
a minimum.
Massachusetts Bays Systems. Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod Bay, and Boston Harbor form an
interconnected system of basins, separated from the Gulf of Maine by Stellwagen Bank. Until
recently, relatively little was known about the circulation patterns within this system or about how
contaminants are transported once they have entered bay waters. Coordinated studies by a
consortium of scientists from the University of New Hampshire, Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, andthe University ofMassachusetts/Bostonarenow examining bay circulationpattems
and the physical and biological characteristics of bay waters. Together with ongoing research by
the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) and the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) on water circulation and accumulation of sediments, these studies will help refine our
understanding of the transport and fate of pollutants in die Massachusetts Bays system.
Researchers have employed a variety of techniques to study pollutant transport in Massachusetts
Bays. These techniques include: seasonal and monthly shipboard surveys; measurements of
currents, pressure, andother water properties frommoored stations that remain in thewater; and
drifter tracking studies. (Drifters are free-floating buoys released into the water and tracked by
satellite to see how their destination is influenced by currents.)
Preliminary results of drifter studies suggest that the predominant direction of flow in the surface
water of the bays is counterclockwise. Driven by die large volume of fresh water spilling into the
bays from the Merrimack River, water from die north enters Massachusetts Bay at die tip of Cape
Ann. From diereitgenerallymoves west, circles southward along the South Shore, travels dirough
Cape Cod Bay, and exits die bay north of Provincetown.
Observation of die path of drifters points to a vigorous transport of surface water from western
Massachusetts Bay through Cape Cod Bay during spring periods of high runoff. Drifter data also
suggest that water tends to remain longer in Cape Cod Bay than in Massachusetts Bay.
Records of temperature and salinity, and data from a current meter, indicate that strong internal
waves are generated by the tide passing over Stellwagen Bank. Currents produced by these waves
may re-suspend and mix sediments containing pollutants. The flow of water along die ocean floor
may also suspend and transport sediments and contaminants bound to diem. A long-term current
and sediment monitoring station maintained by the USGS, in cooperation with the MWRA, will help
to predict the fate of contaminants deposited on die sea floor in the vicinity of die MWRA's new
ocean outfall.
Drainage Basin of Massachusetts Bays
The land area in Massachusetts draining to Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays covers over 2,500
square miles. It includes all or sections of 168 Massachusetts communities (Figure II-2) and
consists of thirteen separate river basins and coastal drainage areas as established by die
Massachusetts Water Resources Commission.
A significant amount of land outside Massachusetts also drains into die Massachusetts Bays region
via die Merrimack River. The mainstem of the Merrimack River forms in die Lakes region of New
Hampshire and flows 78 miles before entering Massachusetts. Altogether, die Merrimack Basin
covers 5,010 square miles, andisthefourdilargestriver basin in New England. However.less than
25 percent of die watershed, or 1201 square miles, is located in Massachusetts.
-------
11-4
Chapter II. Background
Several of die rivers in the Massachusetts Bays region are actually tributaries of other rivers (for
example, the Nashua, Concord, andShawsheen Rivers all flow into die MerrimackRiverand are
part of die Merrimack's 5,010-square mile watershed). Others, such as die Mystic, Charles, and
Neponset Rivers, share a common ocean outfall (in this case, Boston Harbor). Thus, me 13
drainage areas can be consolidated into 5 larger basins—Boston Harbor, Merrimack River,
North Shore, South Shore, Cape Cod — based on the geographic setting of their discharges.
Togemer, mese larger basins (listed in Table H-2) are the major source of freshwater flow into
Massachusetts Bays. Excluding Cape Cod, whose flow is predominately groundwater, mese areas
contribute an estimated average annual riverflow of over 10,000 ds to me Massachusetts Bays
system Eighty percent of mis amount, or 8,510 ds, is estimated to derive from me Merrimack
Basin (Menzie-Cura, 199D.
FIGURE 11-2. MASSACHUSETTS BAYS DRAINAGE BASIN
MOSACHVSmS BAT
DISPOSAL SITS
(fnltnt)
nriu artraj.
sm
Massachusetts'
Bay
Brtait of iniatf tret
lo Muwhiactti ty
ud Cape Cod Btj
Iron
•at Hew
" Boundary dividing drainage to Cape Cod Bay
and Nantucket Sound is approximate and has not
been approved by the U.S. Geological Survey
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
II-5
Table II-2. Coastal Drainage Areas Within the Massachusetts Bays Drainage Basin
(MassGIS)
Boston Harbor
(Mystic Chelsea, Charles, Neponset,
Weymouth Fore, Weymouth Back, and
Weir River Watersheds)
Merrimack River
(Nashua, Concord, Shawsheen River
Watersheds)
North Shore
(Parker, Rowley, Ipswich, Essex,
Annisquam, Bass, Danvers, Crane,
Saugus, Pines)
South Shore
(North, South, Green Harbor, Jones,
Town Brook, Eel River, Beaver Brook
Dam)
Cape Cod
Total Drainage Area
(sq. mi.)
755
5,010
353
- 147
45
Estimated Annual
Avg Riverf low (cf s)
1,272
8,510
533
291
Negligible
6,310
10,606
Each drainage area has distinctive characteristics of size, physiography, water quality, and land
use. Hie following sections contain brief descriptions of these characteristics in the drainage
basins listed in Table n-2.
Water quality in each basin is assessed every two years by the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection's Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC). Assessments of coastal
basins are primarily based on data collected by the Division of Marine Fisheries (collected as part
of their shellfish program), and the DWPC (as part their statewide water quality monitoring
program). This assessment, published in the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts Summary of
Water Quality", is the principal means by which the state, EPA, the Congress, and the public
evaluate the progress made in maintaining and restoring water quality, and the extent to which
problems remain.
As part of this process, the rivers, streams and marine waters of the Massachusetts Bays region are
assigned use classifications according to the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards.
These water quality standards establish goals for a water body which reflect current and potential
uses of the water, (see box) The standards also establish water quality criteria designed to protect
designated uses and to provide the regulatory basis for treatment requirements to maintain or
improve water quality. Each basin is assessed according to the degree to which its water quality
meets the designated use criteria for the basin. The degree of support is divided into four
categories: full support, partial support, non-support, and not attainable.
Across the state, the 1990 DEP rivers assessment revealed mat approximately one-third of the
state's assessed river miles are in support of their designated uses while two-thirds are in partial or
non-support While, on the surface these percentages may seem comparable to attainment status
figures of ten years ago, in fact the analysis shows that improvement in water quality has been
-------
11-6 Chapter II. Background
Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards
A water quality standard defines the water quality goals of a water body by designating the use or
uses to be made of the water and by setting criteria necessary to protect the uses. States adopt water
q ual ity standards to protect public health or welfare, enhance the quality of the water and to pursue
the goals of the Clean Water Act to make the Nation's waters f ishable and swimmable. The Massa-
chusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.00} define six water use classes for surface
waters. Three fresh water classes and three salt water classes are identified below:
Freshwater
Class A Public water supply, fishable and swimmable to the extent
compatible with this use
Class B Fishable/swimmable and other compatible uses
ClassC Fishabfe but not swimmable
Saltwater
ClassSA Fishable/swimmable plus open to shel(fishing
Class SB Fishable/swimmable plus restricted shellf ishing
ClassSC Fishable but not swimmable
Waters must be classified A, B or SA. SB in order to comply with the federal f ishable/swimmable goal.
According to that goal, water quality should, wherever attainable, provide water quality for the
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and other witdlife and for recreation in and on the
water. The standards should also take into consideration the use and value of a water body for public
water supply, agricultural, industrial and other purposes including navigation.
The Massachusetts classification system recognizes four additional uses in addition to the national
goal uses: Public Water supply in class A waters. Open Shel (fishing in class SA waters, Restricted
shellfishing in class SB waters, and Secondary Contact Recreation in class C and SC waters. State
standards also contain an antidegradation policy designed to maintain and protect existing uses and
water quality, to provide protection for higher quality waters, and to provide protection for out-
standing national resource waters. In Massachusetts, standards have been established for all the
state's water bodies. However, some water bodies may be segmented where appropriate, so that
different standards may be applied to different segments of a water body.
These standards serve the dual purpose of establishing the water quality goals for a water body and
serving as the regulatory basis for the establishment of water quality based treatment controls and
strategies. The Massachusetts standards establish minimum criteria for eight water quality param-
eters in each use classification:
Dissolved Oxygen Suspended Solids
Temperature Color and Turbidity
pH Oil and Grease
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Taste and Odor
Acceptable levels of these parameters vary according to the designated use classification.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
II-7
accomplished in a number of areas over the past decade. Certain types of pollutants, including
ammonia and suspended solids, have been virtually eliminated as causes of non-attainment. This
improvement is largely due to the joint federal and state Construction Grants Program that has
distributed over 2.5 billion dollars in sewage treatment facilities grants to Massachusetts
municipalities since 1967. As a result of this effort, municipal and industrial point sources of
pollution have been significantly reduced as causes of non-attainment. However, nonpoint source
pollution, especially urban runoff, remains a persistent problem and is the most prominent cause
of non-attainment Approximately 40% of the state's river miles are adversely affected by urban
runoff, (including nutrients and bacterial contaminants from stormwater runoff and leaking
sanitary sewers) a number that has not improved since monitoring began in 1979.
The 1990 assessment of coastal and estuarine waters reveals a different story. Marine waters in
Massachusetts receive 75% of the total daily discharge of municipal wastewater in the
Commonwealth, primarily in Boston Harbor. The cleanup of these sources has lagged behind the
cleanup of rivers. The 1990 assessment shows that nearly 75% of the marine water assessed failed
to support their designated uses (DEP1990). This failure rate is primarily due to municipal point
source and combined sewer overflow discharges of bacterial contaminants to these waters,
although nonpoint sources are also perceived as a significant problem.
Boston Harbor Drainage Area
The Boston HarbordrarnageareaconsistsofmeMystic^
and Weir River Watersheds.
The Mystic River watershed lies just north of the city of Boston and is entirely urban in nature. It is
formed by the confluence of the Aberjona River and Hall's Brook in Reading, and follows a
southeastward course 17 miles to Boston Harbor. The middle portion of the river system is
dominated by the Upper and Lower Mystic Lakes which provide hydraulic control of the river and
also serve as a sediment trap. The lower portion of the river is separated from the upstream
portion by the Amelia Earhart Dam, constructed in 1966 to control streamflow and halt saltwater
intrusion upstream to the Lower Mystic Lake. The entire length of the Aberjona River and the
Mystic River is in non-support of its class B water quality standard. Sources of contamination
include stormwater runoff, combined sewer overflows, and industrial discharges along the rivers'
urbanized course »
The Charles River, with a length of 80 miles, is the longest river entirely in Massachusetts. It
originates in the Town of Hopkinton and meanders through a mix of rural and urban communities
before emptying into Boston Harbor. Its basin is between 5 and 15 miles wide and approximately
31 miles long, and contains 20,000 acres of wetlands (about one-tenth of the total basin area)
which border the river along much of its course.
The headwaters of the Charles are class A waters, and recent water quality monitoring indicates
thattheareaisinfull attainment ofthis standard. However, a six mile reach of the upper Charles
between Milford and BeUingham is degraded by avariety of pollution sources, including combined
sewer overflows, stormwater runoff, landfills, and a municipal wastewater treatment plant, and is
in non-support of the class B standard. Downstream water quality improves along the 25 miles of
the river between Medway and Dedham, where the dass B standard is achieved. The Lower
Charles River and the Charles River Basin between Watertown and Boston are heavily urbanized,
and water quality is severely degraded by bacterial loadings from stormwater runoff and combined
sewer overflows. Water quality in the Lower Charles does not support its dass C standard.
The Neponset River begins at the Neponset Reservoir, a 272-acre man-made impoundment, and
flows northeastward 29 miles to Boston Harbor. The river is gently sloping and slow-moving, in
part because of several impoundments created by industries in the basin. The Neponset becomes
tidal below the Walter Baker Dam in Milton. High concentrations of coliform bacteria from
-------
11-8
Chapter II. Background
stormwater runoff, septic systems, and combined sewer overflows degrade water quality in the
Neponset The entire length of the river is in non-support of its dass B standard.
The Weymouth and Weir River Basin is located south of Boston on the coast, and comprises the
Weymouth Fore and Weymouth Back Rivers, and numerous streams and creeks. The Weymouth
Fore and Back Rivers constitute the basin's principal drainage systems flowing into Hingham Bay.
Other important rivers include the Town River in the northern portion of the basin and the Weir
River along the basin's southern boundary. The Weymouth Fore River from Braintree to Quincy
Bay is in non-support of its dass B standard. However, both the Weymouth Back and Weir Rivers
are in partial or full support of dass B criteria.
Merrimack River Drainage Area
The Memmack River drainageareaindudesmewatersheds of the Meniniack, Nashua, Concord,
and Shawsheen Rivers. The Merrimack flows into Massachusetts northwest of Lowell, where the
river turns abruptly eastward and flows 38 miles to Newburyport Harbor. The river has an
estimated average annual discharge of over 8,500 cfs. The lower 9 miles of the Merrimack is
estuarine, although the effects of the ocean tides extend 22 miles upriver to Haverhill. Several
large, urban centers border the river, induding Manchester and Nashua in New Hampshire, and
Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill in Massachusetts. These cities contribute heavy poUutantloads to
the river in the forms of municipal and industrial wastewater, stormwater runoff, and combined
sewer overflows, which degrade die river's water quality for swimming, shellfishing, and other
uses. Elevated levels of coliform bacteria and lead cause die river to be in non-support of its B and
SB dassifications along its entire length in Massachusetts.
North Shore Drainage Area
The North Shore drainage area consists of the Parker, Ipswich, and North Coastal watersheds.
The Parker River watershed covers 60 square miles and is sparsely developed throughout its
course. The river flows 23 miles through a series of ponds and extensive upland and coastal
wetlands before emptying into Plum Island Sound. It is one of the deanest tidal rivers in the
Northeast; the entire length of the river is in full support of dass B and SA water quality standards.
The estuarine portion of the river bdow the Byfidd Dam is an ecologically rich and scenic natural
resource, andhas been designated part of me Parker River/Essex Bay Areaof Critical Environmental
Concern (ACEC). Part of the Parker River/Plum Island complex is a National Wildlife Refuge
which is managed to protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The
Parker River Refuge and adjacent Crane Wildlife Reserve are important nesting areas for piping
plovers, an endangered species.
The Ipswich River Basin is a 155-square-mile watershed that encompasses all or parts of 19
Massachusetts communities. It is primarily rural-residential in character, and is used extensively
forpublicwatersupplyandrecreational boating. The Ipswich isaslow-movingriverthatissubject
to extreme low flows, caused in part by excessive withdrawals. Due to me water supply demands
on the limited freshwater resources of the Ipswich basin, the entire freshwater reach of the
Ipswich River has been dassified as a "High Quality Water" and is subject to Massachusetts
antidegradation water quality regulations protecting low flow rivers. All of the inland Ipswich
River is in full support of dass A standards. However, its expansive intertidal estuary, an area that
has long supported commercial and recreational shellfishing, is now degraded by elevated levels
of coliform bacteria. Coastal water quality in this estuary is in non-support of class SA standards
and state shellfishing restrictions are in effect
The North Coastal basin covers 138 square miles and extends from the Essex River on the north
side of Cape Ann to Boston Harbor. It indudes 16 cities and towns ranging from highly urbanized
Lynn, Salem, and Beverly to rural Manchester and Essex. Major rivers indude the Essex River in
Essex, Annisquam River in Gloucester, Danvers River in Danvers, and Saugus and Pines Rivers in
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
II-9
Saugus. Contamination from stormwater runoff, combined sewer overflows, municipal wastewa-
ter treatment facilities, and industrial discharges causes each of these rivers to be in non-support
of its water quality classifications. Important harbors and bays—Essex, Rockport, Gloucester,
Manchester, Salem, and Lynn, to name but a few—support a broad range of commercial, recre-
ational, and industrial activities. Rumney Marshes, a 1,000-acre saltmarsh/ddal flat complex on
thesouthern border of this drainage area, is designated an Area of Critical Environmental Concern.
South Shore Drainage Area
The 270-square-mile South Shore drainage area is located southeast of Metropolitan Boston and
includes the river basins of the North/South and Jones Rivers.
The North River basin covers 105 square miles in Stituate, Marshfidd, Norwell, and Hanover and
has an estimated averageannual flow of 62 ds. The North River is unique in the South Shore region
due to the distance its salt marsh extends inland from the bay. Approximately 11.5 miles of this 20-
mile river are tidalry-influenced and support 2,300 acres of salt marsh habitat In recognition of
its uncommon aesthetic, estuarine habitat, and recreational values, the North River is designated
a state Scenic River under the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management's Scenic
River Program.
1990 monitoring by DEP indicates that high coliform bacteria counts and low dissolved oxygen
levels caused by stormwater runoff and septic systems occur in sections of the North and South
rivers. These areas are in non-support of their water quality classifications.
The Jones River drains a total of 22 square miles in Kingston and Plymouth and has an estimated
average annual flow of 44 ds. Water quality in the upper reaches of the Jones River supports class
B standards, however, high coliform bacteria levels cause non-support status of class SA standards
in the Jones River estuary.
Cape Cod Drainage Area
The major features of the Cape Cod drainage area were formed by glacial action 10,000 to 12,000
years ago. Glacial moraines and outwash plains dominate the landscape, and have provided
materials for the Cape's extensive beaches, dunes, and tidal flats. Interspersed throughout the
sand and gravel soils are many kettle ponds, formed in deep holes created by large blocks of ice left
behind when the glacier melted. Unlike the rest of the Mass Bays region, the Cape has a notable
lack of long river systems. The region's glacial deposits are, in most places, very permeable.
Precipitation easily infiltrates these soils instead of flowing over the surface to form rivers. The
longest river—the Herring River in Mashpee (outside of the Mass Bays study area)—is only six
miles long. The combined length of all Cape rivers is less than 50 miles.
As a consequence of the Cape's highly permeable glacial soils, groundwater is the major vehicle
forfreshwaterflowtatoCapetodBay.TWsignifi^ceofgro^
on the Cape was demonstrated by the Buzzards Bay Project, which found that the eastern shore of
die Buzzards Bay drainage basin (from the Cape Cod Canal to Woods Hole) was drained primarily
by groundwater. The Buzzards Bay Project also found that in Buttermilk Bay, 74 percent of the
nitrogen entering the embayment was conveyed by groundwater.
Stormwater runoff and water-based pollution sources such as marinas and boats contribute
pollutants to the Cape's waters. High coliform bacteria counts result in shellfish bed closures and
cause many of the Cape's rivers, streams, and coastal waters to be in non-support of their dass SA
water quality standards.
The Cape Cod drainage basin supports extensive coastal habitat and includes seven of the state's 12
designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Three of these ACECs—Sandy Neck, Inner
Cape Cod Bay, and WeUfleet Harbor—are within the Massachusetts Bays study area.
-------
11-10
Chapter II. Background
POPULATION
The Massachusetts Bays drainage basin (excluding the New Hampshire portion of the Merrimack
River) covers all or parts of 168 Massachusetts communities and contains an estimated 1990
resident population of 3.8 million. This population represents a modest increase of 3.9 percent
over me estimated 1980 population, and only a 2.7 percent increase over the 1970 figure. Thus,
while several subregions and a number of individual communities within the drainage basin
experienced rapid population growth during the 20-year period, the population of the basin as a
whole has remained relatively stable (Table n-3).
Table 11-3. Estimated Population in the Massachusetts Bays Drainage Basin, 1970-1990
iillltPil
illfllll
||9||||9J||
Most of the growth within the coastal zone of Massachusetts Bays occurred on Cape Cod and the
South Shore. The Cape's population nearly doubled between 1970 and 1990—from 68,980 to
133,907—as all eleven communities experienced large population increases. Bamstable alone
grew by 21,000. The South Shore's coastal population grew by over 50 percent, with the Town of
Plymouth accounting for over half (57 percent) of the increase. The population of the Upper
North Shore grew by 20 percent, while the Lower North Shore and Boston Harbor regions
experienced population losses (3.8 percent and 8.2 percent, respectively).
Table n-4 summarizes the 1970-1990 population changes for the coastal communities in the
Massachusetts Bays region.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
11-11
Table 11-4. Coastal Community Population Changes, 1970-1990
REGION/COMMUNITY
UPPER NORTH SHORE
Salisbury
Newburyport
Newbury
Rowley
Ipswich
Essex
LOWER NORTH SHORE
Rockport
Gloucester
Manchester-By-The-Sea
Beverly
Danvers
Peabody
Salem
Marblehead
Swampscott
Lynn
Nahant
Saugus
BOSTON HARBOR
Revere
Winthrop
Chelsea
Everett
Boston
Milton
Quincy
Braintree
Weymouth
Hingham
Huir
SOUTH SHORE
Cohasset
Scituate
Norwell
Pembroke
Marsh field
Duxbury
Kingston
Plymouth
CAPE COD
Bourne
Sandwich
Barnstable
Yarmouth
Dennis
Brewster
Orleans
Eastham
Wellfleet
Truro
Provincetown
TOTALS
1970
Population
4,179
15,807
3,804
3,040
10,750
2.670
40,250
5,636
27,94t
5.151
38,348
26,151
48,080
40,556
21,295
13,578
90,294
4,119
25.110
346,259
43,159
20.335
30.626
42,485
641,071
27,190
87,966
35.050
54,610
18,845
9.961
1,011,298
6,954
16,973
7,796
11,193
15,223
7,636
5,999
18.606
90.380
12,636
5,239
19,842
12,033
6,454
1,790
3,055
2,043
1,743
1.234
2.911
68.980
1.557.167
1980
Population
5,973
15,900
4,529
3,867
11,158
2.998
44,425
6,345
27,768
5.424
37,655
24,100
45,976
38.220
20,126
13.837
78,471
3,947
24.746
326,615
42.423
19.294
25,431
37.195
562,994
25,860
84,743
36,337
55,601
20,339
9.714
919.931
7.174
17,317
9.182
13,487
20,916
11,807
7,362
35.913
123,158
13.874
8.727
30,898
18,449 '
12,360
5.226
6,306
3,472
2,209
1.486
3.536
108,543
1.520.672
1990
. Population
6,882
16,317
5,623
4,452
11,873
3.260
48.407
7.482
28,716
5.286
38.195
24,174
47,039
38,091
19,971
13,650
81,245
3,828
25.549
333.226
42.786
18.127
28,710
35,701
574,283
25,725
84,985
33,836
54,063
19,821
10.466
928,503
7,075
16,786
9.279
14,544
21,531
13,895
9,045
45.608
137.763
16,064
15,489
40,949
21,174
13,864
8,440
5,838
4,462
2,493
1.573
3.561
133,907
1.581.806%
Change
1970-1990
64.68%
3.23%
47.82%
46.45%
10.45%
22.10%
20.27%
32.75%
.2.77%
2.62%
-0.40%
-7.56%
-2.17%
-6.08%
6.22%
0.53%
-10.02%
-7.06%
1.75%
-3.76%
-0.86%
-10.86%
-6.26%
-15.97%
-10.42%
-5.39%
-3.39%
-3.46%
-1.00%
5.18%
5.07%
-8.19%
1.74%
-1.10%
19.02%
29.94%
41.44%
81.97%
50.78%
145.13%
52.43%
27.13%
195.65%
106.38%
75.97%
114.81%
371.51%
91.10%
118.40%
43.03%
27.47%
22.33%
94.12%
1.58%
-------
11-12
Chapter II. Background
LAND USE
Land use varies widely in the Massachusetts portion of the Massachusetts Bays region, ranging
from high-density urban centers around Metropolitan Boston to low density, rural-residential
communities on the North and South Shores. A profile of percent change in urban versus non-
urban land uses in the five drainage basin groupings between 197 land 1985 is presented in Table
IT-5. The information was developed from MassGIS data and consists of five categories of urban
environment and four categories of non-urban environment Itshouldbenotedthatmecompilation
and analysis of this MassGIS land use data is preliminary. Further analysis is underway.
General trends indicate that significant land development occurred throughout much of the
Massachusetts Bays region between 1970 and the mid- 1980's, spurred by the economic boom of
mat period. Across the region, the percentages of land in industrial, residential, and commercial
uses showed significant increases. Between 1971 and 1985, the amount of land in industrial use
increased by 39-9 percent; the amount of land in residential and commercial uses increased by 15
percent and 19.7 respectively. The total amount of developed land across the region increased by
15.6 percent Conversely, the region experienced decreases in forest land (7.2 percent), land in
agricultural use (7.1 percent), undeveloped open land (3.3percent)andwedands(1.9percent).
The figures cited for percent-change in wetlands area are unreliable due to differences in
photographic source material used in the interpretation. A MassGIS representative indicated that
the higher resolution of 1985 photography resulted in apparent increases in wetland area. This
higher resolution allowed the delineation of more wetland area in 1985 than in 1971. Forested
wetlands, however, are not explicitly delineated in either 1971 or 1985 and are included in the
forest category.
A number of the communities in the region experienced unprecedented rates of growth mat
resulted in dramatic and irretrievable losses of land formerly classified as forest, farm, or wetland
(see Table n-6). Nowhere has this phenomenon been more starkly evident than on Cape Cod,
where theyear-roundpopulation ballooned by over 76 percent between 1970 and 1986. According
to land use data compiled by the University of Massachusetts, over 35,500 acres of forest and
agriculturallandonCapeCodwerelosttodevelopmentbetween 1970 and 1990. The majority of
this land (over 29,000 acres) was developed for residential purposes. Commercial and industrial
growth consumed another 2,700 acres. All told, development now covers more than 33% of the
Cape's total land area (Cape Cod Commission, 1991) •
Of the five towns in the Commonwealth that are estimated to have had the highest rates of land
consumption during the first half of the 1980's, four are communities on Cape Cod, including
three in the Massachusetts Bays region. Nine other Massachusetts Bays communities are among
the 15 highest land-consuming areas in the state — four in the Merrimack Valley, two in the
suburbs south and west of Boston, and one on the South Shore. Altogether, an estimated 13,365
acres of land were consumed in the 11 Massachusetts Bays region communities identified in Table
II-6. This is the equivalent of 21 square miles, or an area the size of the Towns of Dennis or
WeUfleetonCapeCod.
-------
Table 11-5. Land Use Change in the Massachusetts Bays Drainage Basin. 1971-1985
(shown in square miles)
Category
Developed
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation
Other
TOTAL
Agriculture
Undeveloped
Opart Land
Participation 8>
Water-Based
Recreation
Forest
Wetland
Water
BASIN TOTALS
Merrlmack
1971 1985 H Change
198.4 236.9 19.4%
12.9 16.8 30.2H
11.9 17.9 50.4*
17.0 19.9 17.1%
14.4 17.1 18.8%
254.6 308.6 21.2%
116.5 108.2 -7.1%
59.0 56.2 -4.8%
9.4 9.8 43%
672.1 628.0 -6.6%
46.6 44.6 -4.2%
44.2 45.1 2.2%
12023 1200.6
North Shore
1971 1985 % Change
89.1 100.5 12.8%
6.0 73 21.7%
33 5.0 51.5%
6.0 6.4 6.7%
63 63 0.0%
110.7 125.5 13.4%
25.2 23.7 -6.0%
21.7 21.1 -2.7%
5.9 5.9 -0.4%
195.6 183.2 -63%
413 41.0 -08%
7.7 7.8 1J%
408.1 408.2
Boston Harbor
1971 1985 % Change
201.8 217.4 7.7%
17.9 19.7 10.1%
14.6 18.5 26.7%
16.7 17.4 4.2%
14.4 13.8 -4.2%
26S.4 286.8 8.1%
23.6 20.8 -11.8%
40.0 38.7 -33%
9.0 9.6 6.1%
220.6 203.2 -7.9%
28.6 283 -1.2%
15.4 15.0 -2.8%
602.6 6023
South Shore
1971 1985 % Change
44.4 52.9 19.1%
2.1 2.7 28.6%
0.8 1.4 75.0%
2.9 3.0 3.4%
2.8 3.2 13.2%
53.0 63.2 19.2%
9.6 9.7 1.7%
9.1 9.5 4.8%
2.5 2.5 0.0%
142.7 131.9 -7.6%
14.9 14.8 -1.1%
7.8 8.0 2.6%
239.6 239.6
Cape Cod
1971 1985 % Change
163 25.0 53.4%
1.2 1.5 25.0%
0.2 0.3 50.0%
23 2.3 0.0%
0.7 0.8 14.3%
20.7 29.9 44.4%
1.7 1.6 -5.9%
16.8 16.3 -3.0%
2.2 2.4 9.1%
72.9 64.1 -12.1%
173 17.3 0.0%
3.4 3.4 0.0%
135.0 135.0
Mass. Bays Total
1971 1985 % Change
550.0 632.7 15.0%
40.1 48.0 19.7%
30.8 43.1 39.9%
44.9 49.0 9.1%
38.6 41.2 6.7%
704.4 814.0 15.6%
176.5 164.1 -7.1%
146.6 141.8 -33%
29.0 30.1 3.9%
1303.9 1210.4 -7.2%
148.7 145.9 -1.9%
78.5 79.4 1.1%
2587.6 2585.6
Bl
r>
wi
§
00
01
n
n
-------
11-14
Chapter II. Background
Table 11-6. Massachusetts Communities With
Highest Estimated Land Consumption (acres) 1981-1986
Rank
1
*2
*3
*4
*5
6
7
*8
9
*10
*11
12
*13
*14
*15
Community
Mash pee
Brewster
Barnstable
Sandwich
Ashland
Mansfield
Edgartown
Chelmsford
Falmouth
Franklin
Tewksbury
Nantucket
Plymouth
Tyngsbo rough
Andover
* Communities located
Geographic
Area
Cape Cod
Cape Cod
Cape Cod
Cape Cod
West of Boston
Southwest of Boston
Martha's Vineyard
Merrimack Valley
Cape Cod
Southwest of Boston
Merrimack Valley
Nantucket
South Shore
Merrimack Valley
Merrimack Valley
Total
Housing Acres
Consumed
2.178
1.795
1,331
1,378
1,298
724
1.014
566
832
912
850
815
644
758
412
15.507
Business Acres
Consumed
37
34
217
48
8
333
24
392
119
28
69
76
172
53
392
2,002
Total Acres
Consumed
2,215
1,829
1,548
1,426
1,306
1,057
1,038
958
951
940
919
891
816
811
804
17,509
in the Massachusetts Bays Region
(Modified from Greenbaum and O'ponneli (1 987), based on Herr and Robinson (1 987)
COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL FISHERIES RESOURCES
Shellfish Resources
The inshore shellfishery of the Massachusetts Bays region is a major component of the marine
fisheryresource of Massachusetts and an integral part of the state's coastal heritage. In 1989, over
27,000 shellfish permits were issued statewide, producing over 313,000 bushels of shellfish
valued at over $ 14 million. Harvested species included soft-shell dams, quahogs, oysters, bay
scallops, blue mussels, and, to a lesser extent, conchs and razor dams (Table n-7).
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP II-15
Table 11-7. Massachusetts Shellfish Statistics
Based on Local Shellfish Officer Reports'
Number of Permits Issued by Cities and Towns
Total Family (Recreational) Permits 19,835
Resident Family Permits 17,467
Non-resident Family Permits 2,368
Commercial Permits 1,995
Senior Citizen Permits 5,752
Total of All Permits 27,582
Shellfish Harvest (in bushels)
Species Recreational Commercial
Quahog 14,063 39,625
Mixed 6,116 11.787
Chowder 3,731 9,740
Cherrystone 9,669 23,496
Littleneck 17,732 "70,893
Soft Shell Clam 1,718 1.367
Oyster 4,223 56,163
Bay Scallop 111 1,445
Razor Clam 0 0
Surf Clam 1,229 30,269
Mussel 117 9,628
Conch
Total Bushels 58.708 254.413
* Towns not reporting In 1989 that reported in 1988: Duxbury, Gay Head. Mattapoisett. Weltfleet
** Commercial soft shell clams includes moderately-contaminated clams processed at the
Division's Shellfish Purification Plant
Flnfish Resources
In 1990, the Massachusetts commercial finfishing industry ranked 14th nationally in total volume
of landings (269 million pounds), with a value of $ 147.7 million (NMFS, personal communica-
tion). Among the New England states, Massachusetts ranked first in both volume and value of
finfish landings. The Port of Gloucester ranked 10th among the nation's ports in total volume of
fishery landings (126 million pounds, including shellfish).
Approximately 46 species of edible fish, shellfish, and crustaceans are landed by Massachusetts
commercial fishermen in over 50 ports, more than half of which are located along the Massachu-
setts and Cape Cod Bays coastlines. The most important species include sea scallop, cod, lobster,
yellowtail flounder, haddock, winter flounder, bluefin tuna, and swordfish. Gloucester and
Boston are the major fishing ports along Massachusetts Bay, although smaller ports, such as
Scituate, Plymouth, and Provincetown, also have significant landings of fish and shellfish. These
ports supportday-boat trips to inshore fishing grounds, generally within 12 miles of the coast The
vessels participatingin these fisheries are usually less than 60 feet long and include a large number
of boats thatfish exclusively for lobster.
-------
11-16
Chapter II. Background
Sportfishing for species such as striped bass, winter flounder, and bluefish is also a major activity
in Massachusetts Bays. The abundance of these species, and the numerous services available to
anglers, attract thousands of sportfishermen each year to the region's shores. This activity has a
significant beneficial impact on the area's economy. Many small businesses benefit from
sportfishing-based support services, such as motor fuel sales, small boat maintenance and repair,
boatyard storage and loading ramps, food, lodging, and bait and tackle shops. In addition, local
industries that manufacture durable goods, such as sportfishing boats, benefit from sportfishing
activities in the region. In 1987, saltwater anglers spent over $800 million in Massachusetts.
Lobster Resources
Another important component of the Massachusetts Bays fisheries resources is the American
Lobster. The Bays' lobster fishery is the most economically important single-species fishery
conducted within territorial waters, with annual landings of more than $40,000,000. In 1989,
inshore commercial lobstermen landed 14,610,078 pounds; another 392,252 pounds were
harvested by recreational lobster fishermen. The state's total annual landings rank second in the
nation, following the state of Maine.
Essex County ranked first in total pounds of lobster landed in 1989, followed by Plymouth County
andSuffolkCounty. Boston ranked as thenumberoneportin total pounds, followed by Gloucester,
Plymouth andBeveriy.TheNorthSiorecommunities in Essex County also had thehighestnumber
of active commercial fishermen. (DMF, 1989)
1989 DMF Lobster Fishery Statistics indicate mat the number of active lobster fishermen in
Massachusetts has declined in recent years. The total number of commercial licenses issued by
DMF fell from a high of 2,772 in 1987 to 2,638 in 1989. However, the statistics also reveal that,
despite the drop in the number of fishermen, lobster landings have mcreased slightly over thepast
five years. Between 1985 and 1989, commercial landings rose 2.9%, from 14,203,083 pounds to
14,610,028 pounds (DMF, 1989).
HABITATS AND OTHER LIVING RESOURCES
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays contain a rich variety of estuarine and marine habitats, ranging
from shallow tidal creeks and flat, sandy beaches to rocky headlands and deep ocean waters.
Together, theyprovide essential food, cover, migratory corridors, and breeding andnursery areas
for a broad assortment of coastal and marine organisms, including commercially-important fish
and shellfish and a variety of waterbirds, including seabirds, shorebirds, and Wading birds. A
variety of coastal habitats are also used by raptors, including the endangered peregrine falcon and
bald eagle. Rivers and streams in the coastal zone support fish, including recreationalty-important
species such as trout, bass, perch, and pickerel, as well as anadromous fish. Coastal upland
habitats (such as islands, fields, shrublands, and forests) support a variety of wildlife species,
including resident mammals as well as neotropical migrants such as warblers, which add to the
diversity of living resources in the Massachusetts Bays Region.
Salt Marshes
There are more than 36,000 acres of salt marsh habitat in the Massachusetts Bays region. North
Shore communities account for more than 18,000 acres (almost 50 percent of the total), followed
by Cape Cod (12,600 acres). Other numerous, important pocket marshes, remnants of previ-
ously larger marshes, abound throughout the area, including 5,700 acres on the South Shore and
approximately 2,000 acres in the Boston Harbor region.
Salt marshes are flat, open, grassy areas bordering tidal waters. They are typically found in sites
mat are protected from the high energy of the open coast, such as estuaries, salt ponds, or behind
barrier beaches. Historically viewed as wasteland, salt marshes and tidal streams are now valued
as important resources that provide food and habitat for wildlife, protect the coastal zone from
floods, and absorb certain water-borne contaminants. In fact, the salt marsh environment is one
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
11-17
of the most productive ecosystems in the world, even exceeding most types of agricultural land.
Many economically and environmentally important fish and shellfish species inhabit its tidal
CTeeksforatleastpartoftheirlifecydeJmportantspedesinthesaltmarshesoftheMassachusetts
Bays region include winter flounder, mummichogs, eels, sticklebacks, menhaden, bluefish,
striped bass, and herring. Salt marshes are also an important shellfish habitat Soft-shell dams
burrow in the intertidal mud flats bordering salt marsh creeks, and juvenile lobsters frequently
colonize chunks of salt marsh peat that slump into the tidal creeks.
The organic matter produced by salt marsh grasses forms the basis of the food chain that supports
a broad assemblage of salt marsh finfish and shellfish. Plant detritus Ming into and conveyed by
the marsh creeks is consumed by a variety of invertebrates, which in turn are consumed by fish,
birds, and mammals. Thus, the salt marsh habitat is an essential ingredient in the diversity and
productivity of living resources within the Massachusetts Bays estuarine environment
Salt marshes also add greatly to the aesthetic quality of the coastal landscape, providing recre-
ational enjoyment through fishing, shellfishing, waterfowting, and nature appreciation in all
seasons.
Tidal Flats
Tidal flats, also known as dam flats, are shallow, intertidal areas in estuaries and quiet bays, and
behind barrier beaches. Their sand-mud substrate does not support large plants, but it provides
important habitat for microscopic algae and vast numbers of dams, quahogs, and marine worms
as well as a foraging area for migratory shorebirds, wading birds, waterfowl, and raptors.
There are over 33,000 acres of tidal flats in the Massachusetts Bays region. Nearly half of this
amount (15,218 acres) is on Cape Cod, and the remainder is distributed throughout the area.
Eelgrass Beds
Edgrass beds serve several critical functions in the estuarine environment They provide impor-
tant habitat for many spedes of finfish, shellfish, geese, and ducks. They reduce turbidity and
improve water quality by filtering suspended solids from the water column and serving as a baffle
to moving sand. They contribute to the production of organic matter which is an essential
component of nearshore food webs.
Commercially and recreationahy valuable finfish and shellfish use the cover of eelgrass as their
primary nursery and feeding grounds, and as refuge from predators. Juvenile winter flounder
have beenfoundto prefer muddy areas bordered by edgrass,andbay scallops depend on edgrass
beds as adults. Some researchers have suggested a possible link between the near-extinction of
Massachusetts scallops in the 1930's and the destruction of many Atlantic coast edgrass beds by
"wasting disease," a marine slime mold, but thus far this link is only conjecture.
Although some aerial surveys and on-site investigations have been conducted, the overall status of
edgrass beds in the Massachusetts Bays region is largdy undetermined. Areas known to contain
edgrass indude Gloucester Harbor off Miles Beach, Stage Fort, and Raymonds Beach; the
entrance of Manchester Harbor; West Beach in Beverly Farms; Broad Sound off Little Nahant;
Point Shirley (the ocean side of Deer Island); Plymouth and Duxbury Harbors; andCape Cod from
BamstaWe to Harwich. Edgrass also has been reported in Boston Harbor near the public boat
landing in Winthrop and off Wollaston Beach, but no comprehensive surveys have been under-
taken to confirm this. Recent surveys north of Boston indicate that eelgrass is now reduced in or
absent from a number of North Shore estuaries and embayments in which it once occurred: the
Merrimack River estuary, Essex Bay, Annisquam River in Gloucester, and Salem and Marblehead
Harbors.
-------
11-18
Chapter II. Background
Among the reasons died for eelgrass decline are wasting disease, polluted sewer and stormwater
discharges, local dredge and fill projects, and heavy boat traffic in shallow waters. Of growing
concern are the subtle, incremental threats from nonpoint sources of pollution, such as urban
runoff, landfills, and septic systems. Eelgrass meadows in coastal ponds on Cape Cod have been
replaced by undesirable macroalgal communities in areas where excess nitrogen loading has
occurred as a result of nonpoint source pollution from development in the watershed (Valiela and
Costa, 1988).
Barrier Beaches
Most barrier beaches are long, narrow strips of coastal duneandbeach that are formedfrom sand
and gravel transported by waves. They typically begin as sand spits that grow out from and run
parallel to the shore. The front of the barrier beach faces the open ocean and is extremely
unstable, absorbing the brunt of storm waves and tides. The inland side borders an estuary or
marsh system. Barrier beaches provide critical nesting habitat for some of the Commonwealth's
rare coastal birds, such as thepipingploverandtheroseate tern. Marine and anadromous fish use
the sheltered, brackish waters behind barrier islands as feeding and spawning areas. These areas
also are important feeding and resting areas for wading birds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, and
serve as important wintering habitat for waterfowl.
There are more than 10,000 acres of barrier beaches along the Massachusetts Bays coast.
Outstanding examples that have not been lost to development include Sandy Neck in Barnstable
andtheProvincelands (Provincetown) on Cape Cod; and Salisbury Beach and Plum Island on the
North Shore.
Rocky Headlands and Intertidal Shores
Rocky shore ecosystems occur along numerous stretches of the Massachusetts Bays coastline. In
some places they have developed on the exposed faces of rocky headlands, such as those of
Rockport, Gloucester, and other North Shore communities. In other places they have developed
on boulders and cobbles derived from glacial moraine deposits along the South Shore and Cape
Cod. These habitats are exposed to great physical stress, pounded by waves and dried by wind,
sun, and summer heat Despite these conditions, the rocky shore habitat supports a diversity of
plant and animal life, including cyanobacteria (formerly blue-green algae), algae, crustaceans
(barnacles, crabs, lobsters, shrimp), starfish, mollusks (snails and mussels), and certain finfish,
liketautog. ^
Inshore/Nearshore Waters
The inshore/nearshore waters of the Massachusetts Bays region are the chief breeding ground for
many commercially-important fish species, and are a feeding ground for numerous marine birds
and marine mammals. The Atlantic white-sided dolphin and the harbor porpoise are commonly
sighted in Bays waters. The harbor seal and grey seal are also present, although the latter species
is infrequently observed. Inshore/nearshore waters are also the primary habitat for the
Commonwealth's lobster population (DMF, 1985). Commercial fish species include bluefin
tuna, haddock, pollack, winter flounder, Atlantic herring, and Atlantic cod.
Offshore Feeding Grounds
Several onshore areas between Cape Cod and Cape Ann are importantfeedinggroundsforwhales.
The best known area, Stellwagen Bank, is a critical shallow-water feeding ground for many of the
North Adantic'slastremainingNormemrightwhales, the rarest of the world's great whales. Other
species of whales, including humpback whales, finback whales, and minke whales, also use
Stellwagen Bank as a feeding ground. In recent years, this area has been habitat for a large
population of American sand lance, a primary prey species of many birds, fish and marine
mammals.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
11-19
Islands
Massachusetts Bays contain numerous islands, most of which are highly developed. However,
there are approximately 45 islands with varied habitats, including herbaceous, shrub, and for-
ested habitats that support nesting populations of migratory seabirds and wading birds, including
terns, gulls, egrets, and herons. These habitats also support significant populations of birds that
migrate through the coastal zone. Outstanding examples of islands along the Massachusetts Bays
coast that have not been irretrievably lost to development include Thatcher Island and Milk Island
off the North Shore.
Anadromous Fish Runs
Massachusetts contains approximately 150 rivers and streams that support the migration and
spawning of anadromous fish (P. Brady, DMF, personal communication). These are fish species
which hatch in fresh water, migrate seaward where they spend much of their adult lives, then
return upriver to spawn. They include American shad, alewife, rainbow smelt, sea run brook
trout, blueback herring and Atlantic salmon (Merrimack River). Historically, most of the rivers
and streams entering Massachusetts Bays supported viable anadromous fish populations, but
pollution, overfishing, and construction of impassable dams have combined to reduce the num-
ber of anadromous fish runs.
Table n-8 shows the amount of acreage and distribution of three coastal habitats—tidal flats, salt
marshes and barrier beaches—in the Massachusetts Bays region.
-------
11-20
Chapter II. Background
Table 11-8. Acreages of Coastal Habitats in MA Bays (Hankin, 1985)
Region/Community
UPPER NORTH SHORE
Salisbury
Newbuirypprt
yNewbury.r:;:>:;j.'' '. '•-'
' '•R6Wley;:;--V ;7 y. '^^: •;..._;.
'^V^^S^SM^-I^
^j^j^^^i^^§:
Saiigus
phfipifl
i-iVer||tt:|
•;Bprtpn?:v'
•; Marsfif jflil
^^^
^
Tidal Flats
115.5 :
llsjpt
|||0|§
li'iliii:
:!:llliP
:;li2lfes:
;;;illiP
lliS:?
liisiiii
t'c
2;367:7
Salt Marshes
• • • -•
III
sil^ii
sloaeii^l
Illpi
i||||l
llllll
stsii?
iiiiiaiii
IliBIl
Illlllll
fiiillli;;
filiii
iiillii
^Upp
MCsli
Barrier Beaches
^133131
|2|||ii|i
Illlliil
liilii?:
li:lill:
ijlliil
llSil
l:3;i;lil
::||OiO:|
I'tllll
|||;i;
iii^oj?
PP
iii
:6il
llialai
;I-1|P
?i5Bll
lilies
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
11-21
BEACHES AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES •
The coastal communities of the Massachusetts Bays region contain over 100 municipal, state, and
federal public beaches. These rank among the region's most important economic and recreational
resources, and are frequented by tens of thousands of bathers, boaters, and fishermen annually.
Table 0-9 lists 20 national and state parks, wildlife refuges, forests and historical sites along the
Massachusetts Bays coast Many are extremely popular. For example, the Boston Harbor Islands
State Park receives more than 220,000 visitors per year.
Table 11-9. Representative Parks, Wildlife Refuges. Forests, and Historic Sites
in the Massachusetts Bays Region
Site
Salisbury Beach State Reservation
Parker River National Wildlife Refuge
Greenwood Farm Salt Marsh
Crane Wildlife Refuge
Crane Memorial Reservation
Halibut State Park
Halibut Point State Park
Thatcher Island National Wildlife Refuge
Knight Wildlife Sanctuary
Salem Maritime National Historic Site
Misery Islands Reservation
Crowninshield Island
Lynn Heritage State Park
Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site
Belle isle Marsh Reservation
Boston National Historic Park
Boston Harbor islands State Park
Webb State Park
Worlds End Reservation
wompatuck State Park
Gushing Memorial State Park
Myles Standish Monument State Reservation
Kingston State Forest
Holmes Reservation
Plymouth Rock State Park
Myles Standish State Forest
Scusset Beach State Reservation
Shawme-CrQwell State Forest
Nlckerson State Forest
Brewster State Forest
Cape Cod National Seashore
Location
Salisbury
Newbury
Ipswich
Ipswich
Ipswich
Rockport
Rockport
Rockport
Rockport
Salem
Salem
Marbfehead
Lynn
Saugus
Saugus
Boston
Boston
Weymouth
Hingham
Hingham
Scituate
Duxbury
Kingston
Plymouth
Plymouth
South Carver
Sandwich
Sandwich
Brewster
Brewster
Outer Cape Cod
-------
11-22
Chapter II. Background
TheMassachusettsGeographicInformationSystem (MassGIS) iscompilingadalabaseanddatalayer
map of all open space land protected by municipal, state, and federal governments in Massachu-
setts. The list will include all land owned and protected by three private non-profit organizations
—the Massachusetts Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, and the Trustees of Reservations.
When completed, the system will allow users to locate protected areas statewide, including
protected open space along the coast. (A pilot project was recently completed which lists and
maps state and federal lands and all privately and municipally protected open space in Essex
County.)
In addition to the state and national parks listed above, there are many municipal parks in the
communities bordering the Massachusetts Bays area. These municipal sites offer a range of active
and passive recreational opportunities, including swimming, boating, fishing, team sports, picnic
sites, and childrens' play areas.
For marine boating enmusiasts,merearel8state-supportedpubUcboatrampsinthe Massachusetts
Bays region (Table 11-10).
Table 11-10. State-Supported Public Boat-Launching Sites
Along the Massachusetts Bays Coast
Location
Black Rock Creek
Cashman Park
Parker River
Lanes Cove
Long Wharf (Jones River)
Corliss Landing
Porter River
Danvers River
Lynn Harbor
Wmthrop Harbor
Back River
Scituate Harbor
Green Harbor
Plymouth Harbor
Blush Point
Sesuit Harbor
Rock Harbor
Pamet River
Community
Salisbury
Newburyport
Newbury
Gloucester
Gloucester
Gloucester
Danvers
Salem
Lynn
Winthrop
Weymouth
Scituate
Marshfield
Plymouth
Barnstable
Dennis
Eastham
Truro
The Public Access Board of the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforce-
ment (DFWELE) has published a guide called Public Access to the Waters of Massachusetts,
which lists the locations and facilities available at all 123 state-funded boat ramps across the
Commonwealth.
Whale watching, another favorite coastal pastime, has grown tremendously in popularity over the
past decade. Whale watching cruise ships now leave from many ports along the Massachusetts
Bays coastline, including Newburyport, Gloucester, Boston, Plymouth, and Provincetown. In
1986, approximately one million people participated in whale watching cruises generating over
$16 million in revenue for the region's economy (EPA, 1990). Stellwagen Bank and Jeffrey's
Ledge, areas of prime summer habitat for several species of whales, are two of the most popular
destinations for whale watch cruises.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
-23
MEGAPROJECTS
Several large, ongoing or proposed projects in Massachusetts Bays will have a significant impact
on the water quality and living resources of the Bays. These projects include: the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Boston Harbor Project, the South Essex Sewage District
(SESD) project, the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel (CA/T) project, the Army Corps of
Engineers Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project, the Army Corps Saugus River Floodgate
project, and the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site.
These projects are discussed here because their large scale and potentially significant impact on
die Massachusetts Bays system serve to illustrate the interconnected nature of the Massachusetts
Bays system and to highlight the importance of addressing pollution problems in the Bays from an
ecosystem-wide perspective. The Bays are a marine ecosystem comprised of currents, tides,
nutrient cycles, energyflowsandfoodwebs. These natural processes linkthe ecological health of
one part of the Bays to the health of the ecosystem as whole. Consequently, the effects of any one of
these megaprojeds may be felt in another part of the Bays system. The Massachusetts Bays
Program recognizes that the future health of the Bays and continued human use of its resources
will require an ecosystem-based management approach. This approach must include an effort to
analyze and better understand the greater-than-local impact of large projects in the region.
MWRA Boston Harbor Project
The MWRA is under court order to construct a new sewage treatment facility on Deer Island to
replaceitsexistingoutmodedprimaryplants onDeerlslandandNutlslandinBoston Harbor. The
newplant, scheduled to go on line widi primary trealmentin 1995, partial secondary in 1996, and
full secondary treatment in 1999, will process over 500 million gallons of residential and industrial
sewage per day from 43 communities in eastern Massachusetts. The MWRA project is expected to
reach a major water quality improvement milestone in late 1991 when a new sludge treatment
facility in Quincy begins operation. The opening of this plantwill mark the end of sludge disposal
into Boston Harbor waters.
In addition to providing the higher level of sewage treatment, die MWRA proposes to further
improve water quality in Boston Harbor by relocating the sewage outfall from the existing sites
near Deer and Nut Islands to the deeper waters of Massachusetts Bay. The treated sewage would be
conveyed through a 24-foot-diameter tunnel to a location more than nine miles seaward from
Deer Island. The new outfall will disperse the treated effluent into Massachusetts Bay through 55
riser pipes spaced over a distance of 11/4 miles, beginning in 1995.
Theentireproject, the largest publicworksproject in thehistoryofNew England, is expected to be
completed over a 10-year period, at a cost of $6.1 billion.
What is the role of the Massachusetts Bays Program in the Boston Harbor Project' From its
inception in 1988 Mowing the lawsuit over the pollution of Boston Harbor through the present,
the Massachusetts Bays Program has taken an active role in assessing the impacts of sewage-
derived contaminants in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. First, by developing an agenda for the
research community which is clarifying the sources, fate, transport, and effects of contaminants in
die Bays system, the Massachusetts Bays Program is helping to identify and fill in the gaps in our
knowledge of the ecosystem. To maximize results from research dollars and to help focus future
research, the Massachusetts Bays Program coordinates its studies with related efforts undertaken
by the USGS, MWRA, and MIT Sea Grant In addition, scientists from the Massachusetts Bays
Program have been actively involved in the Outfall Monitoring Task Force, established under the
direction oftheExecutiveOfficeofEnvironmental Affairs (EOEA). This group is helping to develop
a monitoring plan, to be implemented by the MWRA, which will collect baseline information on the
Bays system and will enable scientists and managers to identify any potential adverse water quality
or ecosystem impacts which may require remedial action.
-------
11-24
Chapter II. Background
Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project
The Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project (CA/T) is a 7 1/2 mile interstate highway con-
struction project that will replace the existing elevated highway through downtown Boston with an
underground roadway. The project also includes a third tunnel under Boston Harbor Unking the
Massachusetts Turnpike to Logan Airport The project presents several water quality related
issues for Boston Harbor, including: dredging of soft sediments from the harbor floor, manage-
ment of stormwater from new roadways, and disposal of construction and dredged material. The
dredging project, to be undertaken as part of the tunnel construction, requires die removal of 1.2
million cubic yards of sediment from the Inner Harbor between South Boston and the airport.
Dredged and excavated material, amounting to 11.9 million cubic yards, will be disposed of on
Spectacle Island in Boston Harbor. Some highly contaminated sediments will de temporarily
stored on Governor's Island prior to treatment
In November 1990, a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was issued The HR
conduded that the effects of dredging on Boston Harbor water quality will be limited. High
concentrations of suspended solids are expected to be confined to within 150 meters of thedredge
operation. Outside this 150-meter band, levels of solids are expected to decrease to amounts
normal for die surrounding waters.
According to the 0R, two components of the project are expected to result in water quality
improvements. Storm drainage systems currently serving the CA/T project area are combined
with sanitary sewers and contribute to Boston's combined sewer overflow problem. The CA/T
project proposes to replace this combined system with separate storm and sanitary sewer drains
and thus reduce thenumber of CSO dischargestotheharbor.Asecondwater quality improvement
is expected to result from the disposal of construction and dredged material on Spectacle Island.
The fill will be used to cap an existing landfill that is leaching contaminants into die Harbor.
Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project
In November 1989, Congress audiorized die Army Corps of Engineers (dieCorps) to deepen three
major tributaries to Boston Harbor die Mystic River, Chelsea River Channel, and die Reserved
Channel. While Boston Harbor's principal access is 40 feet deep, die three tributaries are only 35
feet deep. The project proposes to deepen die channels to 40 feet or, in die case of die Chelsea
River, to 38 feet (depth limited by die presence of utility crossings beneath die channel). The
Corps proposal is limited to existing shipping channels. Shipping companies and terminal
operators are responsible for deepening die areas around dieir own terminal facilities. The
project is designed to lower shipping costs in Boston by reducing or eliminating delays for large
vessels, improve navigation safety and reduce die risk of spills.
Disposal of die dredged material may pose some water quality risks for Massachusetts Bays.
Studies of die sediments in the area to be dredged revealed dial material from die Reserved
Channel is suitable for ocean dumping and will be disposed of at die Massachusetts Bay Disposal
Site (MBDS) in Stellwagen Basin. However, sediments from me Mystic and Chelsea Rivers contain
contaminants which may render diem unsuitable for ocean disposal. The project proposes to
dump these contaminated sediments at the MBDS and cap diem widi day derived from dean
dredged material underlying the Harbor floor. There is concern dial this proposed capping
technique may not adequately protect Bay waters from contamination. An Environmental Impact
Statements being developed to address disposal and environmental impact issues associated with
this project
The proposed project is scheduled to begin in October 1993 and run for two years. The total cost
of die project is estimated at $33,900,000,65 percent of which will be supplied by die federal
government The Massachusetts Port Authority, (Massport) die local sponsor of die project, will
provide die remaining 35 percent of die total cost
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
II-25
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
The Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site is located approximately 2 2 miles east of Boston in about 300
feet ofwater at the northeast tipofStellwagen Basin. Thesitecomprisesacirdethat is two nautical
miles in diameter. Since 1977,this site has been listed as an interim site for the disposal of dredged
material. Over the past decade, nearly 3 million cubic yards of dredged material has been
disposed at this site. Disposal records indicate that 67% of the dredged material came from
Boston Harbor, 20% from areas on the South Shore, and 13% from North Shore areas (USEPA,
1989).
EPA has issued an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the purpose of designating this site
a permanent disposal site for dredged material. The final site boundary, however, may be
relocated slightly west of the present boundary in an area known as the Industrial Waste Site. Final
site designation does not constitute approval for actual disposal of dredged material; it only serves
to identify an ocean disposal alternative for individual project reviews. Future sources of dredged
material for disposal at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site will continue to come from dredging
projects within communities from Gloucester to Plymouth (Hubbardetal., 1988).
Formanyyears,theMassachusetts Bay Disposal Site, as well as other sites within Stelhvagen Basin,
have received a wide range of wastes from human activity including low-level radioactive wastes,
toxic wastes, dredged material in the form of contaminated sediments, explosives, ships, and
construction debris (Urban Harbors Institute, 1990). Recently, as a result of EPA's issuance of the
QSforthecontinued use of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site, concern has resurfaced overpast
disposal practices of low-level radioactive wastes and other toxic wastes in both designated and
unauthorized areas. Ongoing research by EPA and others is documenting the distribution of
barrels scattered throughout large areas. Over the next year, EPA will conduct research on
sediment and benthic organism contamination and health in and around the Industrial Waste Site
in order to determine if remedial action is necessary.
South Essex Sewage District
The South Essex Sewage District is a regional sewage treatment facility that serves approximately
165,000 people in die towns of Beverly, Danvers, Marblehead, Peabody, and Salem, as well as
small segments of Middleton and Wenham. The plant provides primary treatment to an average
daily sewage flow of 27 million gallons per day (mgd). Effluent is discharged into Salem Sound
approximately 8,000 feet from the plant and 5,000 feet from the nearest shoreline.
SESD is proposing (under court order) to build a new secondary treatment facility to replace its
outmoded primary facility. The new facility would provide secondary treatment for a sewage flow
of 28 mgd. Current facilities planning follows several years of debate over the construction of a
new plant for the region.
In 1988, SESD was ordered by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) agency to
conduct facilities-siting studies for the new plant and its associated sludge landfill. As of January
1990, five sites were under consideration for the sewage plant Siting and facilities planning is
continuing. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the proposed SESD expansion is expected
to be issued by the end of 1991.
The Saugus River Floodgate Project
Another major project planned by the Army Corps of Engineers is the proposed Saugus River
Floodgate Project in the municipalities of Lynn, Maiden, Revere and Saugus. This project is
designed to reduce the impact of tidal flooding in the Saugus and Pines Rivers Estuary. The area
encompasses approximately 4,000 acres of residentially, industrially, and commercially developed
land and coastal wetlands. It indudes approximately one-third of the City of Revere, the Revere
Beach backshore, the Lynn Harbor shorefront, East Saugus, and the Pine Brook area of Maiden.
-------
1-26
Chapter II. Background
Also included are major utilities and transportation arteries that serve Boston's North Shore. The
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's Blue Line, Route 1-A, and other important trans-
portation routes serving 100,000 commuters per day cross the project area.
Chronic flooding caused by storm surges and high tides has resulted in substantial damage to
homes andbusinesses in thearea. During the Blizzard of 1978, for example, record high tides and
storm surges flooded thousands of homes and businesses, forced the emergency evacuation of
over 4,000 people, and damaged over 3,000 buildings (COE, 1989). Because of growth in the
area and increased reconstruction costs, the same intensity storm today would affect nearly 5,000
buildings and cause over $ 100 million in property damages.
According to a 1989 feasibility study and HS, the Corps proposes to build a total of 3.5 miles of
structures — dikes, walls, and floodgate — to reduce flooding throughout the area. The
floodgate, to be located at the mouth of the Saugus River, would remain open except when there is
a threat of a flood During storm tide conditions, the gates would be dosed for a few hours during
high tide to restrict the amount of water entering the estuary. The Corps estimates that such
closures wouldoccuronly two to three times peryear, when tides reach elevations of approximately
three feet above mean high tide (COE, 1989).
According to the feasibility study, the project will require the acquisition (in fee or easement) of
1660 acres of estuarine land for flood storage and runoff. Although the project does not propose
to alter any vegetated wetlands, two acres of intertidal habitat and one acre of subu'dal habitat will
be lost Construction of the flood control structures will require the disposal of approximately
114,000 cubic yards of dredged material. The Corps proposes to dispose of this material at the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site.
The project will be sponsored by the Corps, the Metropolitan District Commission, the Cities of
Lynn, Maiden and Revere, and the Town of Saugus. The total cost of the project is estimated to be
$ 100 million, 75% of which will be provided by a 1990 Congressional authorization. The project
is currently in the engineering and design phase
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
11-1
CHAPTER m. THE PRIORITY PROBLEMS FACING
MASSACHUSETTS BAYS
Who uses Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays? Along with the fishermen and seafood consumers
who take advantage of the abundant sea life inhabiting the Bays, and the swimmers and boaters
who enjoy the recreational benefits of the coast, everyone who lives in the watersheds of the Bays
uses these resources in one way or another. Unfortunately, some of these uses are harmful.
Industries and municipalities regularly discharge pollutants via sewage outfalls diredy into the
Bays and into rivers and streams entering the Bays. Individuals contribute to nonpoint source
pollution through septic systems, improper waste disposal, boat discharges, and automobile
emissions. Pollutants also flow to the sea by way of discharges to groundwater, or through
stormwater runoff. Ultimately, the pollutants affect us by threatening health, degrading beaches,
and damaging the fragile habitats of fish, shellfish, and other wildlife.
Land use within the Massachusetts Bays region ranges from the highly-urbanized cities and towns
that comprise the Metropolitan Boston area to the smaller rural-residential communities found
along the Upper North Shore, South Shore, and Cape Cod areas. Over the past twenty years, the
overall population levels within the drainage basin have remained relatively stable; however, Cape
Cod and the South Shore have experienced dramatic population growth. Increased development
along the coast and within the watersheds of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays has created a
variety of environmental concerns, particularly regarding wastewater disposal activities (from
municipal wastewater treatment plants, septic systems, boats) and stormwater runoff.
Contaminants entering Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, whether they be pathogens or chemi-
cals, come from a variety of sources: municipal wastewater treatment plants, industrial dis-
charges, stormwater runoff, atmospheric deposition, septic systems, and boat wastes. Point
source pollution, emanating from discrete locations such as treatment plants and industrial
discharges, is regulated by federal and state environmental agencies. Permits are issued to control'
and monitor discharges of contaminants. Recently, nonpoint source pollution (from diffuse
sources such as stormwater and septic systems) has been recognized as a significant contributing
factor to degraded water quality along the coast Some of the important point and nonpoint
pollution sources are discussed below.
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
The waters of Massachusetts Bay receive waste from 13 sewage treatment plants that discharge
effluent and/or sludge into these coastal waters. Twenty-seven of the 42 coastal communities
between Cape Ann and Provincetown process their sewage through these treatment plants, five of
which use primary treatment and eight use secondary treatment The remaining communities
have no treatment plants and rely on septic systems.
The average flow from these 13 plants totals over 566 million gallons per day (mgd), with the
majority of the flow (500 mgd) coming from me Massachusetts Water Resource Authority plants
serving the greater Boston area. Currendy, there is a court order in place overseeing the installa-
tion and operation of a new primary treatment plant and ocean outfall by 1995 and a secondary
treatment facility by 1999. Bytheend of 1991,sludge will nolonger be discharged into thecoastal
waters of Boston Harbor.
In some communities around the Bay, the average flows increase dramatically during heavy
rainfall events. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are typically found in many of the older cities
along Massachusetts Bay such as Boston and several North Shore communities. In these commu-
nities, the sewage systems were built to combine sewage wastes from residences with stormwater.
Users and Use
Impairments:
The Unbroken Circle
Overview of
Contaminant Sources
-------
11-2
Chapter III. The Priority Problems Facing Massachusetts Bays
Often during heavy rainstorms, the sewage treatments are unable to handle the volume of flow.
Therefore, the excess flow is discharged directly into the coastal waters without any treatment
Industrial discharges enter Massachusetts Bay directly and indirectly through municipal sewage
treatment plants in Boston, Gloucester, Salem, Lynn, Cohasset, and Plymouth. Discharges from
the largest industries are permitted by federal and state authorities. Approximately 6,000 indus-
tries contribute to the wastewater processed by the MWRA.
STORMWATER RUNOFF
Runoff from streets, parking lots, lawns, golf courses, and farms following rainfall events carries
a variety of contaminants into coastal waters. These contaminants include sediments, pathogens,
nutrients, toxic metals, and pesticide and other organic compounds. Increased development has
led to an increase in impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots, rooftops, driveways, etc.,
which is contributing to more runoff. Subdivision regulations at the local level frequently fail to
address water quality and resource protection concerns, but are simply geared to removing the
runoff from roads and other paved surfaces as quickly as possible.
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
Atmospheric deposition has been identified as an important source for pollutants (metals,
nutrients, and organic compounds) to enter coastal environments. Preliminary estimates for
Massachusetts Bays indicate that atmospheric deposition may be a major pollution source for
certain metals and nutrients. For example, a recent study has found that lead enters the coastal
environment of Massachusetts Bays primarily through atmospheric deposition. Unfortunately,
mere is limited or no data on which to evaluate a number of important atmospheric pollutants and
their significance to the Massachusetts Bays ecosystem. Beginning in 1991, the Massachusetts
Bays Program will fund a two-year study to characterize annual loadings of certain atmospheric
pollutants to the bays.
DISCHARGES FROM COASTAL RIVERS
The drainage basin for Massachusetts Bays consists of 13 separate river basins and coastal
drainage areas. It has been estimated that 80% of the average annual riverflow to the Bays is
derived from the MerrimackRiver Basin. A complete description of me coastal drainage areas can
be found in Chapter n.
Recent measurements of trace metal levels indicate that the Menimack River may be a significant
source of metals to Massachusetts Bay from industrial and urban sources. Because of its impor-
tance as a fresh water source to Massachusetts Bay, the Merrimack River is suspected to also
contribute significant loads of organic chemical pollutants. In 1992, the Massachusetts Bays
Program will fund a field sampling and measurement program to quantify organic chemical
pollutants from the Merrimack River.
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Parts of Cape Cod and the North and South Shores remain unsewered, and inadequately-designed
or maintained septic systems in these areas may be contributing significant amounts of sewage-
derived contaminants to groundwater and streams which flow to coastal embayments. Tide 5
regulations of the State Environmental Code establish minimum requirements for the subsurface
disposal of sanitary sewage. Promulgated in 1978, the regulations weredeagnedprimarilyforthe
control of bacteria. Recent scientific research has shown that viruses may not be adequately
controlled under Tide 5. In addition, the regulations do not address the impacts of nitrogen,
which, at sufficient levels, can stimulate excessive growth of algae in sensitive embayments.
Results from the Buzzards Bay Project indicate that in Buttermilk Bay (an embavment located in
menortheasternendof Buzzards Bay) approximately85% of the nitrogen entering the embayment
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
III-3
comes from area septic systems via groundwater. In parts of the Massachusetts Bays region,
similar situations may exist
BO AT WASTES
Sanitary waste from marine heads in boats is being discharged into the nearshore waters of
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, particularly in and around marinas. Such discharges may
contain high levels of pathogens, as well as chemicals used to deodorize and disinfect the waste,
and are degrading water quality and affecting resource areas—most notably shellfish beds. The
major products used as chemical additives are alcohol, formaldehyde, zinc salts, ammonium
salts, and chlorine. A survey of harbor masters conducted by the Buzzards Bay Project indicated
that alcohol and formaldehyde are the most common chemicals used
There are few boat pumpout facilities in the Massachusetts Bays region, and the use of these, both
at private and public marinas, is extremely low (F. Courtney, CZM, personal communication). The
reasons revolve around convenience, cost, education, and enforcement The law prohibits boat
discharges within three miles of the coast, but many boaters find it more convenient to dump their
wastes into marine waters than to invest time and effort into getting their boats to a pumpout
facility. Others thinkmatthecostofapumpout is excessive, evenmoughitistypicallylessthan$10.
Moreover, some boaters do not fed that boat waste seriously degrades water quality, or they
believe that their own incremental contribution to the overall waste load is too insignificant to
makeadifference. A complete list of all pumpout facilities in the Massachusetts Bays can be found
in \htEnvironmentalGuideforNewEnglandMariners.
In order to effectively and efficiently address the major environmental concerns, the Massachu-
setts Bays Program defined six priority problem areas in the Management Conference Agreement
of November 1990. These priority problems were developed in consultation with local, state, and
federal government officials, the scientific and academic community, environmental groups,
commercial and recreational users of the Bays, and concerned citizens. The priority problems
are:
• Chemical contamination of water and sediments
• Bioaccumulation and the effects of chemical contamination
• Pathogen contamination
• Water quality
• Habitat loss and modification
• Sea level rise
The following sections examine each of these problem areas in terms of the sources of pollutants,
their regional impact, and ultimately how our ability to use the resources of Massachusetts and
Cape Cod Bays is impaired.
CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION OF WATER AND SEDIMENTS
Chemical contaminants of concern in the marine environment of Massachusetts and Cape Cod
Bays include the toxic metals—lead, copper, cadmium, chromium and zinc; and two groups of
organic chemicals—polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphe-
nyls (PCBs). In general, the presence of these contaminants is the result of waste disposal
activities, runoff, and atmospheric deposition. They contribute to a variety of adverse impacts on
water and sediment quality, marine organisms, and human health.
Priority Problems
-------
Chapter III. The Priority Problems Facing Massachusetts Bays
Many of the same pollutants that affect water quality in Massachusetts Bays also degrade the
sedimentquality. Contaminants that enter the Bays are initially suspended in thewater column and
are transported by water movements until the speed of the currents is slow enough to allow them
to settle to the bottom. Contaminants in the sediments are of concern because they tend to
accumulate over longperiods and represent the cumulative loading of many pollution discharges.
These low-level, independent discharges, while they may individually meet federal and state
pollution control standards, can, over time, combine to result in high levels of toxic pollutants in
sediments. Furthermore, chemical contaminants in sediments may lastlong after the source of the
pollution is shut off and may act as a source of further contamination through various pathways.
Recently, the Massachusetts Bays Program completed the first comprehensive survey of the
sources of the major contaminants and their relative contribution to pollution in the Bays' ecosys-
tem (Menzie-Cura, 1990. Thesurv^estimatedmeo^antityofcontaminantscontributedbypoint
sources (sewage treatment plants, industrial wastewater discharges, combined storm and sewer
outfalls, and municipal storm sewers) and non-point sources (stormwater runoff, atmosphere
deposition, in-place sediments, and groundwater). The relative contribution of contaminant: oy
thefivemajorareasdrainuigfreshwatermtomebaysalsowasassessed These drainage areas are
the Merrimack River, Boston Harbor, North Shore, South Shore, and Cape Cod.
In general, chemical contamination appears to be more of a problem for the North Shore and
Boston Harbor drainage areas where wastewater and runoff from the industrialized centers and
urban harbors such as Boston, Salem, and Quincy contain higher concentrations of chemical
contaminants. For example, the Boston Harbor drainage area appears to be the major contribu-
tor of copper to the Bays, with both point source discharges and runoff contributing to elevated
copper concentrations. A major source of copper entering the waste stream is believed to be
corrosion of water pipes. On the other hand, lead enters the coastal environment primarily by
atmospheric deposition, with runoff and point source discharges also contributing. Sources
include leaded fuel and lead water pipes. The highest New England levels of lead in mussels,
measured as part of theNOAAMussd Watch program, were from samples collected near Cape Ann
and Boston.
High concentrations of chemical contaminants are most often found in sediments closest to shore
near the pollution sources or in depositional areas where particles suspended in the water can
easily settle to the ocean floor. For example, the highest metals concentrations in Boston Harbor
are generally found in the Fort Point Channel and the mouth of the Charles River, both of which are
areas of the Inner Harbor that receive significant flow from combined sewer overflows. While the
proWemis most pervasivein Boston Harbor, contaminated sediments have been recorded through-
out Massachusetts Bays.
One group of organic chemicals of concern to the Massachusetts Bays Program is the polycydic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Constituents of petroleumandcoalentertheBaysviastonnwater
runoff from streets, leaking underground storage tanks, car exhaust, worn tire rubber, boats, and
soot from backyard barbecues, in addition to oil spills and illegal disposal of used motor oil. They
accumulate in bottom sediments and can be transferred up the food chain to the fish and shellfish
consumed by humans. Some Boston Harbor sediments have very high levels of PAHs comparable
to those of other urban harbors such as New York, Baltimore, and San Diego. Estimates of PAH
loadings suggest that point source discharges such as sewer outfalls are contributing the largest
quantity of PAHs to the Bays. Atmospheric deposition may be another major contributor.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
III-5
In general, the three major sources of chemical contaminants to the Bays appear to be:
• Sewage effluent and sludge from municipalities, especially the MWRA outfalls in
Boston Harbor
• The Merrimack River
• Atmospheric deposition
The Massachusetts Bays Program will fund additional studies to further refine the relative contri-
bution of the pollution sources. Studies will include field measurements of PAH levels in the
Merrimack River, direct measurements of contaminants contributed via the atmosphere, and
measurement of PAH levels contributed through runoff from the land.
Contamination of water and sediments by organic chemicals and toxic metals diminishes the
abilitytousetheresourcesofMassachusettsandCapeCodBaysinavarietyofways. Public health
is threatened through die increased risk of disease associated with eating contaminated seafood
Fish and shellfish are stressed by toxic chemicals in the water and sediment and may develop
cancerous tumors or other diseases. Environmental stress may also lead to declines in population
levels. The fragile ecology of coastal habitats is threatened by shifts in the types of plants and
animals to a less diverse community of pollution-tolerant organisms.
BIOACCUMULATION AND EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION
As described in the section above, metal and organic contaminants enter the marine environment
from a variety of sources, including municipal wastewater discharges, runoff, and atmospheric
deposition. Marine organisms are exposed to chemical contaminants through direct contact with
polluted water and sediments and through feeding. Bioaccumulation is a process whereby a
substance enters an aquatic organism and is stored within the tissues of the organism.
The marine resources of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays have been impaired by thepresenceof
chemical contaminants in the marine environment This contamination is largely concentrated in
the vicinity of urban centers and localized "hotspots." However, continued long-term discharges
of chemical contaminants into the marine environment will spread the contamination into more
remote locations.
The economic impacts of contaminants in the marine environment are difficult to quantify. Loss
of recreationally and commercially-important species through failure to grow and reproduce is
not easily documented. While monitoring programs can alert us to the threats to resources, only
reducing the flow of contaminants will preserve the marine ecosystem and its bounty of whole-
some seafood.
Use impairments related to thepresenceof (Aenii(^contanimantsm me marine environment fall
into two major categories:
• Degradation and/or alteration of habitat
• Human health impacts related to the accumulation of contaminants in the marine
food chain
Habitat Impacts
An environment contaminated by organic pollutants may decrease the ability of marine organisms
to grow and reproduce. For example, abnormal larval forms may result from exposure to toxins.
Migratory species, such as striped bass and bluefish, are stressed by chronically high levels of
PCBs, related to thehighfatcontentoftheirflesh. Cancerouslesionsandfinrotinflounder, aswell
as black gill disease in lobsters, have all been related to stress due to chemical contaminants.
-------
111-6
Chapter III. The Priority Problems Facing Massachusetts Bays
Marine organisms may store, detoxify, or excrete excess metals, depending upon the metal and
the individual spedes. Elevated metals may lead to alterations in food chain dynamics, changes in
the animal species present in bottom (benthic) communities, shifts to metal-resistant types of
animals and plants, and consequently, alteration of essential habitat
Human Health Impacts
Human health impacts of chemical contaminants in marine organisms are difficult to assess.
Often, chemical contamination in humans results in either slight changes in the overall risk of
cancer or subtle impairments of neurological development in fetuses or children. Because these
effects may not be apparent for many years, it is extremely difficult to link consumption to health
impacts.
In general, seafood harvested in nearshore environments is the most highly contaminated and
thus poses the greatest public health risk. Health advisories by the Massachusetts Department of
PubUcHealmwam against theconsumptionoflobstertomalley from Boston Harbor lobster by the
general population, and consumption offish harvested from Boston Harbor for certain high-risk
segments of the population.
Shellfish harvested from chemically contaminated habitats, and migratory bluefish and striped
bass, contribute the largest concentration of chemical contaminants to the human seafood diet.
These species represent about 1/3 of all seafood consumed (USFDA, 1982a,b). Advisories have
been issued in some New England states warning women of child-bearing age and children to limit
consumption of bluefish and striped bass.
PATHOGEN CONTAMINATION
Pathogens are disease-causing bacteria and viruses. Pathogen contamination can dose produc-
tive shellfish beds and recreational swimming beaches. People who come in contact with patho-
gens either by eating contaminated shellfish or by swimming in contaminated waters face health
risks ranging from skin rash to gastrointestinal illness to more serious illnesses such as hepatitis.
Public health officials utilize indicator organisms such as fecal coliform bacteria to determine the
possible presence of pathogens in the environment.
Shellfish Bed Closures
Shellfish beds are important commercial, recreational, and ecological resources in the Massa-
chusetts Bays system. Over the past twenty years, there has been a dramatic increase in acreage
dosed to shellfish harvesting. In general, these dosures may be the result of increased pathogen
contamination, but also appear to be the result of increased water quality monitoring and report-
ing of the incidence of illness. Most of this increase has taken place on Cape Cod and on the South
Shore. Major dosures have occurred in areas considered relatively contaminant-free, such as the
North and South Rivers.
In reent years, shellfish areas in Boston Harbor and the North Shore have not experienced such
dramaticdosurelevds. (InBostonHarbor.merehavenotbeenanyopenshellfishareasformany
years.) Certain areas are dassified as "restricted," and only specially state-licensed diggers are
allowed to harvest shdlfish for depuration.
lake Boston Harbor, much of the North Shore has been dosedformany years. However, there are
several North Shore communities (such as Ipswich, Essex, and Gloucester, where shellfishing is
an important commercial and recreational activity) that have experienced recent increases in
dosed shellfish areas. In 1990,anestimated$3.4milfionwaslosttothelocal economy oflpswich
as a result of shellfish dosures due to pathogen contamination (Castonguay, 1991).
The standards used by state agencies to protect the public from health risks associated with
pathogen contaminated shellfish were established by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program
(NSSP). (See box, pagem-7).
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP III-7
NATIONAL SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAM
In order to protect public health from shellfish contaminated by sewage, the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program (NSSP) was established in the 1920s. Composed of federal, state, and industry
representatives, today this program is carried out through a forum known as the Interstate Shell-
fish Sanitation Conference. In Massachusetts, the Division of Marine Fisheries and the Massachu-
setts Division of Food and Drugs are the responsible state agencies in the NSSP.
One goal of the NSSP is the proper classification of shellfish resource areas to safeguard public
health from pathogen-contaminated shellfish. A major portion of the classification process in-
volves the growing-area survey, or sanitary survey. A sanitary survey must be conducted in each
shellfish harvesting area prior to its approval by the state for any harvesting purpose. The sanitary
survey has four major components:
• Evaluation of potential pollution sources affecting the area
• Evaluation of the meteorological factors affecting the entrance and dispersal of
contaminants
• Evaluation of hydrographic factors affecting the distribution of pollutants in the area
• Assessment of the water quality
The synthesis and analysis of this information to determine the proper classification of the area is
referred to as a sanitary survey report.
The classification process requires periodic evaluation and review. Each year, water quality data
are collected and analyzed on at least five separate occasions for each approved growing area.
Every three years, the classification of each growing area is reevaluated based on the latest survey
report and most recent data. Every 12 years, a complete shoreline survey is conducted to pinpoint
obvious pollution sources.
A second goal of the NSSP is to determine appropriate classification standards that will protect
public health. Fecal coliform bacteria are currently used to classify shellfish harvesting areas.
Because public health agencies are not able to measure the entire host of human pathogens
directly, they rely on fecal coliform bacteria as an indicator of public health risk. Although the fecal
coliform standard appears to be a very conservative measure, legitimate questions have been
raised about the accuracy of the method.
The causes of shellfish area closures are varied. Closures have been tied to contamination from
both point (municipal sewage treatment plants) and nonpoint pollution sources (septic systems
and stormwater runoff). Although municipal sewage treatment plants are known to be major
sources of contaminants, in general, die importance of nonpoint sources of pollution has only
recently been recognized. For example, on Cape Cod, in 1980,700 acres of productive shellfish
beds were dosed to contamination. In 1986,3,500 acres were dosed (Clendenning and Dean,
1990). During mis period, more man 36,000 permits for new construction were issued in
Bamstable County (Mass. Audubon Society, 1987, quoted in Clendenning and Dean, 1990).
Beach Closures
The presence of pathogens in coastal waters also affects recreational opportunities in Massachu-
setts Bays. In 1989 and 1990,most of themajorbeaches in Boston Harborwereposted as polluted
at least once during the summer months. High bacterial levels have also forced the closure of
beaches on the South Shore. In and around the older cities of the Bays, the highest frequency of
beach dosures occurs after rainstorms, when large amounts of untreated or partially-treated
sewage and runoff are discharged to coastal waters.
-------
1-8
Chapter III. The Priority Problems Facing Massachusetts Bays
WAIER QUALITY
In addition to the chemical contaminants and pathogens that affect the quality of the marine
environment, other parameters discussed below affect the quality of water and sediments within
Massachusetts Bays. Aquatic organisms require good water and sediment quality for survival,
growth, and reproduction. Under inadequate conditions, theindhidual organism may reproduce
poorly, die, or move from the area. If the impacts upon individual organisms are too stressful,
entire populations or communities may be affected.
Nutrients
High levels of nutrients, primarily nitrogen, can cause water quality problems in the marine
environment Excessive amounts of nitrogen may trigger a condition called eutrophication,
characterized by excessive algal growth with resultant depletion of dissolved oxygen and possible
fish lolls. Increased abundance of algae can limit the transmission of light reaching eelgrass
leaves, resulting in loss of eelgrass beds that provide habitat for shellfish and other animals. Algal
blooms also impair recreational and aesthetic enjoyment of coastal waters.
Nitrogen is conveyed to coastal waters by various pathways, including sewage treatment plant
outfalls, atmospheric deposition, groundwater flow, and residential and agricultural runoff A
recent study of pollutant loadings to the Massachusetts Bays (Menzie-Cura, 1991) indicated that
point source discharges account for 43 to 66 percent of the total nitrogen entering the bay waters.
Other important sources include river discharges (37 percent), atmospheric deposition (16
percent), and surface runoff (11 percent). The report also found that groundwater is an impor-
tant source of nitrogen for the nearshore waters of Cape Cod.
Dissolved Oxygen
Minimum levels of oxygen in the water (dissolved oxygen) are vital for the survival of aquatic
organisms. Wastewater and naturally-occurring organic matter contain oxygen-demanding sub-
stances that consume dissolved oxygen. If the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water is too low,
then organisms may die.
Concentrations of dissolved oxygen in the waters of Boston Harbor are usually within a range
adequate to support marine organisms. Sampling conducted by the Division of Water Pollution
Control over several years indicated that the lowest dissolved oxygen is found in the Inner Harbor,
where frequent violations of water quality standards and stressed environmental conditions
occur. In 1984, violations of the dissolved oxygen standards in the Inner Harbor occurred about
40 percent of the time. Low dissolved oxygen levels also have been reported in the immediate
vicinity of the Deer Island sewage and sludge outfalls and in the Outer Harbor near Winthrop.
Other isolated areas exhibit violations after storm events due to inputs of oxygen-depleting wastes
from combined sewer overflows.
Suspended Solids
Suspended solids consist of organic or inorganic particles suspended in and carried by water. The
term includes sand, mud, and day particles, as well as solids found in wastewater. Suspended
solids introduced into coastal waters can increase turbidity, thereby deceasing theamountoflight
that penetrates through the water column. High turbidity is frequently harmful to marine plants
and benthic animals, particularly their planktonic larval stages.
Solid materials suspended in coastal waters can originate from bom natural and man-made
sources. Effluent from the MWRA sewage treatment facility is the largest source of suspended
solids in Boston Harbor. Other important sources are rivers and surface runoff. Concentrations
of suspended soli ds in Boston Harbor are highly variable due to the effects of currents and winds
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
11-9
on the settling and resuspension of solid particles. In the first 2 _ years of the New England
Aquarium's 10-year Boston Harbor Monitoring Program, die highest levels of suspended solids
were found at the outlet of the Neponset river; lowest levels were recorded in Quincy Bay (Robinson
etal.1990).
HABITAT LOSS/MODIFICATION AND RESOURCE DEPLETION
Massachusetts is estimated to have lost approximately 30% of the total wetland acreage and 20%
of coastal wedandacreageexistingatthelimeofthecolonists; another 1,000 acres, ornearlyO.2%
of the state's remaining coastal and inland wetlands are lost annually (Massachusetts Audubon
Society, 1991). Although Massachusetts has enacted wetlands protection regulations, losses
continue to occur as a result of direct development, both public and private, and secondary
alterations. It is the cumulative effect of these activities that reduces valuable habitat The
combined effects of habitat encroachment and degraded water and sediment quality stresses all
marine organisms, including important commercial species, marine mammals, endangered
species, and the food chain upon which they depend.
WhilehabitatlossintheMassachusetts Bays diminishes both the quantity and quality of coastal and
marine resources, direct depletion of resources through overharvest is also of concern in the
region. The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 was intended to salvage
decimated stocks by relieving foreign fishing pressures. But stocks rebounded only temporarily
before an increase in the number of U. S. fishing boats and the use of sophisticated fishing
technologies strained the fishery again. Recently, commercial landings of many species in Massa-
chusetts Bays and oflshore waters have plummeted to record lows. Massachusetts mimics the New
England-wide trend, with haddock landings down 84% since 1978, yellowtail flounder down
55%,winterflounder31%,andAdanticCod 13%. The ecological impact of this depletion is every
bit as profound as the economic impact: species composition and relative abundance have been
altered. So-called "trash species", such as sharks, skates, and dogfish, have replaced the valuable
groundfish, which now comprise less than 50% of the bottom biomass in Massachusetts Bays.
Pelagic species like the Atlantic bluefin tuna, sharks, and billfish are also showing signs of
population decline due to pressures including overfishing.
The New England Fishery Council's Northeast Multispeties Management Plan for groundfish
currently contains indirect controls on the fishery, mostly minimum mesh sizes for fishing nets,
minimum fish sizes, and dosed areas to protect spawning fish. Direct controls on fishing—such
as quotas on landings, trip limits, or a moratorium on entry—are being considered and may be
necessary to allow stocks to recover. New management measures are also being considered by
NMFS for the pelagic species.
SEA LEVEL RISE
Over thepast3n^onyean,sealevelhas fluctuated in response to changes in global temperature.
Currently in a wanning period, sea level has been rising since the retreat of the last continental
glaciers over 15,000 years ago. Tidal data collected over the past century indicate that sea level is
rising at an average rate of one foot per century, worldwide. Recent studies, however, indicate that
the present rate of sea level rise may accelerate dramatically within the next 10-100 years due to
global warming caused by the "greenhouse effect" Predictions vary widely, but the accelerated
sea level rise caused by global warming could raise water levels 2 to 12 feet by the year 2100.
As a result of geologic processes, some land areas are rising or matching sea level rise. Massachu-
setts, on the other hand, is sinking at this time. This land subsidence, combined with sea level rise
and our long-term attraction to the coast, creates a need for local coastal planning.
Recent data indicate that thenetloss of coastal landareas (uplands) duetosealevelriseis65 acres
per yearforthe state, baseduponthehistoricsealevdriseofonefootper century. Whenincreased
sea level rise rates are employed, the loss of land is significantly greater. Also, the variation
-------
11-10
Chapter III. The Priority Problems Facing Massachusetts Bays
between communities is great, according to the geology of the region where the communities lie.
For example, Bamstable loses 3.72 acres peryear, while Winthroploses ontyO.06 acre. Using the
maximum projected rate of sea level rise, Winthrop will lose 9-8 acres while Bamstable will lose
over 583 acres by the year 2025. (Giese etal, 1987).
Data also indicate that sea level rise could be a major cause of wetlands loss and subsequent
habitat alteration in the coastal zone (Titus et al., 1988). Coastal wetlands and salt marshes are
among the most productive ecosystems in the world and provide habitat for many coastal and
marine organisms. These habitats are generally within afewfeet of sealevd and could be lostif sea
level rises significantly. Although new marshes and wetlands could form where inland areas are
flooded, this cannot happen where the land adjacent to today's wetlands is developed and where
upland topographic characteristics inhibit natural wetland migration. In many areas, the land
gradient above die marsh is appreciably steeper than the marsh, so a rise in sea level will cause a
net loss in marsh acreage (Titus et al. 1988) Thus, coastline topography and development in the
coastal zonecouldcombine to severely limit the ability of saltmarshesandomerimportant coastal
habitats to survive projected sea level rise in the next century.
Rising sea level will affect the ability to use and enjoy the resources of the Bays in a number of ways.
Six major issues include:
• Loss of uplands or land area
• Increased flooding impacts
• Loss of wetlands
• Accelerated shoreline changes
• Salt water intrusion into drinking water supply wells
• Elevated ground water levels
Long-range land use planning in communities along Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays must take
these issues into consideration.
Closing the Cirde
As discussed in the sections above, the priority problems defined by the Massachusetts Bays
Program relate to the use and abuse of marine resources. Human wastes and chemical pollutants
and wastes flowinto me fragile coastal ecosystem. In developing coastal areas for human uses, we
may destroy critical habitat, create public health risks, destroy the aesthetic qualities we cherish,
and limit access to the fortunate few.
Human use of marine resources has led to serious use impairments of coastal areas. To close the
circle, we must begin to provide solutions. The chapter that follows provides a series of proposed
actions to address use impairments related to public health, habitat loss, aesthetic quality, and
waterfront access.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-1
CHAPTER IV. ACnONPLAN
Utilization of Massachusetts Bays' resources carries with it an obligation of preservation and
stewardship of those resources. To respond to this obligation, the Massachusetts Bays Program
waslaunchedtoaddress mounting threats to thenaturalresourcesof Massachusetts andCapeCod
Bays. AttheheartoftheprogramistheCCMPActionPlan. This action plan prescribes immediate
and long-term actions that can and should be taken by the Massachusetts Bays Program, various
governmental agencies, and the general public to restore and preserve the Bays' ecological
integrity. The management recommendations contained in this action plan are organized into
four topics:
• Public Health Risks
• Living Resources and Habitat Protection
• Aesthetic Quality
• Waterfront Access: Public Access and die Working Waterfront
PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS
Concerns about public health related to marine waters center on two sources of potential risk:
consumption of seafood and swimming. These activities or uses associated with marine waters
can be threatened or negatively impaired by contamination resulting from polluted waters. This
contamination can lead to an increase in the risk of adverse health effects to humans.
Regular consumption of marine fishery products provides substantial health benefits and, as an
important low-fat protein source, should be an integral part of a well-balanced diet Fish is an
excellent source of omega-3-fatty acids which reportedly contribute to decreasing risk of heart
disease In addition, fish is low in saturated fat and therefore beneficial in reducing risk of heart
disease, diabetes, and some cancers. However, these important benefits can be negated if the
product is contaminated or if the public avoids it due to the perception of poor quality.
Mediapublicity of pollutionin Massachusetts coastal waters tends to raisepubkfearandconaision
over eating seafood and is damaging to the state's economy. For example, following the release of
the EPA's Quincy Bay Study in 1988 and the accompanying state health advisories, lobster sales
reportedly fell 30%, and all seafood sales suffered (Hpp, 1990b). The local seafood industry is a
major feature of the state's tourist appeal, and recreational and charter boat fishing are significant
contributors to local economies within the Massachusetts Bays area.
The Massachusetts Bays Program recognizes the health benefits of seafood consumption, the
economic importance of the state's commercial and recreational fishing industries, and the value
ofiniprovingrecreationabpportunities in Massachusetts Bays. Asaresult,animportant objective
of the Program is to reduce public health risks from environmental contaminants. This action
plan presents an overview of the major types of risks to public health from the consumption offish
and shellfish, as well as risks from direct contact or swimming. It discusses existing government
programs to protect public health and control the sources of the contaminants of concern. Finally,
this action plan recommends steps the Program must take over the next two years to beginmeeting
its programmatic goals for protecting public health, improving water and sediment quality, and
encouraging pollution prevention.
-------
.IV-2
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Public Health Risks
An Overview of
Publk Health Risks
PATHOGENS
Pathogens are disease-causing organisms and viruses. In this document, die term pathogen refers
to disease-causing bacteria and viruses. While some pathogens may occur naturally in the marine
environment, most are introduced to marine waters via wastewater treatment plant discharges,
combined sewer overflows (CSOs), septic systems, illegal sewer hook-ups and discharges, ma-
rine sanitation devices, and stormwater runoff. Contamination from pathogens is primarily
associated with consumption of bivalve shellfish, not finfish or crustaceans, such as crabs or
lobsters. Edible shellfish such as die soft-shell dam or mussel feed by filtering seawater through
their bodies, thereby allowing certain padiogens to enter their digestive tracts and possibly reside
there for a period of time. While scallops feed in the same manner, padiogens are generally not a
problem since only the adductor muscle, not the visceral portions of die animal, are typically
consumed.
Shellfish
While current nationwide shellfish sanitation practices have significantly reduced shellfish-asso-
ciated illnesses of bacterial origin, die same is not true regarding human pathogenic viruses.
Recent data indicate that shellfish-associated gastroenteritis of viral origin is on the increase, with
over 75% of all reported cases occurring since 1980. This alarming trend, along with die fad that
over die past 20 years (1970-1990) there has been a 300% increase in die acreage of Massachu-
setts shellfish harvesting areas dosed because of bacterial contamination, direatens die economic
stability of the shellfish industry and the public's confidence in die wholesomeness of die seafood.
Two facts should be kept in mind when considering these previously-mentioned trends. First,
however alarming die trends may appear, increased reporting (in the case of viral diseases) and
surveiUan(£(ffldieraeofsheMshharvestingareas)fflrec^
of die problem. Secondly, die threat of viral and bacterial transmission from shellfish occurs
primarily when consuming raw or inadequately-cooked products.
Bathing Beaches
Swimming in sewage-contaminated waters poses a potential health riskfrom diseases transmitted
via the fecal-oral route. While most of die reported outbreaks of infectious diseases associated
with bathing beaches arenon-enteric (for example, skin rash), mereis some riskof gastrointestinal
disease from swimming in sewage-contaminated water. Based on the present standards, the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority reports that most of the major beaches in Boston
Harbor were dosed at least once during die summer months in 1989 and 1990. The major risk
to me public occurs during and after major rainfall events when untreated sewageandstormwater
enter die Bay.
The Indicator Organism
In order to properly assess the threat to public health in marine waters, public health officials
utilize a system of "indicator organisms." The indicator organism is one that, by its presence at
certain levels, "indicates" the potential for the presence of human pathogens. The indicator
organisms currently used are a group of bacteria called fecal coliform. The use of such indicators,
as opposed to die direct measurement of die padiogens themselves, is necessary, in part, because
of the lack of assay methods for the multitude of potential padiogens.
The use of indicator organisms presents some difficulty in assessing me actual risk to public
health. Under certain circumstances, fecal coliform densities bear little, if any, quantifiable
relationship with the viral padiogens. In some instances, fecal coliform serve as an overly
conservative indicator of the public health threat (such as areas impacted by non-sewage
contaminated stormwater), while in other areas, die fecal coliform may not persist as long as viral
pathogens and, therefore, may underestimate a public health threat
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-3
To address these problems, there has been a continuing search for a better indicator of human
sanitary-waste contamination. Recently, the use of Enterococcus (another group of bacteria
foundinthefeces of warm-blooded animals) has been recommended by EPAforuse in swimming
areas. However, current research has questioned its utility in certain areas, such as near marshes.
Until a better indicator organism is discovered for detecting human sanitary waste, the fecal
coliform standard will be retained for use in swimming areas (where areas dose if levels exceed
200 fecal coliform colonies per 100 miililiters (ml) of sample) and shellfish harvesting areas
(where areas dose if the geometric mean population exceeds 14 colonies per 100 ml of sample).
While the use of this standard has generally protected the public health, the potential for underes-
timating the public health threat due to viruses is inherent and will occasionally result in the
transmission of infectious disease. Conversely, since fecal coliform do hot differentiate human
and animal sources (which may have different public health risks associated with them), public
health officials may err to the conservative side when high fecal coliform densities are observed.
While this closure policy may appear to be relatively unimportant, in the case of shellfish harvesting
areas, an overly conservative dosure of areas affects theliveUhood of those involved in the shellfish
industry.
NATURALLY OCCURRING TOXINS
Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
One naturally-occurring seafood toxin of concern to the Massachusetts Bays area is paralytic
shellfish poisoning (PSP). PSP is caused by a tiny microorganism known as the dinoflagellate,
Alexandrium tamarense. When the PSP-causing organism is present in large numbers, it is often
referred to as "red tide". PSP is potentially life-threatening and there is no known antidote.
Symptoms of this illness indude tingling of the mouth and lips, numbness in the extremities,
progressivemuscularparalysis and, in severe cases, death due to respiratory failure. Shellfish that
areharvested as part ofa recreational or subsistence fisheryappear to pose the greatest health risk
because individuals may not be aware of a problem or do not heed the warnings.
Data from theCenters for Disease Control (CDC) indicate that between 1978 and 1985, therewere
15 reported cases of PSP in Massachusetts. While the Northeast Technical Services Unit (NETSU)
of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports 41 cases in the same period, milder cases
may actually go unreported to health authorities. The incidence of PSP is relatively low considering
that the dinoflagellate has been present in Massachusetts coastal waters each spring and summer
since monitoring began in 1972.
The system of monitoring coastal waters as well as the marketplace for indications of PSP by the
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) and the Massachusetts Department of Public
Health (DPH), respectively, appears to provide adequate public health protection. However, PSP-
contaminated shellfish are being detected in areas beyond the coastal waters.
As part of the Massachusetts Marine Biotoxin Monitoring Project, the DPH has been sampling the
offshore shellfisheries of Nantucket Shoals and Georges Bank since May 1990. These data
indicated extremely high levels of PSP toxins in multiple species of shellfish from Georges Bank.
Also in 1990, there were eight reported cases of PSP linked to mussels harvested from the area.
The Secretary of Commerce has closed the Georges Bank surf dam and ocean quahog fisheries
indefinitely as a result of persistent residual toxirity in these species.
PSP data gathered to date in 1991 indicate a very mild bloom of the dinoflagellate in coastal waters
along the North Shore. The DPH did not measure a corresponding increase in offshore toxicity.
Other
Other natural toxins of potential concern to the Massachusetts Bays area indude amnesic
shellfish poisoning (ASP) and diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP). ASP was first reported in
-------
IV-4
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Public Health Risks
1987 after an outbreak in Atlantic Canada involving 103 people who reported symptoms of
vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, disorientation, and memory loss (Institute of Medicine,
1991). The chronic component of this illness includes permanent loss of short-term memory and
damage to the central nervous system. ASP is caused by dotnoic add (the causative agents are
Nitzscbiapungens and Nitzscbiapseudodelicatissma).
In Massachusetts, the DPH is monitoring for domoic acid contamination as part of its Marine
Biotoxins Monitoring Program in offshore waters and three coastal sites (Gloucester, Marshfidd,
andNantucket). Domoic acid toxidty was first detected in November 1990 in whole bay scallops
and mussels harvested from Nantucket The levels peaked in January 1991 at 10 micrograms/
gram, which is one-half the Canadian guideline 0- Nassif, DPH, personal communication). Data
have indicated short-lived episodic offshore toxidty in mussels and sea scallops at trace levels.
DSP is an acute gastrointestinal illness caused by the ingestion of shellfish contaminated with
okadaic add and related potyether toxins. DSP can be confused with other pathogenic foodborne
illnesses. While there have not been any reported outbreaks of DSP in the United States (the
causative agent, Dinophysis spp., does occur in US coastal waters), it is common in Japan and
Europe and there was one reported case in Canada in 1990. As a result, imported shellfish
appear to pose the most likely risk of DSP at this time. The DPH has ceased DSP testing primarily
because of the lack of reliable analytical methods for detection.
CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
Chemical contaminants of particular concern to the Massachusetts Bays area that have been
observed at elevated levels include metals—cadmium, lead, chromium, copper, and zinc—and
meorganic chemicals—polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs) andpolycyck'caromatichydrocarbons
(PAHs) (Menzie-Cura, 1990- Marine organisms exposed to these compounds can accumulate
mem in their tissues, and when consumed by humans may pose a health risk Accumulation of
chemical contaminants by fish, shellfish, and crustaceans depends on a number of factors,
induding geographic location, species, feeding patterns, the nature of the contaminant, and its
persistence in the environment (Institute of Medicine, 1991).
In general, human health risks posed by chemical contaminants in the marine environment are
difficult to assess because of the lack of understanding between the level of contaminant exposure
andhuman illness. As a result, the seriousness of this issue remains uncertain at both the national
and state levels.
Typically, health effects from chemical contaminants are not immediately manifested as an acute
illness. Often, chemical contamination may result in "modest changes in the overall risk of
cancer" or "subtle impairments of neurological development in fetuses or children" (Institute of
Medicine, 1991). Because these effects may not be apparent for many years, it is extremely
difficult to link consumption to health impacts.
In the Massachusetts Bays area, there has been only one site-specific study that addresses the
potential threat to public health from chemical contaminants in the marine environment Results
of a risk assessment performed as part of the 1988 EPA study of Quincy Bay pollution conduded
that "the risks of regular consumption of lobster tomalley (the hepatopancreas) from Quincy Bay
lobsters were high relative to those from other types of eating and drinking activities" and "long-
term consumption of very large amounts of Quincy Bay flounder and/or lobster musde potentially
posed risks higher than those of other generally accepted risks of eating and drinking activities"
(US EPA, 1988).
As a result of the Quincy Bay study, Massachusetts issued two health advisories. One advises
against the consumption of tomalley from all lobsters regardless of the area from where they were
harvested. The second advisory recommends limiting the consumption of Boston Harbor fish
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-5
products (lobster, flounder, soft-shell dams and other bivalves) by certain high-risk segments of
thepopulation(children,nuRingorpregnantwomen,andindividualswith suppressed immunity).
PATHOGENS
The standards used to protect the public from shellfish-associated diseases were products of a
1925 Conference on Shellfish Safety. Since then, with the cooperation of all shellfish-producing
states, the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) has refined the practices of proper
shellfishsanitationandmanagementofshellfishgrowingareas. Sincethe early 1980's,thisworkhas
beenaccornplishedthroughafonimknownasmemtei^tateShdlfishSanitan'onConferenceOSSC).
TheNSSP/ISSC is comprised of federal and state health officials and industry representatives which
meet annually to discuss proper procedures for ensuring the wholesomeness of shellfish. At the
federal level, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary participating agency in die
NSSP. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) also participate in Conferenceactivities. In Massachusetts, the Division of Marine Fisheries
(DMF) is the state agency with primary responsibility for properly classifying shellfish growing
areas, while the Division of Foods and Drugs (DFD) is involved with a shellfish plant inspection
and market testing program to ensure that shellfish at market meet acceptable bacteriological
standards. In addition, a shellfish tagging program enforced by DMF, DFD, and FDA, as well as
local health inspectors, ensures that marketed shellfish are harvested from approved areas. In the
event of an outbreak of shellfish-related disease, this tagging program also serves to locate the
source of the contaminated product
The goals of the NSSP are to properly classify shellfish resource areas and to determine appropriate
classification standards. Under present NSSP guidelines, the classification process in shellfish
harvestingareas requires periodicevaluation and review. Briefly summarized, the review process
is comprised of the following elements:
• Water quality data are collected and analyzed on at least five separate occasions
annually.
• Every three years, the classification of each growing area is reevaluated based on the
latest survey report and recent data.
• Every 12 years, a complete sanitary survey (which includes a shoreline survey for
existing and potential pollution sources) is conducted.
In 1989,theDMF initiated sanitary surveys alongtheMassachusetts coast Assistance wasprovided
by local officials. These surveys were conducted as part of die shellfish classification process of the
NSSP.
Regarding swimming beaches, local boards of health generally are responsible for enforcing the
state's Sanitary Code, Chapter 7, Minimum Standards for Bathing Beaches. This code calls for
monitoring the bacteriological and physical quality of water at bathing beaches on a regular basis.
In the Metropolitan Boston area, manypublicbeachesfallunderthejurisdictionoftheMetropolitan
District Commission.
NATURALLY OCCURRING TOXINS
Also as part of die NSSP, the DMF regularly collects and analyzes samples of shellfish for PSP where
the blooms are likely to occur. The DMF monitors 18 locations along the coast on a weekly basis
from mid-March to early December (Hickey, 1989). If the toxin reaches 80 micrograms per 100
grams of edible portions of raw shellfish meat, die area is dosed to harvest
Overview of Existing
Laws and Programs
-------
IV-6
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Public Health Risks
The DPH monitors for ASP as part of its Marine Biotoxins Monitoring Program conducted with
funding from FDA. This program is a two-year effort which began in May 1990. Onshore sampling
is performed every two weeks while coastal sites are sampled weekly. Neither the federal nor state
governments have established a regulatory limit for domoic acid. The Canadian guideline for
dosing shellfish areas is 20 micrograms per gram.
CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
Regulation and Control
Protecting human health by regulating and controlling chemically-contaminated fishery products
is also joint federal-state responsibility. FDA has the lead responsibility for seafood in interstate
commerce. For some chemicals in foods, specifically pesticides, EPA assists FDA in performing
technical evaluations.
The federal government is not directly responsible for protecting individuals who consume fish
notpart ofmterstatecommerceorfishhanestedfromlocaUy-contaminated areas. Subsistence or
recreational fishermen generally fall within the scope of the Division of Marine Fisheries or the
state's Department of Public Health.
As part of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the FDA is responsible for setting action levels
and tolerances for concentrations of chemicals (other man pesticides) in all food products,
indudingfishandshellfish. This Act authorizes EPA to set suchlevdsandtolerancesforpesticides.
FDA possesses the enforcement authority for guidelines developed by both EPA and FDA.
To date, the FDA has established "action levels" for a number of pesticides and one metal (methyl
mercury). A tolerance has been established for one group of organic chemicals, PCBs. Action
levels and tolerances are developed to provide national protection and are based on average
national consumption rates. They are not intended to protect local segments of the population
whose consumption offish may exceed the national average, such as recreational or subsistence
fishermen.
In Massachusetts, the DPH is responsible for protecting public health. As stated earlier, mere are
two public health advisories in effect regarding the consumption of seafood that were issued
following the 1988 Quincy Bay study. In addition, the DMF assists the DPH in its actions to protect
public health by providing information as necessary. In the case of PCB contamination in New
Bedford Harbor, the DPH has dosed the entire Inner Harbor and portions of the Outer Harbor and
surrounding waters to fishing and lobstering.
Monitoring
Several data gathering/monitoring programs are being carried out within the Massachusetts Bays
areas by federal and state agencies, universities, and environmental organizations. In general,
these data have begun to document the nature and extent of chemical contamination. However,
there is no comprehensive long-term monitoring program to support the development of
management strategies to protect human health. The DMF monitors trace metal concentrations
and PCBs in six marine species from a wide geographic area along the Massachusetts coast and
from two polluted embayments—Salem Harbor and Boston Harbor. This program is providing
needed baseline information on the level of metals found in edible portions of fish and shellfish.
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) monitors and assesses the quality of the
Commonwealth's surface and groundwater, including marine waters. Data collected are used to
determine if the designated use of a water body is meeting the classification standard. The
parameters for monitoring include: dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, fecal coliform bacteria,
nutrients, metals, and priority organics. Data on toxicants are collected from sediment, water
column, and fish tissue samples.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-7
PATHOGENS
Eating raw shellfish poses the greatest public health threat Thorough cooking of shellfish would
eliminate microbial pathogens. The current standard used to classify shellfish areas provides
adequate public health protection from most bacterial pathogens associated with sewage, but
research is needed to develop valid indicators of human enteric viruses. While steps can be taken
to reduce or minimize risks to public health from eating shellfish, ultimately there must be proper
treatment and disposal of sewage to avoid pathogen contamination in coastal waters, particularly
those used for shellfish harvesting and recreation.
NATURALLY OCCURRING TOXINS
Despite the annual occurence of outbreaks of the dinoflagellate blooms responsible for PSP,
current monitoring efforts in coastal waters by the DMF appear to provide adequate public health
protection. However, other than the two-year effort underway to monitor offshore waters, there is
no effective longer-term monitoring strategy for the shellfisheries of Georges Bank and Nantucket
Shoals. Similarly, selected monitoring for domoic acid is underway as part of the same two-year
program. This program is scheduled to end in May 1992.
CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
Massachusetts coastal waters, sediments, and fishery resources are contaminated by a variety of
chemicals forv^chmerearenofederalUmits. Umiteddataareavailablethatdocumentmelevels
of these chemical contaminants in the edible portions of fishery resources. Information is also
insufficient regarding the relationship between exposure and illness. There is adequate data for
PCBs and mercury, two contaminants for which federal standards have been determined.
Thereisaneed to better educate thepublicaboutseafood safety. In many cases, publicperceptions
may not be linked to actual conditions. For example, results of a risk assessment performed by
FDA in 1990 report the incidence of disease from seafood other than raw shellfish is significantly
less than from eating chicken (Klauber, 1991).
GOALS
• Protect public health by minimizing risks from environmental contaminants.
• Protect and improve water and sediment quality.
• Encouragepollutionpreventionandotherenvironmentallysoundniethodsoftreatnient,
cleanup, and restoration.
OBJECTIVES
• Improve the quality of shellfish growing waters.
• Increase acreage of harvestable shellfish beds by 10% per year.
• Make all beaches swimmable year-round and all waters swimmable all summer.
• Minimize public health risks from the consumption offish and shellfish from
Massachusetts Bays.
• Reduce pathogens and toxicants entering Massachusetts Bays.
STRATEGIES
• Increase public awareness/education to improve understanding of potential risks
and decrease exposure; as a follow-up, evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken.
• Provide incentives and technical assistance to local municipalities to identify and
priority rank shellfish areas and swimming beaches in order to correct known pollu-
tion sources.
Conclusions
Goals, Objectives
and Strategies
-------
IV-8
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Public Health Risks
Recommended
Actions
Promote pollution prevention as a means to reduce contaminants entering the coastal
environment. For example, support the use of public transportation, recycling,
household hazardous waste collection programs, etc
Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) will:
• Produce a risk assessment study in 1992 to determine the relative importance
of the various contaminants and pathogens entering Massachusetts Bays in terms of
public health risks.
• Produce a Characterization Report in 1992 which will incorporate information on
sources, transport, fate, and effects of contaminants from historical sources as well as
incorporate the results of MBP sponsored and coordinated research.
PATHOGENS
Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) will:
• Review and comment to DEP on proposed revisions to Title 5 for applicability to
coastal areas (e.g., viral transport and nutrient loading).
• Educateconsumersaboutthehealthbenefitsofseafoodandhowtoreducerisksfrom
microbial contamination.
• Develop, in cooperation with the EOEA Marine Sanitation Device Task Force, protocols
for enforcing MSD standards by the Coast Guard; MBP and CZM will explore the
possibility of state and local enforcement
• Remain informed about, and support the development of, better viral indicators.
• Fund a series of demonstration projects relating to the reduction of pathogens levels
affecting shellfish beds.
EOEA should:
• Fund the DMF Shellfish Sanitation Program as originally intended (currently this
program is staffed at a 50% level).
• Establish more publicly-funded, state-certified water testing laboratories in order to
respond more quickly to rainfall events and increase sampling efforts.
Municipalities should*
• Collaborate with DMF to identify and fix contamination sources. This collaboration
should be formalized and institutionalized, with monthly updates of activities given at
board of health and/or board of selectmen meetings.
• For coastal areas served by septic systems, review and update regulations governing
these systems and maintain astrict adherence to setbackanddistance-to-groundwater
requirements in sensitive coastal settings. Municipalities should also review their
policies on granting variances to ensure that they are consistent with environmental
and public health objectives.
• Utilize 1989 sanitary survey information (as well as other more recent information),
priority rank shellfish areas in need of remediation, and take the necessary action to
correct known sources of pollution (i.e., failing septic systems).
• Collect and analyze available data on swimming beach closures to identify pollution
sources and then undertake action to remediate the source.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-9
• Obtain appropriate training for all volunteer review boards such as boards of health,
conservation commissions, etc., as well as water quality task force groups.
• Adopt strict regulations prohibiting additional stormwater discharges and/or volume
additions to present discharges.
• Investigaiedry-weaiher flow conditions on all stormwater discharge pipes to eliminate
the possibility of sewage connections.
• Explore obtaining conditionally-approved classification for appropriate resource
areas impacted by stormwater runoff.
• Consider the formation of task forces to address water quality issues. Representation
should include selectmen, resource management personnel, and citizen groups.
• Institute regulations for random testing of Marine Sanitation Devices to ensure that
sanitary wastes are properly disinfected.
• Assure effective and reliable sewage treatment and disinfection at wastewater treat-
ment plants, and reduce or eliminate the discharge of CSOs.
BIOTOXINS
FDA and NMFS should:
• Devdopandimplementalong-termmonitoringandmanagementstrategyforofehore
waters for PSP.
FDA, DMF, and DPH should:
• Reviewthedata collected between 1990 and 1992 aspartofthe Massachusetts Marine
Biotoxin Monitoring Project to determine if a regulatory limit for domoic acid should
be established and if continued monitoring for domoic acid is necessary.
CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) will:
• Synmesizeexisnnginformationandidentifytoxicchemical''hotspots''throughoutthe
Massachusetts Bays area.
• Review and evaluate NPDES discharges to the Massachusetts Bays study area; DEP
should verify discharges through a selected sampling program.
• Educate consumers about the health benefits of seafood and how to reduce risks from
chemical contamination.
• Fund research on the sources, transport, and fate of organic contaminants (including
PCB and PAH) entering Massachusetts Bays via wastewater, industrial discharges,
runoff, and atmospheric deposition.
EOEA should:
• Develop sediment criteria for selected contaminants to protect both the ecosystem
and human health.
EOEA and Department of Public Health should:
• Increase monitoring efforts to document die presence of chemical contaminants in
the edible portion of fishery products in order to better assess public health risks and
develop control strategies.
-------
IV-10
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Living Resources and Habitat Protection
Municipalities should:
• Explore innovative ways to fund and establish programs to collect and properly
dispose of household hazardous wastes on a regular basis.
Industries that discharge directly into coastal receiving waters or sewage treatment facilities
should:
• Continue to reduce toxic wastes with assistance from the Office of Technical Assistance
within EOEA.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-11
LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT PROTECTION
The coastal and marine waters of Boston Harbor, Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, and the
adjoining coastal zone, contain abundant and diverse natural resources. These resources offer
untold ecological, economic, and recreational benefits to the Commonwealth's dozens. Unfortu-
nately, they are being degraded or threatened from a number of fronts: direct encroachment,
unmanaged growth in upland areas, and pollution from a multitude of sources.
One goal of the Massachusetts Bays Program is to support the protection, restoration, and en-
hancement of living resources and their habitats. This action plan briefly discusses the nature and
extent of some of the major threats to these resources, and offers recommendations for their
protection and enhancement. Although certainlong-range actions areprescribed, the focus of the
recommendations is on short-term actions, with measurable results, that the Massachusetts Bays
Program can initiate or support during the 1991-1993 phase of the CCMP development and
implementation process.
The estuarine and marine resources of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays are at risk from a variety
of coastal and upland development activities and pollution. These risks are briefly described
below in terms of habitat loss and degradation.
HABITAT LOSS
Massachusetts is estimated to have lost more than 20 percent of all tidal wetlands (salt marsh, tidal
flats, barrier beaches, and rocky shores) existing at the time of the Colonists; estimates for salt
marsh losses are considerably higher (CZM, 1991). Despite the passage of the Wedands Protec-
tion Act (WPA) and Wetlands Restriction Act, incremental losses of coastal and inland wetlands
continue. Wetland losses occur from certain public projects (such as bridge construction) and
private projects (such as road crossings) that are exempt from the WPA, and from small dredge-
and-fill projects authorized by variance under the WPA Farming practices that qualify as "normal
maintenance and improvement" of agricultural land are also exempt from the WPA State person-
nel are also aware of some small, illegal dredge-and-fill projects and suspect that many more go
undetected (DMF, 1985).
The incremental loss of coastal wetlands to legal and illegal small-scale projects is difficult to
document directly. However, the number of "Notices of Intent*' submitted to local Conservation
Commissions for construction or expansion of private piers and docks, for example, has in-
creased in many coastal towns (Lickus et al, 1989). Piers constructed over salt marsh can prevent
light from reaching the underlying plants, eventually killing them. Dredging operations can
deposit sediments on surrounding plants and shellfish, causing damage or destruction by smoth-
ering (DMF, 1985). While no single project constitutes a significant threat, the cumulative effects
of many such projects could have serious ecological implications. In addition, more and more
development is occurring on marginal land adjoining wetlands, producing adverse effects on
wetland habitat.
In addition to the incremental losses wetlands continue to sustain, many wetland areas have not
recovered from the mosquito control practices of the past Grid ditching, in particular, severely
altered large tracts of salt marsh habitat, drastically reducing habitat and wildlife diversity. While
this practice has been discontinued in favor of the more benign technique of Open Marsh Water
Management, it is expected to take many years for some marsh areas to overgrow the grid ditches
constructed in the past.
Overview of Issues
Affecting Living
Resources & Habitats
-------
IV-12
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Living Resources and Habitat Protection
HABITAT DEGRADATION
While the incremental loss of wetlands habitat by encroachment continues to be a problem, a
much larger and more pervasive threat to living resources throughout Massachusetts Bays is
habitat degradation by point and nonpoint sources of pollution and by physical alteration.
Pollution of Habitat
The health of the estuarine and marine habitats of the living resources of Massachusetts Bays is
intimately related to water and sediment quality. Pollution due to excess nutrients, pathogens,
suspended solids, and organic compounds and other toxic contaminants can seriously degrade
these habitats, resulting in a wide variety of adverse impacts on plant and animal species popula-
tions and diversity.
For example, excess inputs of nitrogen from sewage treatment facilities, urban runoff, boat wastes,
and other human activities can adversely affect coastal habitat by stimulating the growth of both
micro- and macroalgal species. Increased abundance of algae can limit the availability of light
reaching eelgrass blades, resulting in loss of edgrass beds that provide habitat for shellfish and
other animals. Dense layers of macroalgae can accumulate in shallow bays, making the habitat
unsuitable for shellfish and other invertebrates. Blooms of microalgae or masses of macroalgae
can sink to the bottom, decay, and deplete oxygen in the water. Severe oxygen depletion can kill
fish and shellfish. There is also evidence that excess nutrients promote, directly or indirectly, the
survival of coliform bacteria, contributing to the closure of shellfish areas.
Increases in shellfish bed closures result in heightened fishing pressure on remaining open areas
and on local agents responsible for shellfish management The authority for shellfish manage-
ment is primarily vested in local communities; however, local programs are often limited by state
funding. Over the past 20 years, local shellfish management generally improved as a result of the
technical and financial assistance programs administered by the DMF. Now, these programs are
being severely undermined due to fiscal constraints at the state level. The expansion of local
shellfish programs has increased the need for technical assistance from the state, but state funding
for such assistance has not kept pace with the demand. In addition, classification of shellfish areas
has taken precedence over technical assistance in assignment of DMF staff time.
Impediments to sound shellfish management at the local level include lack of consistent and
reliable harvest data and lack of state oversight for management planning. Harvest data are
essential for evaluating resource trends, setting quotas, determining economic value, and predict-
ing future populations. Currently, data on commercial and recreational harvest are collected at
the local level, using methods that vary from town to town. Information is often based on personal
observations or estimations, which reduces its reliability.
Although the state formerly provided financial assistance to local shellfish programs, there has
never been a mechanism to ensure effective management planning. The financial assistance
program was simply a reimbursement program open to all coastal communities. Reimburse-
ments were based on available funds at the state level ($300,000 to $400,000 annually) and
expenditures at the local level. At one time, local communities were reimbursed for as much as
50% of their expenditures. In the state budget for fiscal year 1990, the financial assistance
program was not funded.
Toxic contaminants in the water column and sediments also can impair the habitats and health of
marine organisms. Impacts resulting from exposure to toxic contaminants have been docu-
mented in seabirds, marine mammals, and marine finfish and shellfish (NOAA, 1988). Potential
sublethal impacts of toxic contaminants on birds and marine mammals include both indirect
effects, such as altered habitats or food supplies, and direct effects from the ingestion of highly-
contaminated food, which has been reported to cause reproductive impairment in waterfowl and
seal lions (OTA, 1987). If some toxic contaminants are present in sufficient concentrations, they
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-13
can kill finfish and shellfish. One suspected cause of mortality in these instances is the crippling of
the organism's nervous system. Sublethal impacts on finfish and shellfish include morphological,
behavioral, physiological, and biochemical changes, and diseases. Fish exposed to elevated
concentrations of some toxic materials have been shown to eat fewer or different organisms, be
less active, and grow more slowly (OTA, 1987). Exposure to toxic chemicals has also been
correlated with fin erosion, tumors, internal lesions, and skeletal abnormalities. Finfish and
shellfish species may also be less resistant to certain infections or suffer impaired reproduction.
Some of these effects may eventually result in organism mortality (OTA, 1987).
Ten years of monitoring data collected and analyzed by the Division of Marine Fisheries show
Massachusetts inshore fish stocks to be declining rapidly. Drastic reductions have been observed
in bottom fish landings of winter flounder, yellowtail flounder, and cod from 0 to 3 miles from
shore. Three factors—overfishing, pollution, and habitat loss—are rited as the major reasons
for the decline. According to DMF officials, toxic pollutants introduced into Massachusetts Bays
waters may be causing adverse health effects in some fish species. Winter flounder in Boston
Harbor, for example, have been shown to have a high incidence of liver cancer, other pathological
lesions, and fin rot. Migrating spedes such as bluefish have been found to contain elevated levels
of PCBs, which can adversely affect reproduction and metabolism. Since many of these species
utilize estuarine waters for at least part of their life cycle, exposure to toxic contaminants in these
waters is implicated as a leading cause of their decline.
While toxic pollution is cited as one of the leading factors for the decline, overfishing is consid-
ered to be the principal cause. Fish that were once abundant in nearshore waters, such as cod, are
nowcaughtcommercially only offshore. This has placed greater pressure on offshore stocks, and,
as a result, the offshore fishery is in decline. According to a recent report by the Offshore
Groundfish Task Force (1990), New England groundfish landings are at all-time lows due to
heightened fishing pressure and inadequate management Long-prized cod, haddock, and floun-
der, the foundation of the Massachusetts fishing industry for centuries, are losing their place in the
marine ecosystem to dogfish and skates, so-called "rough" species that have very limited com-
mercial value.
Loss of habitat is the third critical factor. The destruction and degradation of salt marshes, tidal
flats, and eelgrass beds have resulted in the loss of primary spawning and nursery grounds for
flounder and other species. These habitat losses have exacerbated the declines in fish stocks due
to overfishing and pollution, and are contributing to the diminished viability of the region's
commercial fishing industry.
Whilefederalandstate water pollution controlprogramshave resulted in reductions of some toxic
pollutants in municipal and industrial discharges, future urban and industrial growth in coastal
areas could offset these reductions. In addition, although direct discharges of some wastes
through pipelines and dumping are coming under increased control, nonpoint sources of toxic
chemicals from stormwater runoff and atmospheric deposition may persist as serious problems
for some time.
Improved protection and management of the living resources and habitats of Massachusetts Bays
will require a better understanding of the sources, transport, fate, and effects of contaminants
within the marine environment. Ongoing research sponsored by the Massachusetts Bays Pro-
gram, the MWRA, the US Geological Survey, and MIT Sea Grant is beginning to shed light on the
principal sources of nutrients, organics, and other contaminants entering the Bays, as well as on
die circulation patterns and the modes by which nutrients and contaminants are transported,
deposited, and transformed biologically.
Physical Alteration of Habitat
Just as pollution can degrade the habitats of living resources, pbysicaiaUerations maybe harmful
-------
IV-14
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Living Resources and Habitat Protection
as well. Examples of physical alterations include hydrographic modifications, dredged materials
disposal, shoreline construction, and upland development and sea level rise.
Hydrograpbic Modification. Alteration of certain hydrographic factors such as freshwater
inflow and sediment loading can have significant impacts on the functioning of estuarine and
coastal ecosystems. For example, the recruitment of many fish and shellfish stocks is closely
linked to the hydrodynamics of estuaries and associated coastal waters. Changes in hydrographic
conditions can result in changes in the production, composition, and abundance of phytoplank-
ton, and reduction in the abundance and extent of desirable rooted aquatic vegetation such as
eelgrass. These changes can beassodatedwimdecreaseddissolvedoxygenandlightpenetration.
Such alterations can be detrimental to the production of estuarine-dependent organisms through
shifts in food resources and changes in the availability of suitable habitat (NOAA, 1987).
Decreases in freshwater inflowresultin increased salinity levdswithin an estuary. This in turn may
result in a loss of the area as a nursery ground for certain fish species and other organisms whose
tolerance for saline waters in early life stages is low. Many of the forage organisms associated with
estuarine waters cannot tolerate increased salinity levels. Spawning areas for anadromous fish
species such as alewife, shad, striped bass, and bluebackherring, may be lost if freshwater inflow
is sufficiently restricted.
Even more detrimental to anadromous fish populations are physical barriers, such as dams and
highways, constructed across rivers and streams used as spawning runs. Highway construction
can impede freshwater inflow into estuarine systems. Small feeder streams can be filled and
dammed, inhibiting natural flow and permanently removing upland waters as anadromous fish
spawning areas. Culverts used beneath highways in place of natural streambeds can constrict flow
and thus increase water velocity enough to prevent the passage of fish upstream.
Materials carried into estuaries by river flow, and die plankton within the estuary, are two impor-
tant food sources for fish. During spring and fall, peaks occur in both sources that coincide with
migratory fish movements. The construction of dams on rivers can reduce the amount of freshwa-
ter flow into estuaries by evening out the flow over time, and thus reduce the seasonal "flood" cycle
and amount of food available during fish migration (CZM, 1977).
Increases in freshwater inflow to estuarine systems may also have adverse effects. Increases in
freshwater inflow can result from increases in highway pavement and other impervious surfaces.
Runoff from these surfaces adds more freshwater to the system, and may carry oil, heavy metals,
and other pollutants. A change in the salinity regime can cause changes in resident species
composition, which in turn can cause changes in die organisms which feed upon them. For
example, reductions in salinity (of less than five parts per thousand in some cases) can result in a
loss of bay scallops and smaller molluscs. If salinity changes are sustained, the loss of molluscs
may result in a decrease in fish such as winter flounder (CZM, 1977).
Changes in freshwater input, dredging, other coastal construction activities, and upstream land
development and agricultural practices can all increase suspended sediment loads. Increased
sediment loads can have negative impacts on marine and estuarine habitats through shoaling,
which can reduce the volume of an estuary and result in a decrease or change in habitat (such as
the burial of oyster cultch materials). Increased suspended sediments may also affect primary
productivity due to its effect on light attenuation. In a study of the.Delaware Estuary (Pennock,
1985), an inverse relationship was found between suspended sediment loads and chlorophyll
concentrations. Thestudy concluded thatthepredominantphysicalfactorregulatingphytoplank-
ton biomass in the estuary was suspended sediment concentration.
Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal. Dredging and the disposal of dredged material
can have significant impacts on die health of estuarine and marine organisms. Dredging is
necessary to periodically dear harbors and bays of accumulated sediment. Most dredging activity
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-15
in Massachusetts is maintenance work, designed to retain the width and/or depth of existing
navigation and shipping channels.
Two dredging methods—hydraulic and mechanical—are used. Hydraulic dredging uses a
centrifugal pump which picks up a slurry of bottom material and water, and transports it through
a pipeline to either the disposal site or a vessel which will cany it to a disposal site. This method
is used primarily for onshore or nearshore disposal and is employed when the spoil is used for
beach nourishment or dune creation. Hydraulic dredging has not been used extensively in
Massachusetts.
Mechanical dredging is the more common dredge method in Massachusetts because many of the
dredging projects in this state involve removal of bottom material that is unsuitable for beach
nourishment or dune creation and must be ocean dumped. Mechanical dredging is similar to
earth removal, using large bucket scoops orshovelsthat lift thedredged material in a consolidated
form and place it in a barge or scow. The material is then transported to offshore disposal sites
where it is deposited by opening doors on the bottom of the scow.
Dredgingrwsesatrireattolivingresourcesinthatitremovesorganismsthatu'vebothonandwithin
the sediments. This reduction in the number of organisms may lead to a decrease in the diversity
of species with subsequent impact on dependent marine resources. Dredging also removes
benthic vegetation such as eelgrass which is used by the bay scallop for attachment and growth, by
young eels and sculpin for protection from predators, and by brant as a major food source.
Adverse effects of dredging activity are more pronounced in areas where water circulation is
limited and where the bottom is rich in organic matter. Problems are also exacerbated when the
sediments are polluted with heavy metals, and salt marshes are situated nearby. Dredging activity
in biologically-productive areas, such as salt marshes and related tidal flat systems, can cause
significant reductions in productivity. For example, in estuarine environments, dredging can
cause changes that exceed the tolerance levels of the resident organisms (CZM, 1977).
Mechanical dredging generates more suspended material at the dredge site than does standard
hydraulic dredging, and impacts an area larger than the immediate site. As the shovel/scoop is
raised to the surface, spillage may occur. This suspended sediment can have adverse impacts. It
makes the water turbid and can cause the death of organisms by blocking the light necessary for
photosynthesis and by dogging the gills and siphons offish, molluscs, and other marine fauna.
Disposal of dredged material can pose a threat to marine organisms. In Massachusetts, dredged
material is typically disposed of at sea. While some material is dean and can be disposed of with
little impact, many harbor areas contain contaminated materials which could adversely affect
marine organisms if not disposed properly. At the present time, Massachusetts does not have a
management plan that addresses the long-term environmental impacts associated with dredged
material disposal. The Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) has requested that the New
England Division of the Army Corps of Engineers conduct a comprehensive study of the problems
associated with dredged material disposal along the entire Massachusetts coast. Funds for this
study have not yet been appropriated.
Coastal Construction and Recreation. Shoreline construction and recreational use of
beaches and estuarine waters can degrade or disturb important habitat For example, habitat loss
and degradation, and disturbance by humans and domestic animals, are cited as major causes of
the current downtrend in the Atlantic Coast piping plover population (USFWS, 1988). The wide,
flat, sparsely-vegetated outer beaches preferred as habitat by the piping plover are a highly
transitory habitat, dependent on natural forces for renewal and susceptible to degradation by
human activities. Coastal development and shoreline stabilization projects (e.g., jetty and break-
water construction and dune plantings) may impede the natural forces that renew the beach
habitat Sand deposition, for example, may be interrupted by jetties and breakwaters, and
-------
IV-16
Existing Laws,
Regulations, Policies,
and Programs
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Living Resources and Habitat Protection
protective structures and planted vegetation may prevent storms from reshaping dunes in a
manner optimal for nesting success. In addition, pedestrian and off-road vehicle traffic during
critical nesting periods may crush eggs or fledglings, and free-running domestic dogs and cats
may cause nest failure (USFWS, 1988).
Nesting populations of colonially-nesting herons, terns, and eider ducks on the Bays islands are
also in decline due to habitat alteration and human disturbance. In addition, certain solid waste
management practices (landfills, uncovered beach trash receptacles) are supporting artificially-
inflated populations of herring gulls, which are outcompeting other marine bird species, such as
terns, whose populations are threatened (S. Fefer, USFWS, personal communication).
Recreational boating activity, on the increase in Massachusetts Bays, may also contribute to the
degradation of important habitat Physical impacts may include erosion of shorelines by boat-
generated wakes, increased turbidity due to resuspension of bottom sediments caused by propel-
ler wash, or alteration of wetlands or eelgrass beds by the construction of boat launching ramps,
piers, and moorings. Many embayments have seen large (butasyetunquantified) increases in the
number of boat moorings and single-family docks and piers, with concomitant impacts on
eelgrass beds and water clarity (CZM, 1991) • Encroachment of boating facilities into wetlands
and other significant resource areas may also pollute local waters through leakage and spillage of
fuels and discharge of human wastes. The degree to which boat pollution adversely affects the
estuarine environment depends in large measure on the intensity of boating activity, the size and
flushing characteristics of the coastal water body, and the presence of other contributors of
pollution. In narrow, constricted estuaries or embayments where water quality may already be
approaching pollution threshold levels, intense boating activity on peak weekends may generate
enough pollutants to produce adverse conditions, such as nutrient enrichment Bays-wide, it is
unlikely that recreational boating activity results in substantial biological or physical impacts
when compared to other activities such as municipal or industrial wastewater discharge or
dredged material disposal. However, in selected areas where intense boating activity coincides
with high sensitivity of living resources to boat-related impacts, ecological damage may result
(CZM, 1977).
Upland Development and Sea Level Rise. Valuable habitat may also be lost or degraded by
sea level rise. Arise in sea level will have three majorphysical effects on habitat: shoreline retreat,
increased flooding, and landward movement of salt water. Shorelines will retreat because very
low land, such as tidal flats and salt marsh, will be inundated and other land along the shore will
erode. Those coastal areas not lost to rising sea levels will experience an increase in flooding due
to higher storm surges, the movement of larger waves inland, and increased runoff due to a
decrease in upland areas' ability to drain as a result of a higher water table. Sea level rise will cause
changes in the patterns of sedimentation and marsh accretion, circulation patterns, biochemical
cycles, and primary and secondary production which, in turn, affect living marine resources
(NOAA, 1988). Ofparticular concern is thepotentialnetlossofsaltmarsh, one oftheworld'smost
productive ecosystems and habitat for innumerable coastal and estuarine organisms. Arise in sea
level could significantly reduce salt marsh acreage, with dire ecological consequences, unless
steps are taken to preserve existing bordering upland areas from development. Once developed
—whether for roads, housing, waste disposal, or other uses—these areas will be lost as potential
sites for establishment of new salt marsh.
Numerous laws, regulations, policies, and programs are administered at the federal, state, and
local levels to protect the coastal, estuarine, and marine habitats of the Massachusetts Bays region.
These include the Federal Clean Water Act, State Water Quality Standards, State Wedands Protec-
tion and Endangered Species Acts, and local zoning bylaws and subdivision regulations, to name
but a few. All of these have many effective components, and the efforts of agency and board
personnel responsible for their administration have resulted in important gains in habitat protec-
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-17
tion and management through the years. The Wetlands Protection Act, for example, has elimi-
nated the wholesale alteration of salt marshes that damaged or destroyed broad areas of coastal
habitats in the past Nevertheless, incremental loss and degradation of wetlands and other coastal
habitats continues, the result of numerous small-scale coastal and upland development and
pollution activities that fall through die regulatory net
FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS
The protection of wetlands and other coastal habitats is governed at the federal level by several
major statutes, the primary implementing authority for which is shared by the Environmental
Protection Agency, theUS Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). For example, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) and
amendments (Clean Water Act of 1981 and Water Quality Act of 1987) govern the disposal of
municipal and industrial waste, including toxic contaminants, by pipeline discharge into coastal
waters. Under the Act, publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities and industries must meet
Ae reqiurmmts of EPAor approved state-admirn'stered programs
permits. The Act also includes provisions for the management of nonpoint sources of pollution,
such as stormwater runoff, that can also degrade coastal habitats. Section 319 of the Act requires
states toidentify waters that cannot maintain applicable water quality standards withoutadditional
action to control nonpoint sources of pollution, and to establish programs for controlling these
sources.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into coastal
waters. ProponentsofsuchactivitiesmustfirstobtainapennitfromtheCorpsofEngineers. EPA,
the NMFS, the USFWS, and state agencies review these permit applications and provide comments
and recommendations on whether the permits should be issued and under what conditions. The
Corps then evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed activities on wetlands and other marine
habitats in light of its regulations and the comments received. If the impacts are found to be
significant, the Corps can deny the permit application, or require the project to be modified to
minimize impacts. If no practicable alternatives are available and the project is in the public
interest, mitigation can be required to compensate for environmental damage caused by the
permitted activity. EPAhas die authority to overrule the use of any disposal site included in a Corps
permit application if it determines that the discharge would have an unacceptable adverse impact
on shellfish beds, fishery areas (including spawning and brooding areas), and wildlife.
Section 404 is limited to the discharge of dredged or fill materials. Projects involving excavation,
drainage, clearing, and flooding of wetlands are not explicitly included.
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires permits from die Corps for dredging,
dealing, and other activities that could obstruct the navigable waterways of the United States
(waters belowthemean high tide level, including tidal wedands). Section 10 has served to protect
tidal wedands from activities such as dredging that are not explicitly covered by Section 404.
The NMFS and the USFWS also have legislative responsibilities to manage fish and wildlife re-
sources and their habitats. The two agencies have common interests in some marine resources
and their habitats in coastal and estuarine waters, and waters occupied by anadromous fish. The
responsibilities of NOAA's NMFS relate primarily to management of marine fish and anadromous
fish, conservation of certain species of marine mammals (whales, dolphins, seals, for example),
and protection of endangered or threatened marine species. The responsibilities of die USFWS
include, but are not limited to, management of migratory waterfowl, anadromous fish, and
endangered species.
TheFkhandWddlifeCoordrnationAct (FWQ) andto
are the major autiiorities under which NMFS and FWS conduct marine habitat protection activities.
The FWCA requires interagency consultation to assure that fish and wildlife resources are consid-
-------
IV-18
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Living Resources and Habitat Protection
ered when determining the economic and social concerns of a proposed federal or federally-
authorizedprojectthatcontrols,modifies,ordevelopscoastalwaters. The NMFSandUSFWS analyze
a wide variety of proj ects under the FWCA, including Corps dredge-and-fill permit applications.
While efforts are made by the various federal agencies to consult and coordinate on the protection
of wetlands and the other coastal habitats, insufficient staffing hinders full agency interaction. EPA,
the Corps, NMFS, and USFWS all lack the personnel and budget needed to thoroughly investigate
all wetland activities or to cooperate fully with state and local conservation officials on habitat
protection matters (T. Bigford, NOAA, personal communication).
STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
At the state level, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) has regulatory authority over
impacts to wetlands and other coastal habitats. The chief statutory provision for preventing or
minimizing adverse impacts is the Wetlands Protection Act, administered by local Conservation
Commissions with oversight by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Under the
Act, any activity that would remove, fill, dredge, or alter any bank, coastal wetland, flat, marsh,
barrier beach, dune, or swamp requires filing a Notice of Intent to initiate public review. Addition-
ally, activities proposed within a 100-foot buffer zone around the specified areas that may affect
these areas also require a Notice of Intent
The Wetlands Protection Act provides protection for many coastal species, including state-listed
rare (threatened or endangered) wetland wildlife species whose habitat has been identified and
mapped by the Massachusetts Division of fisheries and Wildlife's Natural Heritage and Endan-
gered Species Section. In these areas, no short- or long-term adverse impacts from alteration of
the wetland habitat of the rare species population is permitted, nor is replication of habitat
permitted. A number of such areas have been identified and mapped on Cape Cod, for example.
The WPA also provides protection for non-rare wetland wildlife species. Alterations of their
habitat are subject to strict performance standards. The Act sets performance standards for
alteration of banks, lands under water, and some floodplain areas which support wildlife. How-
ever, the wildlife habitat value of the 100-foot buffer area around wetlands is not recognized by the
WPA. Many wildlife species require a combination of wetland and adjacent upland habitat for
foraging, breeding, and nesting. For example, die shores of coastal plain ponds are particularly
important plant and animal habitat and receive no direct protection. Maintaining a natural
vegetated buffer in these areas is essential to providing habitat for these species. The Act also does
not provide protection for all vernal pools. There is virtually no protection for the vast numbers of
vernal pools located outside the boundaries of wetland resource areas (Cape Cod Commission,
1991). Infloodplains, only vernal pools located within the ten-year flood mark are protected.
In 1990, the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) was passed. Implementing regula-
tions are due to be promulgated by December 31, 1991. The Act protects designated significant
habitat areas for endangered and threatened species—both plant and animal. Once designated,
any alteration of a significant habitat will require a permit from die Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife. The proposed alteration must not reduce the viability of the significant habitat to support
the species for which the area was designated. Although the MESA is a significant step forward in
the protection of endangered and threatened species, it is feared that habitat designation will be a
time-consuming process that will take many years. In the meantime, important wildlife habitat will
continue to be lost, piecemeal, to development projects that either encroach into wildlife corri-
dors or preserve only isolated fragments of "open space" that are of little benefit to wildlife.
Two promising legislative measures have been proposed which together would help curtail the
destruction of wetlands and certain bordering upland areas that provide valuable wildlife habitat.
The first is an amendment to the Wetlands Protection Act that would implement a "No Net Loss"
wedands poUqin Massachusetts. This pohcywouldestabhshahierardu'c^approad to wetlands
protection, with primary emphasis on avoidance of losses first, followed by minimization of
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-19
unavoidable losses, and mitigation only as a last resort
The second measure is the proposed Massachusetts River Protection Act This legislation would
establish a uniform statewide development setback of 150 feet from rivers and certain streams.
(Existing densely-developed areas and landowner hardship cases could receive a waiver.) These
mandated "no build" zones, or greenways, would benefit coastal wildlife by providing continuous
corridors for migration and by absorbing pollutants from various nonpoint sources, such as
stormwater, that could degrade coastal spawning and nursery areas.
LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS
At the municipal level, protection of coastal wedand habitat is primarily the responsibility of local
Conservation Commissions. Most Commission members take this responsibility seriously, and
invest considerable time in attempting to properly review and act on Notices of Intent filed under
the Wetlands Protection Act Unfortunately, many Commissions lack professional staff, and their
volunteer members are often ill-equipped to deal with the intricacies of the Wetlands Act The Act
and its associated regulations are complex, containing a number of areas where Commission
members must make subjective judgments and interpretations. Current training of Commission
members is on a voluntary basis through courses taught by the DEP on a random schedule. Many
members never receive formal training in the provisions of the Act and its regulations, and rely
exclusively on hands-on experience gained while on the Commission. Although such experience
is valuable, it is not a substitute for formal instruction on die regulations and how to apply them.
Without this instruction, the learning curve for a Commissioner can be lengthy, and when com-
bined with the typical Commission turnover, often results in poorly informed Commissioners
inadequately enforcing regulations that they do not fully understand.
Compounding this problem is die lack of accurate, up-to-date maps, scaled for local use, showing
the locations of salt marshes, eelgrass beds, beach nesting sites, and other important coastal
habitats that warrant special protection by the Conservation Commission and other local boards.
Existing habitat maps are spread across a variety of local, state, and federal agency files (Conser-
vation Commissions, DMF, DEM, DEP, USFWS, EPA, etc.). These maps vary considerably with
respect to geographic setting, resource types (e.g., salt marsh, shellfish beds, rare and endan-
gered species habitat), scale, format, and reproducibility. Accordingly, they are either unavail-
able or of very limited use to local detisionmakers.
The Regional Offices of DEP do not have adequate staff to review enough of the negative determi-
nations on Requests for Determination Of Applicability (RDOAs) being made by the local Conser-
vation Commissions. This is a concern because in communities where the Conservation Commis-
sion is inadequately enforcing the WPA, there may be significant numbers of inappropriate
negative determinations. Once this negative determination is made, and if it is not caught by DEP,
the wedand area can be filled or altered legally. Currendy, DEP selectively reviews RDOAs with
negative determinations where they believe there may be a problem. In some cases, a particular
conservation commissioner or conservation agent who is unhappy with a negative determination
made by the Commission may request DEP to review the case. However, because of staff limita-
tions, the DEP review process tends to focus more on appeals of local conservation commission
decisions by project proponents rather than RDOAs. Consequently, more attention is paid to
catching overzeaious enforcement rather than inadequate enforcement
TheWedands Protection Act Regulations and other stateandlocal habitatprotection measures are
not adequate to control cumulative or secondary impacts on coastal resources. Most state
regulations are based on a case-by-case review of individual projects, with little opportunity for
reviewing projects in the context of other environmental impacts. Municipalities probably have
the best opportunity to regulate cumulative and secondary impacts through such mechanisms as
zoning, subdivision and site plan review, and health regulations, but they are hampered by
difficulties in making changes in zoning (the "grandfathering" issue), lack of technical expertise,
and lackof reliable, up-to-date information and maps on the coastal and estuarine habitats at risk.
-------
IV-20
Conclusions
Goals, Objectives
and Strategies
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Living Resources and Habitat Protection
The marine and estuarine habitats of Massachusetts Bays are of immeasurable value to the
Commonwealth's citizens and to its native wildlife. These habitats are used by living marine
resources for food, spawning, rearing, protection from predators, and other life history require-
ments. They also provide other valuable functions to humans, including erosion and flood
protection, water quality control, aesthetic enjoyment, and wildlife and waterfowl utilization. The
people who live along the coastline have long appreciated the Bays' natural wealth and have
wrested a livelihood from its bounty. The"coastalwealth"of Massachusetts has provided the basis
for the region's longstanding maritime tradition. However, the habitats and living resources on
both the landward and seaward sides of the shore are showing readily apparent signs of stress.
Despite past gains in the regulatory framework designed to protect these resources, polluted
coastal waters, loss of essential wetlands, declining fish stocks, increasing shellfish bed closures,
and declining wildlife populations and diversity all testify to the failure of present regulatory,
management, and planning programs to keep pace with increasingly complex environmental
problems. The future health and productivity of the Bays' resources will require new attention to
their management needs.
Improved management of me Bays' living resources will require improved cooperation and
coordination among environmental management agencies at all levels of government Central to
this is the need for ongoing technical assistance to local governments to help them work collec-
tively to address the various land and water-based stresses to the Bays' ecosystem. This assistance
should include, among other things: improved transfer of information (such as habitat maps) that
is directly applicable to local and regional needs; increased technical assistance on pollution
prevention, best management practices, and other resource protection techniques; and public
education on the critical relationships between human activities, water quality, and the health of
the Bays living resources.
GOALS
• Protect and restore the habitats and living resources in Massachusetts and Cape Cod
Bays
• Protect and improve water and sediment quality
• Encourage pollution prevention and other environmentally and fiscally sound
methods of treatment, cleanup, and disposal.
OBJECTIVE
• Improve regulatory and non-regulatory programs at the state and local levels to
further protect living resources and their habitats.
• Identify and map important habitats along the Massachusetts Bays coastline.
• Assesstheimpactsofvariouscontaminantsuponmelivingresourcesof Massachusetts
Bays.
• Reduce contaminants (nutrients, pathogens, and toxicants) entering Massachusetts
Bays.
STRATEGIES
• Coordinate habitat-related activities of the various federal, state, regional, and local
government entities to improve planning and decision making.
• Provide technical assistance and public education to local and regional officials
regarding habitat protection and threats posed by sea level rise, stormwater, hazard-
ous waste disposal, dredged material disposal, growth and development, and boat
wastes.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-21
Support demonstration projects for a variety of habitat protection activities inducting
mapping important habitats, restoring degraded habits, and remediating pollution
impacts.
Promote pollution prevention as a means to reduce contaminants entering the coastal
environment.
The following actions are recommended to protect and enhance the coastal resources of the
Massachusetts Bays region:
Massachusetts Bays Program will:
• Continue to fund research on the sources, transport, and fate of organic contami-
nants,
• Fund a risk assessment study to determine the relative importance of the various
contaminants entering the Massachusetts Bays in terms of their impact on living
resources and habitats.
• Produce a characterization report in 1992 which will incorporate information on
living resources and habitats, as well as information on the sources, transport, and
fate of contaminants and their effects on living resources in the Bays. This information
will be collected from historical sources and will also incorporate the results of MBP-
sponsored and coordinated research.
• Fund a living resources assessment to serve as a baseline for evaluating the effects of
changes in water quality.
NUTRIENT LOAD ING
Massachusetts Bays Program will:
• Fund research relating to nutrient loading and nutrient-phytoplankton interactions.
• Develop a Bays-wide monitoring plan that will assess the impacts of nutrients and
contaminants to the Massachusetts Bays ecosystem and will develop a strategy for
implementation.
Regional Planning Agencies should:
• Assist municipalities in identifying nutrient-stressed embayments, developing critical
loading rates, and performing watershed build-out analyses to estimate potential
future loadings.
Municipalities should:
• Work cooperatively with neighboring communities to adopt strong and consistent
water quality bylaws and health regulations.
COASTAL HABITAT PROTECTION
Massachusetts Bays Program will:
• Work with the Division of Water Pollution Control to strengthen Massachusetts' Water
Quality Standards to benefit coastal habitats.
• Work with EOEA to pass No Net Loss wetlands legislation, Watershed Protection
legislation, and River Protection legislation.
• Support the adoption of strong regulations to implement the recently-passed Massa-
chusetts Endangered Species Act
Recommended
Actions
-------
IV-22
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Living Resources and Habitat Protection
EOEA should:
• Support the development and dissemination of criteria to provide Conservation Com-
missions and shellfish constables with guidance on reviewing pier and dock construc-
tion for impacts on wetlands, shellfish beds, and other coastal resources.
• Approve and fund the long-range habitat research and monitoring agenda recom-
mended by the EOEA Technical Advisory Group for Marine Issues (Appendix B).
COASTAL HABITAT MAPPING
Massachusetts Bays Program will:
• Support the Wetlands Conservancy Program's efforts to map and protect (via deed
restriction) critical coastal wetlands in Massachusetts Bays communities.
• Through its Data Management staff, design and sponsor a coastal habitat mapping
demonstration project This project will collect andsynthesizeavailablehabitat infor-
mation for a selected geographic setting (e.g., embayment) and present it in CIS
format at a scale suitable for local use.
EOEA should:
• Fund the implementation of the Wetlands Conservancy Program, including identifica-
tion and deed restriction of sensitive wetlands, and protection of restricted wetlands
at a level higher than that afforded by the Wetlands Protection Act, as provided for in
the Wetlands Restriction Act
COASTAL HABITAT RESTORATION
Massachusetts Bays Program will:
• Continue to support and publicize ongoing habitat restoration projects, such as the
Massachusetts Environmental Trust's Belle Isle Marsh Study and Habitat Restoration
Project (near Winthrop) and Post Island Marsh Restoration Project (Quincy), and the
Corps of Engineers/MDC anadromous fisheries restoration initiatives in the Charles
River.
• Continue to inventory degraded coastal habitat areas and identify appropriate pro-
grams to restore them.
• Work with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Massachusetts
Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement
(DFWELE) to restore anadromous fish runs in the Massachusetts Bays region.
• Develop a demonstration project to restore a degraded coastal habitat (e.g., salt
marsh, sand dune, eel grass bed, anadromous fish run).
SHELLFISH AND FINFISH
Massachusetts Bays Program will:
• Work with DMF to sponsor sanitary survey training sessions for local officials. These
training sessions would educate shellfish constables and health agents on the proper
techniques for identifying and evaluating pathogen inputs into critical shellfish areas.
• Seek the designation of Massachusetts Bays shellfish areas and other estuarine habi-
tats as "Outstanding Resource Waters" (under the Antidegradation provisions of the
Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards).
• Work to secure additional state funds for shellfish management programs to be
carried out at the local level, overseen and guided by DMF.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-23
The Massachusetts Bays Program, EOEA, DMF, and the NMFS should:
• Support fisheries conservation and management actions to provide for the recovery of
depleted groundfish and pelagic stocks in the Massachusetts Bays region. Specifi-
cally, the Massachusetts Bays Program and the aforementioned agencies should
assist the New England Fishery Management Council in developing and implementing
fisheries management plans to rebuild stocks.
EOEA should:
• Work with the Massachusetts Bays Program to encourage the development of
markets for under-utilized fish species to alleviate pressure on depleted groundfish
stocks (cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, etc.)
• Create a task force to address the technical, regulatory, and economic aspects of
aquaculture development in Massachusetts Bays.
WILDLIFE RESOURCES
The USFWS should, in cooperation with the Massachusetts Bays Program and (DFWELE):
• Identify important habitats for endangered species, anadromous fish, and migratory,
wintering, and breeding birds in the Massachusetts Bays region.
• Develop management practices mat will protect these important wildlife habitats.
• Disseminate habitat information to regional planning agencies and municipalities for
incorporation into regional and local habitat protection plans.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service will:
• Sponsor public workshops to educate local officials about management practices and
options for protecting important wildlife habitats in the Massachusetts Bays region.
The DFWELE should:
• Expeditethedesignationofhabitatsforstate-listedendangeredandthreatenedspecies.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Massachusetts Bays Program will:
• Develop and publicize a demonstration project to inventory, map, and remediate
polluted stormwater discharges in a community that is sustaining significant
economic losses due to rainfall closures of shellfish beds.
• Work with DEP to help disseminate its "Nonpoint Source Mega-Manual" and sponsor
public workshops to educate local officials about Best Management Practices and
financing options for controlling stormwater runoff.
Division of Wetlands and Waterways should:
• Develop a stormwater management policy under the Wetlands Protection Act and
Regulations.
Division of Water Pollution Control should:
• Develop a program for permitting stormwater discharges in critical habitat areas.
Municipalities should:
• Adopt subdivision regulations that require that Best Management Practices for
stormwater runoff be incorporated in any new development project.
-------
IV-24
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Living Resources and Habitat Protection
• Rank, according to priority, storm drains based on known or potential impacts on
critical habitat areas (shellfish beds, spawning areas, etc.) and implement Best
Management Practices to reduce stormwater pollution.
• With the Massachusetts Department of Public Works, work cooperatively to ensure
that untreated stormwater is no longer diverted directly into coastal wetlands or
waterways when existing roads are re-paved and/or upgraded
Regional Planning Agencies, die DEP, and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) should:
• Continue to provide technical assistance to municipalities on the use of Best Manage-
ment Practices to control stormwater runoff.
TOXIC WASTE MANAGEMENT
DEM and die Regional Planning Agencies should:
• Continue to provide technical assistance to municipalities on the establishment of
household hazardous waste collection programs.
Municipalities should:
• Explore innovative ways to establish and fund programs to collect and properly
dispose of or recycle household hazardous waste and used motor oil on a regular
basis.
Industries that discharge directly into receiving waters or sewage treatment facilities
should:
• Continue to reduce toxic wastes with assistance from EOEA.
The Commonwealth's new Toxic Use Reduction Act will require a 50% reduction of
hazardous wastes by the year 1997. The toxic waste minimization program should
include an environmental auditing team available from BOEA on a consulting
basis to help businesses and industries reduce their toxic materials usage.
BOAT WASTE MANAGEMENT
Massachusetts Bays Program will:
• Continue to supportthedevelopmentand dissemination of boater education materials,
such as the "Environmental Guide for New England Mariners," to inform the Massa-
chusetts Bays boating public of the location of pumpout facilities and of the boater's
responsibilities in boat waste management
• Evaluate the option of establishing a "No-Discharge Zone" in Massachusetts Bay,
based on the work of the Buzzards Bay Project
DEP should:
• Through its Chapter 91 permitting authority, ensure that new marinas or expansions
of existing marinas (greater than 10 additional slips) have adequate pumpout facili-
ties, waste oil receptacles (for recycling of waste oil), and trash disposal/recycling
containers.
CZM and DEP should:
• Develop criteria to determine the adequacy of pumpout facilities in all harbor areas.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-25
DREDGING AND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should:
• Conduct the proposed comprehensive study of the problems assodated with dredged
material disposal along the Massachusetts Bays coastline.
EOEA, EPA, NOAA, and The Army Corps of Engineers should:
• Through the Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal Task Force, explore alterna-
tives to ocean disposal of contaminated materials, including containment on site and
nearshore and shoreline disposal, both for large federally funded dredging projects
and smaller municipal and private dredging projects.
EPA should:
• Establish sediment quality criteria for contaminants in dredged material.
SEA LEVEL RISE
Massachusetts Bays Program will:
• Work with CZM and area educational institutions to determine the local impact of sea
level rise.
• Incorporate sea level rise data into die Massachusetts Bays Program data base.
• Develop a public outreach program to promote public understanding of the impacts
of sea level rise.
Municipalities should:
• Plan for the preservation of upland areas that saltmarsh and other coastal wetland
habitats can reclaim as sea level rises.
RPAs should provide technical assistance to municipalities on methods to preserve
upland open space.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Regional Planning Agencies should:
• Provide technical assistance to help communities plan for and manage growth in a
manner consistent with critical habitat protection.
An important first step would be to conduct a "build-out" analysis for each community
(focusing initially on coastal communities) to identify critical habitat areas at risk
under a community's current zoning scheme (i.e., its "blueprint" for growth).
RPAs also should provide model regulations and bylaws, including wildlife bylaws,
which recognize the values of, and work to protect, important habitat areas.
Municipalities should:
• Reviewandupgradetheirfullcomplementof regulatory, non-regulatory, and planning
tools—comprehensive plans, zoning bylaws, watershed bylaws, subdivision regula-
tions, health regulations, wetlands and floodplain bylaws, open space plans, etc.—to
prevent further habitat loss and degradation.
-------
IV-26
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Aesthetic Quality
Overview of
Aesthetic Quality
Problems
AESTHETIC QUALITY
The beaches and nearshore waters of the Massachusetts Bays region are among the region's most
important aesthetic, economic, and recreational resources. They are visited by tens of thousands
of bathers, hikers, boaters, and fishermen annually. Unfortunately, unsightly litter and debris,
other visible pollutants such as oil and sediment, and even algae (in particular, Pilayella) are
combining to detract from the full use and enjoyment of these resources.
The aesthetic problems addressed in this section are, in many ways, inseparable from other
critical issues addressedinthis plan. For instance, oil spills, especially large tanker accidents such
as those that occurred in Valdez, Alaska and Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts in 1989, adversely affect
public health and living resource interests as well as the aesthetic enjoyment and use of coastal
waters. While the issue of oil spills, slicks and discharges is addressed here as an aesthetic
concern, this plan recognizes the much broader implications of oil in the marine environment.
This action plan briefly describes the nature and sources of pollutants affecting the aesthetic
quality of the Massachusetts Bays coastline, and offers recommendations for their abatement.
Although certain long-range actions are prescribed, the focus of the recommendations is on the
short-term actions that the Massachusetts Bays Program can initiate or facilitate during the 1991-
1993 phase of the CCMP development process.
BEACH DEBRIS AND MARINE FLOA1ABLES
The Massachusetts Bays beaches serve as repositories for a broad array of litter and debris, most
of it coming from land-side sources. Due to the complex, counterclockwise circulation pattern in
Massachusetts/Cape Cod Bays and the Gulf of Maine, debris dumped on or near shore in Massa-
chusetts tends to remain in nearshore waters. Debris generated elsewhere is shunted farther
north in the Gulf of Maine (NEAq, 1990). Local beachgoers, in particular, are a major source of
beach debris (A. Smrcina and F. Courtney, CZM, personal communication). COASTSWEEP '90,
the latest documented annual beach cleanup campaign coordinated by CZM, collected some 30
tons of debris consisting of over 260,000 separate waste items. Of these, plastics and foamed
plastic (i.e., styrofoam) were found to account for almost three quarters of the total items
collected. The twelve most common debris items (the "Dirty Dozen") were, by number of items:
1. Cigarette filters 17.93%
2. Plastic pieces 9-22%
3. Styrofoam pieces 6.50%
4. Plastic caps and lids 6.22%
5. Plastic food bags and wrappers 5.29%
6. Plastic straws 4.54%
7. Plastic rope 4.45%
8. Paper pieces 4.34%
9. Glass pieces 4.17%
10. Other plastic 2.55%
11. Plastic tampon applicators 2.45%
12. Metal beverage cans 2.31%
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-27
This listing closely parallels recent beach debris statistics compiled nationwide by the Center for
MarineConservation (CMC), with several notable exceptions. Massachusetts, with its "Bottle Bill"
requiring a deposit on all soda and beer bottles and cans, has considerably fewer of these items on
its beaches. (Users are either carrying them out, or can/bottle collectors are retrieving them for
their redemption value.) According to the CMC:
uNii^stateshaveenactedlegislatimtoencouragebeveragecontainerrecyding...Sixstates
tbatparticipateinthebeachcleanupsbavebottlebilllegislation—Connecticut, Delaware,
Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon. In all of these states, the quantities of bottles
and associated goods reported [six-pack yokes, metal bottle caps, metal pull tabs] were
lower than thenationalfigure. None of the states that reported bottles and associated goods
above the national figure has a beverage container law."
When the bottie bill went into effect, Massachusetts also required that six-pack yokes be made of
degradable plastic. The requirement was strengthened in 1988 such thatyokes must nowpose no
threat of entanglement to wildlife within 60 days. Anecdotal reports from the COASTSWEEP '90
volunteers indicated that many of the collected yokes were extremely brittle and tended to break
apart easily upon handling. Some environmental advocates have questioned the long-term impli-
cations of so-called "degradable" plastics. Because the plastic polymers do not actually "de-
grade," but rather disintegrate, the resulting plastic particles persist in the environment, and are
therefore subject to ingestion by marine animals. There is a call for the development of reusable,
or at least more benign, alternatives to the disintegrating plastic six-pack yokes. Possibilities
include reusable plastic holders similar to the paperboard holders used for beer bottles.
Topping the list of beach debris items collected during COASTSWEEP '90 were discarded ciga-
rettes. Cleanup participants catalogued nearly 50,000 cigarette filters, and many collectors gave
up counting and merely recorded their observations as "hundreds" and "thousands" when the
task of tallying them became overwhelming. These items represent a significant eyesore in the
coastal environment and may pose a threat to sea birds. According to the CMC, some 50 species
of sea birds are known to eat plastic, and many of the other 200-plus species may also, although
they have not been observed doing so. The cigarette filter contains a polymer called cellulose
acetate, which is estimated to survive approximately four years in the environment
"Floatable" debris is also unsightly and a threat to marine organisms. Fish, birds, marine mam-
mals, and turtles can ingest floatable debris — often with dire consequences — or become
entangled in it. Floatable debris consists of an assortment of waste materials, the most abundant of
which is plastic The list includes plastic bottles, bags, and six-pack yokes; cups, plates, and
utensils; fishing line, nets, floats, and ropes; and diapers, tampon applicators, and condoms. They
originate fromavariety of sources, includingsewagetreatmentplants, combined sewer overflows,
and storm drains; commercial and recreational fishing vessels (nets and other fishing gear, as well
as general trash);andthegeneralpublic (beach androadway litter). AccordingtotheCOASTSWEEP
'90 survey, Massachusetts exhibited higher man average amounts of sewage-related debris.
Nevertheless, according to CZM officials, the news is not all bad. Indeed, some of the signs are
positive. Although 30 tons of debris were collected during the 1990 cleanup campaign, this was
significanuyless,onapounds-per-milebasis,thanwascollectedthepreviousyear. (In 1990,the
average amount of debris per mile was 282 pounds, or 18 pounds per collector; the 1989 figures
were 321 pounds per mile and 28 pounds per collector). Tampon applicators, one of the "Dirty
Dozen" and a problem on Boston Harbor beaches in particular, dropped from 3.2 percent in
1989 to 2.45 percent in 1990. Scum removal systems installed at Deer and Nut Islands in 1989 by
the MWRA are now filtering out most sewage-derived floatables (grease, paper, cellophane,
condoms, etc.). According to the MWRA, 95 percent of all floatables are skimmed from the waste
stream, men chemically stabilized and converted into a pasteurized, odorless, soil-like material.
Much of the remainder is expected to be contained by a sludge-pelletization process due to come
-------
IV-28
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Aesthetic Quality
on-line in December 1991 (sludge will no longer be dumped into Boston Harbor). The notable
exception is plastic tampon applicators, which continue to survive the treatment process in large
numbers. Atpresent, no technologyisparticularly effective in removing theseitems from thewaste
stream (M. Connor, MWRA, personal communication).
The remaining and most significant source of sewage-related debris is discharges from combined
sewer overflows (CSOs). Until discharges from CSOs are substantially reduced, marine floatables
from coastal sewer systems will continue to be a problem.
OIL SPILLS, SLICKS, AND DISCHARGES
Boston Harbor and the Massachusetts Bays are a major transit route for tanker and barge traffic
transporting heating and industrial oil and gasoline into the Greater Boston and northern New
England markets. Oil enters the marine environment through a variety of sources, including
sporadic tanker accidents (such as that of the6"/o^w///o/)eoff Salem Harborin 1978) and chronic
small spills from vessel fueling, tank cleaning, bilge pumping, improper waste oil disposal, and
stormwater runoff. A report by the National Academy of Sciences (MAS, 1985) estimated that 3.9
million metric tons of oil enter the world's marine environment each year.
Table IV-1. Oil Input to the Marine Environment
Source
ACCIDENTS
Offshore Petroleum
Tankers
Non-Tankers
NON-ACCIDENTS
Offshore Production
Tanker Operation
Marine Transportation
Coastal Refineries
Industrial Discharge
Municipal Discharge
Urban Runoff
River Discharge
Ocean Dumping
Atmospheric Fallout
Natural Seeps
Erosional Processes
TOTAL
Source: Adapted from NAS, OJ,
Million Metric Tons
per annum
0.04
0.39
0.02
0.01
0.71
0.82
0.10
0.20
0.75
0.12
0.04
0.01
<0.50
0.20
0.05
3.96
in the Sea. 1985.
% of Total
V
1.0
9.8
0.5
0.03
17.9
20.7
2.5
5.1
18.9
3.0
1.0
0.3
12.6
5.1
1.3
100.0%
Oil spills foul beaches, boats, and fishing gear, and are life-threatening to marine plants and
animals. Immediately after a spill, high organism mortality can occur and, for organisms that
survive, stress and impaired metabolism are possible. Long-term impacts can ensue due to the
persistence of hydrocarbons and residual toxic effects on individuals and, if the toxitity is perva-
sive, on populations.
If a spill occurs in a small, confined area so that oil is unable to escape readily, damage can be far
heavier than in open areas. Prevailing winds can push oil into harbors and embayments where it
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-29
may be trapped and concentrated. Nearshore resource areas, including tidal creeks, shellfish
flats, eelgrass beds, and bathing beaches, are especially vulnerable.
Response to the problem of oil spills generally falls into three categories: prevention, early
response, and mitigation. As long as oil is used as an energy source, spills will not be eliminated.
Therefore, we should pursue a dual policy of reducing the occurrence of spills and preparing to
limit their damage. The number of spills may be reduced by mandating safety procedures and
safety features on equipment used for storage, transport, and handling of oil.
The principal factor in minimizing environmental damage is speed of response. Oil spreads
rapidly; begins to disperse through the water column, making cleanup efforts more difficult; and
eventually contaminates sediments. Cleanup effectiveness diminishes over time as weathering
disperses the oil. Most often, not more than 10-20% of the oil is recovered. The cleanup of the
World Prodigy spill in Narragansett Bay, which was generally considered a very successful opera-
tion, collected only about 10% of the spilled product In mis spill, most of the lighter hydrocarbons
evaporated, but substantial amounts entered coastal sediments, beaches, flats, and marshes.
Without adequate technology to recover greater percentages of the spill, emphasis should be on
prevention and speedy response. It is vital that the logistics be in place so that when an incident
occurs, it is dear who to call, where equipment is located, and which cleanup methods are
appropriate.
Commercial fishing vessels, which in theMassachusetts Bays region operatemosdy out ofGloucester,
periodically change their engine oil (10-120 gallons per boat). The inconvenience and expense
(about 30 cents per gallon) of safely disposing of the used oil may result in a number of boat
operators blatantly dumping oil into Massachusetts Bays waters. Although this is illegal, it is
difficult to document violations and thus take enforcement actions against the offending fishing
boats. Convenience and expense in disposing of waste oil may also be a problem for the general
boating public, although oil changes in small launched boats are less frequent and of a smaller
scale.
In general, Massachusetts Bays communities are ill-prepared to provide on-scene assistance
during an oil spill or to protect sensitive resource areas. Uncertainty exists as to what equipment
is available, where it is stored, and how it is to be deployed. Also, mere is no formal inter-town
coordination mechanism to maximize the equipment that is available within the various subre-
gions of the Bays. Few drills or rehearsals are held at the town level, and local personnel have
generally not received proper response training.
Regional oil spill contingency plans were developed for the Massachusetts Bays communities
during the early 1980's, but these are sorely out-of-date and of limited value today. At the time of
their development, they provided useful information on shoreline access points; oil transfer,
processing, and storage facilities; environmental sensitivity maps; and available equipment and
services. Similar information in updated contingency plans could be invaluable to the individual
communities in developing their own contingency plans, and to DEP and Coast Guard personnel
in implementing a timely response to a spill. The ability of local personnel to respond effectively
in support of the DEP or Coast Guard could spell the difference between success and Mure.
ALGAL FOULING (Pilayella)
Large masses of a planktonic (free-living) brown seaweed called Pilayella are regularly washing
ashore and fouling the beaches of Nahant Bay and Broad Sound (MDC, 1990). Described by an
MDC Task Force as a "gelatinous brown crud/slop," Pilayella constitutes a serious, and appar-
ently growing, aesthetic and recreational problem in these embayment areas. The seaweed is
unsightly, malodorous, and "repulsive" to touch, and is seriously impairing use of the beaches for
bathing and beachcombing. Once confined to parts of Nahant Bay, it has nearly doubled in extent
over the last decade and is now inundating all of the beaches in inner Broad Sound. It is
-------
IV-30
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Aesthetic Quality
Overview of Existing
Laws and Programs
particularly offensive during warm periods when sand-covered portions of the material decom-
pose anaerobically, giving off disagreeable hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg) odors. VMePilayella
is not considered to be a public health threat, it is physically and aesthetically unpleasant Even
during minimal periods of beach cover by PUayeSa, the shore is mottled and unattractive,
especially when contrasted to the white and yellow sands of other beaches in the immediate area.
Various methods have been employed to remove the accumulated Pilayelia, including the use of
tractors equipped with a "York Rake" (belt rubber is fastened longitudinally to the inside curve of
each rake to function as a massive squeegee). However, all the methods are expensive, time-
consuming, and only temporarily effective in making the beaches presentable to the public. The
by-product of the current beach grooming practices is essentially sand, with only a small percent-
ageofthescraped-off mass represented by/^^/fa. mexcessoh.OOOaibicyardsofbeachsand
can be routinely collected in just a three-day period. The costs associated with hauling this sand/
Pilayelia mix, disposing it at an offsite landfill, and providing replacement beach sand are exorbi-
tant, making the current removal practices impracticable long-range management solutions.
DEBRIS-DUMPING LEGISLATION
International and Federal
Several laws are in place to address the problem of marine debris dumping. On the international
level, MARFOL (Marine Pollution) Annex V, an international law signed by the U.S. and 29 other
nations, bans the dumping of plastics anywhere at sea. Nationally, the Marine Plastic Pollution
Research and Control Act of 1988 forbids U.S. ships and ships in U.S. waters from dumping
plastics, and sets minimum distances from shore for dumping of other types of debris, with civil
penalties of up to $25,000 per case, fines up to $50,000, and imprisonment up to 5 years.
As with many other environmental laws, effective monitoring and enforcement of the debris-
dumping laws are constrained by limited fiscal and personnel resources. Nevertheless, some
enforcement action is occurring. The prosecution of the first penalty under MARPOL took place
here in Massachusetts when a liberian-registered vessel, the Hatufymariner, dumped dunnage
(lining and packing materials that float) in Massachusetts Bay in August 1989. Fishermen from
two Gloucester fishing boats observed the dumping; in fact, one of the fishing boats ran into some
of the debris. Theincident was reported to the Coast Guard; a patrol boarded the vessel, checked
the debris disposal logs, and issued a citation. Early in 1990, the owner of the vessel was assessed
a $12,500 penalty.
Other Coast Guard reports are being processed, and two general trends are emerging in the types
of cases seen most commonly:
• Some fishing boat owners who are using nets of illegal mesh size are cutting away the
nets when they realize they will be boarded by the Coast Guard. What the owners fail
to realize is that the fine for dumping of plastic (netting, lines) is equivalent to the
penalty for illegal nets: up to $25,000 in civil penalty, up to a $50,000 fine, and
imprisonment up to five years.
• Some small party fishing boats are dumping used lines and crew wastes directly into
the water. Passengers have reported several of these cases to die Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard does not routinely board for marine dumping inspections, but does include this
review when boarding for other purposes. An owner of a vessel greater than 26 feet that does not
have dumping information stickers prominently posted may be cited. All ships must also carry a
log mat lists disposal times, areas, and the types of materials dumped. If a vessel captain cannot
show a legal dumping log or evidence of trash storage on board (i.e., after a trip across the
Atlantic), the Coast Guard may make a prima facie case.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-31
Provision has been made in the law for the awarding of bounties to persons reporting violations,
but this has not been used as yet by the Coast Guard.
State and Local Legislation
Unlike ocean-based sources of marine debris, land-based sources are under the jurisdiction of
state and local governments. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 270, Section 16 forbids the
throwing of any kind of litter in or upon Massachusetts coastal waters or within 20 yards of such
waters. The overall frameworkfor managing solid waste is provided in theCommonwealth'sSo/W
Waste Master Plan. This plan establishes the following management hierarchy:
• Source reduction—Decreasing the amount of solid waste in the waste stream (10
percent reduction goal)
• Recycling, reuse, and composting—Of appropriate components of the waste
stream (46 percent goal)
• Incineration—Of appropriate waste types (not to exceed 50 percent of the total)
• Landfilllng—Of only those wastes mat cannot be handled through the first three
methods
While tiieSolid Waste Master Plan is a step in the right direction, its stated source reduction goal
of 10 percent is considered by many environmentalists to be very conservative. A second short-
coming of the plan is that it fails to consider the special requirements of coastal areas, especially
ports. Theproblem of marine debris begins, to a large degree, in these areas, necessitating special
consideration by the Commonwealth's solid waste officials.
The 46 percent recycling, reuse, and composting goal set forth in the Master Plan, if reached, will
help to reduce the total amount of material that must ultimately be disposed of. With regard to the
plastic component of municipal solid waste (MSW), the Plastics Recycling Action Plan for
Massachusetts provides an excellent framework for developing recycling programs. The plan
sets a goal of 45 percent plastics recycling, augmenting the goals established in the Solid Waste
Master Plan.
With regard to lost or abandoned (derelict) fishing gear, it is notable that current regulations
under Massachusetts General Laws (Ch. 130, Sections 31-32) have been criticized for discourag-
fogretrieval of such gear. As currently written, the regulations prohibit lost equipment from being
retrieved without prior permission of the owner, and provide for a fine for violators. Only if the
gear lacks identification marks (for the owner) can it be retrieved (Smrtina, 1990).
One final regulatory measure is of import with regard to the reduction of plastic products entering
the local marine environment As part of the court-ordered Boston Harbor cleanup effort, the
MWRA is developing a Combined Sewer Overflow Facilities Plan to include a proposal for
capturing and storing large quantities of excess sewage and stormwater from CSOs in the MWRA
service area. fliis is notaWe because it should significantly reduce CSO inputs ofplastics to Boston
Harbor.
OIL SPILL LEGISLATION
The Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska in March 1989 and other major spill
events resulted in Congressional passage of the Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990. The Act
addresses a number of issues, including liability and compensation, vessel manning and training
requirements, alcohol and drug screening, manning standards for foreign tankers, vessel traffic
and communications systems requirements, and the requirement of double hulls for tankers. The
Act requires the Coast Guard to maintain a computer file of available spill containment and
cleanup equipment, and for the federal government to modify the National Contingency Plan. The
Act also includes monies for oil pollution research.
-------
IV-32
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Aesthetic Quality
The Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990 also calls for the establishment of Port Area Committees
(PACs) and charges these committees with the responsibility to develop Area Contingency Plans
(ACPs). PAC membership will include state and federal officials, local representatives, academia
and others. Area Contingency Plans developed by these committees should address specific local
areas including embayments in each "Port Area". According to the Act, each ACP shall, when
implemented in conjunction with the National Contingency Plan, be adequate to remove a worst
case scenario oil discharge and to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of such a discharge.
Although final regulations haveyet to be promulgated, it appears thataCoastGuard representative
will chair each PAC and as such, will be involved in drafting and reviewing the ACPs. Authority for
final approval of the ACPs will likely be delegated to the Commandant of the Coast Guard (Lieuten-
ant B. Hazelton, U.S. Coast Guard, personal communication).
Under the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), in effect since 1986, those who spill hazardous substances, including oil, must pay
cleanup costs. The federal government and the states, in their roles as trustees, can claim damages
for harm to natural resources.
In Massachusetts, oil spills are the responsibility of the Coast Guard and the DEP. The Coast Guard
generally takes control over spills in marine waters, whereas the DEP is responsible for spills on
land and small spills, such as those from moored boats. The Coast Guard has containment
equipment for limited spills, but the primary response is by private contractors. The party
responsible for a spill is liable for cleanup costs.
Both the Coast Guard and DEP have standing contracts with private firms to contain and dean up
spills. Offshore spills are generally handled by the Coast Guard. If the spill cannot be contained
wim eqmpmentlocallyavailable.afedei^ strike team is brought iaAsaresiilt of theOil Pollution
Control Act of 1990, the strike team for the Atlantic coast will be located in Fort Dix, New Jersey.
Conclusions
Goals, Objectives
and Strategies
Beach debris, marine floatables, and oil discharges detract significantly from the aesthetic quality
of the Massachusetts Bays coastline and can adversely affect the economy of the region's coastal
communities. Despite recent positive trends in beach cleanup statistics shown in Coastsweep
1990, beach litter, marine debris, and oil in the marine environment continue to be persistent
problems that impair public use and enjoyment of the Bays and can have far-reaching and long-
term negative impacts on the region's living resources.
The extent of these problems and the apparent inability of current policies and regulations to
effectively address them, requires changes to the region's approach towards minimizing the
amount of debris and oil entering the Bays waters. New management options must utilize an
aggressive combination of regulatory tools and public education that promotes pollution preven-
tion as well as improved contingency planning for pollution cleanup. Central to this approach
should be incentives mat promote recycling, reuse and proper disposal of wastes before they can
enter the Bays. The approach also should establish a frameworkfor cooperation among levels of
government and provide incentives for developing regional solutions.
GOALS
• Enhance the aesthetic quality of Massachusetts coast and coastal waters.
• Encourage pollution prevention and other environmentally sound methods of treat-
ment, cleanup, and restoration.
• Protect and improve water and sediment quality.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-33
OBJECTIVES
• Reduce the amount of beach debris and marine floatables in Massachusetts Bays.
• Reduce the amount of oil entering Massachusetts Bays.
STRATEGIES
• Increase public awareness of the beach debris and marine floatables problems.
• Promote recycling, reuse, or proper disposal of waste oil through public education
and technical assistance to local planning.
• Increase capacity of coastal communities to plan for and respond to oil spills, slicks,
and discharges at the local and regional levels.
The following actions are recommended as a means to improve the aesthetic quality and public
enjoyment of the Massachusetts Bays beaches and nearshore waters.
BEACH DEBRIS AND MARINE FLOATABLES
Massachusetts Bays Program will:
• Promote public education on beach and marine debris problems, focusing attention
on special user groups and their roles in keeping our coastal areas debris-free.
These groups might include: the fishing and shellfishing industry; hunters (many
spent shotgun shells have been found); recreational fishermen (used fishing line can
now be deposited in waste receptacles in many tackle shops); beachgoers; recre-
ational boaters; school students andyouth groups; smokers and the cigarette industry.
• Support state legislation that would ban the sale of plastic tampon applicators.
Municipalities should:
• Install and maintain conveniently-located trash receptacles (with covers that cannot
be easily removed by vandals and animals) at all public beaches, boardwalks, coastal
parks, and other populated coastal locations.
• Provide educational panels or signs at these locations to inform the public about the
problems of marine debris and the benefits of keeping our coast dean.
• Require the installation of collection/storage bins for glass, paper, plastics, and used
oil at all marinas and yacht dubs to handle wastes from boats.
• Devdop and adopt a "carry in-cany out" policy for public beaches.
• Ban the use of plastic food service materials at beach concession stands.
• Adopt bylaws that encourage re-use, source reduction, and recycling, while discour
aging the use of "disposable" plastic products and packaging.
Municipalities with CSOs and treatment plant outfalls should:
• Devdop and implement strategies for removing floatables from wastewater. Methods
to achieve this indude:
(1) Installation and regular maintenance of screens on outflow pipes
(2) Educational programs to inform the public not to dispose of plastics in toilets or
storm sewers
Recommended
Actions
-------
IV-34
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Aesthetic Quality
OIL SPILLS, SLICKS AND DISCHARGES
Massachusetts Bays Program will:
• SupporttheeffortsofCZM.theDEP.andCoastGuardtodevelopamutualaidprotocol
that will govern the purchase and deployment of oil spill equipment by communities
and businesses at die embayment level.
• Support the development of model regulations that will require boatyards and mari-
nas to maintain oil containment and cleanup equipment on site.
While it is appropriate mat each community and marina maintain some kind of oil
containment equipment, it is equally or more important for embayments as a whole to
be able to respond to a spill. Local preparedness plans should require/encourage
businesses (marinas, boatyards) and municipalities to work cooperatively to address
their mutual spill response needs on an embayment basis. This would minimize
duplication of effort, reduce equipment costs, and ensure compatibility of equipment
and response actions.
• Support the examination of a deposit/refund system to encourage oil recycling and
reduce the incentive to dispose of oil improperly on land or at sea.
U.S. Coast Guard should:
• Conduct training sessions for local response personnel on the proper use of oil spill
containment and cleanup equipment
• In its role as chair-of Port Area Committees (PACs), ensure mat the PACs review each
embayment area's oil spill contingency plan for approval and inclusion into the Area
Contingency Plan (ACP) and use those plans, as appropriate, in the event of an oil spill.
US Fish and Wildlife Service should:
• In cooperation with the Massachusetts Bays Program, National Marine Fisheries
Service, and Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement,
disseminate fish and wildlife habitat information for incorporation into embayment-
wide oil spill response plans.
Coastal Zone Management Office (CZM) should:
• Provide technical assistance to Massachusetts Bays coastal communities in the devel-
opment and update of embayment-wide oil spill contingency plans.
• Encourage die satisfactory completion of embayment-wide oil spill contingency plans.
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should:
• Conduct training sessions for local response personnel on inland spills to ensure
local preparedness and coordinated interfacing between DEP and local officials.
• Enforce existing regulations requiring large retail facilities to provide used oil collec-
tion containers accessible to the public.
Municipalities should:
• Develop embayment-wide oil spill contingency plans
• Establish embayment-wide or other regional cooperatives for the purchase of oil spill
containment and cleanup equipment
• Adopt regulations requiring boatyards and marinas to maintain oil containment and
cleanup equipment on site.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-35
• Adopt design or performance standards for catch basins to remove oil, gas, and grease
from stormwater.
• Establish convenientwaste oil collection facilities to encourage oil recycling and
reuse.
ALGAL FOULING (Pilayella)
Massachusetts Bays Program will:
• Define and coordinate the next steps to addressing the Pilayella problem in Nahant
Bay and Broad Sound. This may include sponsorship of an appropriate pilot project
on alternative Pilayella management and disposal options.
• Support a program to measure the biomass and map the area! extent of Pilayella.
• Support a program to assess the ecological impacts of proposed Pilayella manage-
ment options.
-------
IV-36
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Waterfront Access
Overview of Access
Issues
WATERFRONT ACCESS: PUBLIC ACCESS AND
THE WORKING WATERFRONT
"Many coastal landowners in Massachusetts have the same mindset as lake/font property
owners. They worry about the public leaving litter on the beach, but some don't flinch at
defacing sea cliffs with spray-painted "Private-Keep Out" signs, the graffiti of the privileged
class." (M.E. Ross, Associate Professor of Geology, Northeastern University, in a recent Op/Ed
article in he Boston Globe.)
Massachusetts has over 1,500 miles of coastal shoreline, yet only 363 miles are owned by, and
accessible to, the public. The remaining shoreline is privately-held and unavailable for public use
except for the narrow purposes of "fishing, fowling, and navigation" within the intertidal zone.
This severely limits the public's enjoyment of many coastal areas at a time when the demand for
additional recreational opportunities—swimming, fishing, boating, windsurfing—is rising.
Yet not all coastal resource areas can, or should, accommodate additional recreational use.
Encroachment by boaters and beachcombers into certain sensitive coastal habitats, such as
eelgrass beds and sand dunes, can have long-lasting adverse effects on commercially and ecologi-
cally-important fish, shellfish, and wildlife populations.
This action plan briefly examines problems relating to coastal access, including constraints on
public use and enjoyment of the coastal zone and conflicts among competing waterfront interests.
It describes the nature and sources of these problems, and offers recommendations for their
solution. Although certain long-range actions are prescribed, the focus of the recommendations
is on short-term actions that the Massachusetts Bays Program can initiate or facilitate during the
1991-1993 phase of the CCMP development process.
PUBLIC ACCESS
The Need for Coastal Access
The coastal zone has long been a valuable resource to the people of Massachusetts, 75 percent of
whom live within an hour's drive to the shore. As our relationship to the sea evolves, economic
dependence upon maritime activities has been joined by a new reliance on die shoreline for
recreation and tourism. People in ever greater numbers are turning to the sea's edge for a
multitude of reasons. Active recreation—swimming, fishing, and boating—is complemented by
more passive forms, such as strolling along the waterfront, or gazing at waves and gulls. Visual
access to the sea has taken on a new importance, as residents and visitors appreciate how the
sweep of open water refreshes the eye and spirit, providing a welcome breakfrom the rigors of our
fast-paced, complex world.
Shortage of Coastal Open Space
Yet, as the demand for shoreline recreation grows, the supply of space available for future public
use has dwindled. Growth rates in coastal towns such as Barnstable are among the highest in the
state, sending waterfront property prices beyond the budgets of many municipalities. Even in
today's stagnant economy, property lots with waterfront access can cany price tags in the hun-
dreds of thousands of dollars. Constrained by the fiscal limits of Proposition 21/2, communities
desiring to obtain coastal land for public use will need to pursue alternative approaches to direct
purchase on the open market.
Beach Traffic Congestion
The shortage of public access to coastal land for recreational use takes several forms. Massachu-
setts is blessed with an abundance of beautiful sandy beaches, but these are not evenly distributed
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-37
along the coastline. Although 65 percent of the state's residents live north of the Town of Duxbury,
75 percent of the public beaches lie to the south of Duxbury. On any hot summer weekend, the
demand for an attractive sandy beach within two hours of Boston is likely to exceed the supply. The
crowded Boston area beaches prompt those with transportation to travel to other beaches on the
north and south shores, or to Cape Cod. Many beach parking lots fill up before 10:00 a.m.,
effectively excluding those who live beyond a certain distance, or whose leisure time comes later
in the day.
Public beaches designated as "public parks" may not charge discriminatory beach entrance fees
for non-residents. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon to find daify beach parking fees for non-
residents which exceed the annual parking fee for residents, or to have strict quotas on the
number of out-of-town cars. In some communities, beach access is effectively denied by prohib-
iting or restricting nearby public parking on public roadways. ~
Historical Perspective: The Public Trust Doctrine
The shortage of coastal land for public enjoyment is a relatively new phenomenon in Massachu-
setts. Before the arrival of the English colonists, the inhabitants of the area were free to hunt and
fish in coastal areas as well as inland. Private property rights were non-existent, and mere wereno
bulky buildings to separate the water from the village.
The Colonists brought with mem the English system of laws, including guarantees in the Magna
Cam of 1215 that tidelands were in the public domain. This concept, the Public Trust Doctrine,
dates back to Roman law, and was codified by Justinian in 529 A.D., in the following language:
"By natural law itself "these things are the common property of 'ail: air, running water, the
sea, and with it the shores of the sea."
In 1641, the Massachusetts Bay Colony became the first colony to codify the Public Trust Doctrine
in America. First, through the 1641 Colonial Ordinance, they guaranteed public access to Great
Ponds. Then in 1647, they amended the Colonial Ordinance to extend private property ownership
to the low tide line, to protect littoral property against the Crown's claims, and to thereby encour-
age private wharf construction and maritime commerce. They were careful, however, to safe-
guard public rights in the intertidal zone, and expressly reserved the public rights of "fishing,
fowling, and navigation" in these lands. These three rights represented at that time the only
significant public activities on the foreshore.
State Limitations in Providing Access
As a result of the Colonial Ordinance, Massachusetts has been limited in what it can do at the state
level to carry out the wishes of the public and increase public access to the coast Ordinarily a
leader in coastal issues (Massachusetts was a pioneer in wetlands protection, and its federally-
approved CZM program was the first on the Atlantic coast), Massachusetts lags behind other
coastal states in providing public access to its beaches. California, for example, amended its state
constitution to make its beaches public in 1873. Oregon did likewise in a State Supreme Court
rulingin 1969,whileTexasopenedupitscoasttothepublicin 1959. Newjersey recently followed
suit, when its Supreme Court recognized public recreational rights on the foreshore, and even on
the dry sand above high tide:
"The complete pleasure of swimming must be accompanied by intermittent periods of rest
and relaxation beyond the water's edge."
In addition, several states, including California, Oregon, Florida, and Texas, have funded pro-
grams specifically to increase public access to the coast
-------
IV-38
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Waterfront Access
New Initiative: The Right of Pedestrian Passage
The Commonwealth is attempting to increase public access to the shore by obtaining the right of
pedestrian passage along the intertidal zone. On July 10,1991, Governor Weld signed legislation
that calls on the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management to select a beach along
the coast to serve as a test case.
Massachusetts has traditionally exercised its control over land beneath the low water mark and
reserved a public easement for purposes of "fishing, fowling, and navigation" between the high
and low water marks in what are considered private tiddands. The new legislation expands this
easement by stipulating mat the Commonwealth may "take" the right for the public to walk along
the intertidal zone. The big question nowis how this easement will be valued—what willit cost the
state, if anything, to obtain a public right of foot passage on the strip of wet sand?
The legislation limits access to daylight hours between sunrise to one-half hour after sunset (dawn
to dusk), and to on-foot passage—no dune buggies or all-terrain vehicles would be permitted. In
addition, provisions stipulate passage only— stopping to picnic, sunbathe, or play volleyball on
private property would not be allowed, nor would any form of littering. Persons using mis right-
of-passage would be restricted to the wet sand area. Any travel across a section of private property
to get to the intertidal zone would still be considered trespassing, a prosecutable offense.
The Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Management is responsible for selecting
the test beach and implementing the provisions of the legislation, including determining the state's
interest in the private land and filing an order of taking. Even when that is accomplished, the right
to walk the intertidal zone may not be available until the courts decide the legality of the legislation
and the level of compensation due the private property owner(s). Results will be very limited in the
short run, but the new law has significant potential to expand public use and enjoyment of the
water's edge in the long run.
TheOtyofBoston is diefirstmunidpalitymtheCommonwealth to establishapublicaccess policy
and incorporate access into their local land use regulations by joining the Chapter 91 provisions
for public access with the City's zoning laws. The new zoning, adopted in 1990, provides that the
Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), the City's zoning administration agency, cannot make a
proactive recommendation to the Commonwealth on whether or not a proposed project serves a
proper public purpose unless such a project provides for public access to and along the water-
front
Loss of Historic Rights-of-Way
Many coastal communities have historic public rights-of-way to the water which have been lost
over time, either through a lack of municipal vigilance or through deliberate concealment by
abutting properly owners. In some cases, the communities have failed to maintain accurate, up-
to-date inventories of the public accessways that were incorporated into private land deeds, and
over the years these paths have been lost through transfers of ownership. In other instances,
abutting property owners have intentionally extended their lawns or driveways over the public
ways, maintaining them in a manner indistinguishable from their own property — with one
exception: they have not paid taxes on them.
Some communities have dealt with the problem of encroachment on recorded town ways by
posting signs and providing additional maintenance, such as trash barrels and boardwalks down
to the tidal zone. Other communities, seeking to avoid confrontation with abutting property
owners, simply maintain a list of local town ways at the town hall, available upon request This
latter approach is often supported by residents, who argue that they already know where the town
ways are, and mat posting signs would only draw unwelcome visitors who would add to existing
problems of cramped parking, vandalism, and littering.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-39
The importance of maintaining accurate, up-to-date records of their town ways is not always
immediately apparent to communities. In some areas, historic rights-of-way have been super-
sededby other accessways or by other waterfront uses. For example, demand for an accessway for
fishing may have declined temporarily due to a deterioration of local water quality. Town ways
which have become obsolete for one use, however, might be ideally suited for other uses. For
example, in certain nearshore waters where shellfishing is now prohibited, windsurfing has
become a popular pastime requiring public access to the water. Similarly, other light craft
enthusiasts (canoeists and owners of small sailboats, aluminum skiffs, etc.) often seeksafer, more
sheltered launching sites than are provided at pubb'c motorboat ramps.
Some communities have been successful in locating and reclaiming their historic rights-of-way to
water. The City of Gloucester, for example, completed an inventory of public landings along a two-
mile stretch of its Inner Harbor. It accomplished this by examining property titles for evidence of
municipal ways or easements, searching records of tax-exempt lands, and interviewing knowl-
edgeable local persons, such as the Harbormaster, for anecdotal information on historical shore-
line use. Through this process, the Oty established the existence of some 30 public ways to the
water, including:
• 9 currently used, with tide confirmed
• 15 used historically, so that tide could be confirmed relatively easily
• 6 with uncertain title, which to be cleared requires research and possibly litigation
The Gloucester initiative revealed a number of cases where private encroachment had occurred
on public ways, and recommended that the City either elicit payment from the private landowners
or reclaim the ways for public use.
More recently, the Town of Rockport established a permanent town committee to identify all
public rights-of-way and ensure their accessibility to the public. Supported by donations of time
and moneyfromalocal volunteer group (Friends of the Rockport Rights-of-Way), the committee
has identified, recced, andisnowpreservinganumberofpreviousry''hidden"pubu'cpamways
to the sea.
ACCESS AND THE WORKING WATERFRONT
Access, in the broader sense, extends beyond just the public recreation issue, and includes the
issue of competing land uses along the waterfront Commercial fishing, cargo shipping, boat
yards, ferry services, fuel storage, and other marine industries are all vital port activities that
provide economic benefits to die citizens of the state. These industries are facing increasing
competition for limited waterfront space, not only from recreational users such as die boating
public, but from a variety of non-marine-dependent interests: residential housing, hotels and
restaurants, office buildings, shops. Since the public is not generally aware of the nature and role
of theworkingport, they rarely advocate for the port's special industrial needs, such as off-loading
and warehouse space, dredged shipping channels, and open turning basins (T.Whitmore,Massport,
personal communication). Nor do they appreciate the port's importance to the regional economy.
In 1990, the Port of Boston handled over 21 million tons of cargo (automobiles, hardware,
petroleum) worm more than $8 billion. Over 8,400 workers were employed in jobs direcdy
relating to the Port's maritime activities.
Encroachment of non-marine-dependent uses into Designated Port Areas (DPAs) can conflict
with, and impair, a port's important maritime functions. These kinds of conflicts are not limited
to just the larger ports, such as Boston and Gloucester, but are occurring in Designated Port Areas
all along the Massachusetts Bays coast Their resolution is far from a simple one. Nevertheless, an
important new mechanism now exists to help the state and communities address these issues. In
July 1990, the Department of Environmental Protection promulgated a new set of regulations to
-------
IV-40
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Waterfront Access
implement changes made by the Legislature to Chapter 91, the Public Waterfront Act The new
waterways regulations took effect in October 1990. They contain numerous initiatives designed to
enhance the state's stewardship of tidelands and other waterway areas, including the following:
• Ensuring the immediate waterfront is used primarily for water-dependent
purposes—The new regulations include provisions to protect existing maritime
activities from disruption by projects that are not water-dependent, and to promote
the development of new facilities for water-dependent activity on the shoreline.
• Supporting public/private partnership to revitalize waterfront—The regu-
lations support public and private efforts to revitalize unproductive property along
urban waterfronts in a manner that promotes a mix of economically viable uses that
incorporate public access and use and enjoyment of the waterfront
• Providing public access for use and enjoyment of the waterfront—The
regulations preserve public rights to walk freely on flowed and filled tidelands along
the water's edge for, at a minimum, the purposes of fishing, fowling, and navigation.
Furthermore, ample public access benefits will be secured where these lands are used
for private, and particularly non-water-dependent, development.
• Strengthening other state programs for shoreline conservation and utili-
zation—The regulations increase state protection of the aquatic environment, by
imposing limitations on new fill and strict controls on structures along the water's
edge and in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.
• Strengthening local controls and encouraging harbor planning—The regu-
lations encourage the active involvement of coastal cities and towns in licensing
decisions and offer, through the development of a state-approved harbor plan, the
opportunity to apply local height, setback, and other dimensional requirements to
non-water-dependent projects.
• Ensuring accountability to public interests—The regulations will facilitate
citizen participation in the licensing process by establishing procedures for notice,
hearing, and appeal, and through coordination with Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act (MEPA) review. The regulations also establish a system for ensuring
compliance, by offering existing users an "amnesty" period to obtain licenses for
unauthorized facilities, and by substantially improving the enforceability of all new
licenses.
A municipal harbor plan prepared by the City of Boston was recently endorsed by the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs. This plan is aimed at revitalizing several major segments of the
City's shoreline, encompassing a multitude of water-dependent uses and providing waterfront
access for the public It is the first such plan to receive state approval under the newly-revised
Chapter 91 regulations.
Conclusions
Burgeoning population in the coastal zone has led to increased demand for public access to and
use of coastal areas in Massachusetts Bays. However, as demand for shoreline recreation (swim-
ming, fishing, boating, windsurfing, etc.) has grown, the supply of accessible shoreline has
dwindled. Shorefront development, transportation and parking problems, and loss of historic
rights of way combine to limit opportunities for public access. In addition, the region s working
waterfronts—the legacy of the Bay State's proud and longstanding maritime tradition and a major
component of the region's economy—are being squeezed out by competing land uses in the
region's harbors. New initiatives are needed to enhance public access and preserve traditional
maritime uses in the coastal communities of the Massachusetts Bays region.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
IV-41
GOALS
• Improve access, education, and recreational opportunities in and around the waters
of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.
• Enhance the aesthetic quality of Massachusetts' coast and coastal waters.
OBJECTIVES
• Increase public access to the coast
• Preserve traditional maritime uses of the coast
STRATEGIES
• Provide incentives and technical assistance to help communities identify and reclaim
historic rights of way to the water.
• Increase public awareness of public sites and recreational opportunities along the
coast
• Promote the development of harbor management plans that preserve the waterfront
for marine-dependent uses.
Massachusetts Bays Program will:
• Sponsor the development of, and publish, a comprehensive guide of coastal public
access sites in the Massachusetts Bays region.
At present, individual communities, state agencies, and private, nonprofit land trusts
publish access guides for the properties they own, butthereisnota"one-stop" source
of coastal access information available to a mass audience.
• Sponsor a review of the adequacy of boat landings along the Massachusetts Bays coast
• Support the efforts of DEM to implement the Coastal Access Bill.
• Sponsor a "how-to" public workshop (s) for local officials on reclaiming and main-
taining historic rights-of-way.
Several communities, indudingGloucesterandRockpott, have established successful
local coastal access programs, and could be invited to participate to share their
expertise and experience.
• Co-sponsor, with CZM, a public workshop (s) for local officials on the development of
embayment or harbor management plans and use of Chapter 91 regulations to in-
crease public access.
Municipalities should:
• Re-establish and maintain historic public rights-of-way to the shore through appro-
priate legal means.
• Identify and protect sensitive coastal areas where public access and development
should be restricted in order to maintain the integrity of sensitive natural resources.
• Devdopembaymentorharbormanagementplansthatlimitnon-maritime-dependent
development and promote public access to, and enjoyment of, the shoreline.
• Designate "working waterfront" overlay zones to preserve and enhance traditional
maritimeuses. Within these zones, boatyard preservation programs should be imple-
Goals, Objectives
and Strategies
Recommended Actions
-------
IV-42
Chapter IV. Action Plan: Waterfront Access
merited. All new buildings or accessory uses constructed within these zones should
direcdy benefit maritime-related uses.
Coastal Zone Management Office should:
• Continue to provide technical assistance to communities on the development of
harbor management plans and designation of "working waterfront" overlay zones.
• Continue to review and, where appropriate, reconfirm the Designated Port Areas.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
V-1
CHAPTER V. THE MASSACHUSETTS BAYS PROGRAM
UNFINISHED AGENDA
In April, 1990, Massachusetts Bays were designated an "Estuary of National Significance" and
became part of a cooperative federal/state program designed to protect and improve water quality
and enhance the living marine resources of the Bays. This designation was a significant milestone
and represents an affirmation of the broad-based support for a long-term, comprehensive coastal
protection program in Massachusetts.
As part of EPA's National Estuary Program, Massachusetts Bays is receiving funding to carry out an
ambitious five-year agenda culminating in the preparation and approval of a Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan in 1995. This Plan will identify lasting solutions to local,
regional and bay-wide environmental problems. The Management Conference Agreement which
was signed on November 13, 1990, states that the "ultimate goal of the Massachusetts Bays
Program is to institutionalize the planning process." These words reflect the conviction that in
1995, when the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan is prepared and approved, it
is not the end of the Massachusetts Bays Program, but a new beginning.
Between now and 1995, the Massachusetts Bays Program will identify near-term solutions to
known pollution problems and to explore the means to carry out those solutions. One challenge
facing the Program is to insure the continuation of the Management Conference or its analog
beyond 1995 in order to carry out the implementation of near-term management recommenda-
tions, develop longer-term goals and activities, and provide continuity and coordination among
the myriad of government agencies, academic institutions, and user groups that are working to
protect and restore the Massachusetts Bays ecosystem. An equally complex challenge before the
Massachusetts Bays Program is to establish a "coastal ethic" mat can serve as the basis for the
public's support of actions taken by the Program and others to protect and preserve the Bays.
In early 1991, the Massachusetts Bays Program drafted a five-year workplan to outline what must
be done to institutionalize the planning process to establish a successful long-term coastal protec-
tion program. As a first step, the Massachusetts Bays Program established a Program Office at CZM
to cany out the activities of the Management Conference and its participants. The Management
Conference consists of four committees: Policy Committee, Management Committee, Technical
Advisory Committee, and Citizens' Advisory Committee. Establishment of a Local Government
Committee and Financial Planning Committee is under consideration. In conjunction with EPA
Region I staff, the Program Office is working with these committees to develop annual work plans,
distribute funds to carry out activities, produce specific products as directed by the committees,
and provide leadership and logistical support to the Massachusetts Bays Program.
Secondly, the Massachusetts Bays Program recognizes that the cornerstone of an effective estuary
program is its public participation program. Establishing a coastal ethic in Massachusetts will
facilitate developing public consensus and political support to ensure long-term support and
implementation of the managementplan. Further detailed information on the public participation
strategy of the Massachusetts Bays Program is provided in the section of this chapter entitled
"Public Outreach Agenda."
Lastly, the Massachusetts Bays Program acknowledges that, in order to "institutionalize the plan-
ning process," it must work closely not only with other federal and state agencies, but more
importantly, with local and regional government agencies in developing and implementing the
management plan. Between now and 1995, the Massachusetts Bays Program will work to identify
and evaluate funding sources to implement management recommendations; review and analyzethe
scope and effectiveness of existing federal, state, and local resource management programs to
Planning For the
Future
-------
V-2
Research Agenda
Chapter V. The Massachusetts Bays Program Unfinished Agenda
identify gaps, target opportunities and identify the potential for leveraging funds; identify needed
legislative and regulatory changes; and build regional and local capacity for pollution abatement
and institutionalizing the work of the Massachusetts Bays Program.
Shortly after the Massachusetts Bays Program was created in January 1988, the program's Tech-
nical Advisory Committee (TAG), consisting of area scientists from universities, government
agencies, and private institutions, met to formulate a long-range research plan for the Bays. The
goal of this plan was to provide data needed to fill the gaps in our incomplete understanding of the
physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms which both drive and affect the Massachusetts
Bays ecosystems. After a careful review of existing data and many hours of discussion, a research
plan was developed that addressed five broad categories of research needs:
• Physical oceanography
• Contaminant sources
• Transport and retention of contaminants
• Bioaccumulationandbiotransformation
• Social benefits assessment
Thefocus of this research planisbayswide. Research atthelocalembaymentlevel is supported as
a separate program element (see p. V-17 "Embayment Management Strategies").
The Massachusetts Bays Program recommended that physical oceanographic and chemical as-
sessment studies should receive the bulk of the initial funding, in order to lay the necessary
groundwork for the biological studies that would follow in subsequent years. Because many of
these initial objectives have been adequately addressed, the Massachusetts Bays Program recog-
nizes that significant research investments must now be placed in biological processes, especially
in areas that couple living resources concerns with our recently-gained knowledge of the Bays'
physical oceanography and contaminant sources. In addition, the Massachusetts Bays Program
recognizes (hat a long-term monitoring program is needed for the Massachusetts Bays region.
While monitoring activities are separate from research activities per se, both initiatives have been
designed to provide policymakers with the necessary environmental data to wisely manage and
conserve the complex habitats of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.
ONGOING RESEARCH
Prior to presenting the research agenda for 1991-1995, a brief synopsis of the studies that have
been completed or initiated since the beginning of the Massachusetts Bays Program should be
considered. This historical review will show that our current research agenda is both an out-
growth and a continuation of the directed research program initiated in 1988.
Physical Oceanography
An initial two years of physical oceanographic studies were funded by the Massachusetts Environ-
mental Trust funds and have been continued into a third year. The objectives of these projects
were to define the circulation patterns of the Bays on a seasonal basis, describe tidal flows and
amplitudes, and determine the influence of wind on circulation. An additional product of this
work would be the prediction of contaminant transport and retention probabilities in the Bays
system. In addition to Massachusetts Bays Program monies, some of this work has been funded by
the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). The
USGS and MWRAhave a three-year plan to continue their current research collaboration, includ-
ing a substantial effort geared towards sediment transport and characterization, aimed at develop-
ing a three-dimensional hydrodynamic model for Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. In conjunc-
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
V-3
tion with this work, the MWRA has also funded biological oceanographic studies aimed at sedi-
ment nutrient flux, respiration, and primary productivity.
Contaminant Sources
A variety of studies, in various stages of completion, have been initiated to inventory existing point
and nonpoint sources of contamination, with respect to both quality and quantity, in and around
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Menzie-Cura and Associates (funded by MWRA) conducted
die initial estimates of loadings for Boston Harbor. Metal contributions from the Merrimack River
are being assessed as part of an MIT-Sea Grant project Massachusetts Bays funds are being used
to fund a Bays-wide source characterization study by Menzie-Cura and Associates. Three addi-
tional source characterization projects have been designated for funding during Phases 1 and 2 of
the Massachusetts Bays Program:
• Analysis of organic loading from the Merrimack River
• Nonpoint source PAH loading measurements
• Atmospheric deposition analyses
A Request for Proposals (RFP) is currently being written for the first of these; proposals for the
other two have been received and are under review. In addition, a risk characterization/assess-
ment RFP has been promulgated.
Transport and Retention of Contaminants
The goals of this aspect of the Massachusetts Bays Program were to define the critical physical,
chemical, and biological processes affecting the transport and retention of pollutants (both
chemical and biological) in the Bays system. Initial projects funded included:
• A pilot study for a novel technique to track sewage sludge using elemental tracers
• The survival and deposition of persistent fecal indicator bacteria in sediment samples
from Boston Harbor
• The seasonal distribution of nutrients and suspended solids in Massachusetts Bays
In addition, the joint MWRA-USGS research currently being conducted will address questions of
transport of sediments and retention of metals. The MWRAis also planning to develop a model of
nutrient transport and fate using data collected by MWRA and the Massachusetts Bays Program.
Bioaccumulation and Biotransformation
One of the goals of the Massachusetts Bays Program was to assess the potential for continued
contamination of seafood, by elucidating the critical processes affecting contaminant
bioaccumulation and biotransformation. This assessment would also serve as a first step toward
evaluating impacts on ecosystem health. Due to the limited availability of funds, only a small
project, focusing on bioaccumulation and biotransformation of PAHs in bivalves and marine
worms, could be funded
Social Benefits Assessment
The overall goal of this portion of the Massachusetts Bays Program was to develop appropriate
management strategies based on uses, values, and use conflicts of Bays resources. A recently-
funded project will develop a model to estimate social benefits of different pollution control
strategies.
PROPOSED RESEARCH AND MONITORING
In addition to building on the five broad research areas discussed above, the Research Agenda for
1991-1995 will include studies on Living Resources and Monitoring. Both areas had been
recognized early on by the Massachusetts Bays Program as needing support, but it was decided
-------
V-4
Chapter V. The Massachusetts Bays Program Unfinished Agenda
initially to postpone implementation until a firm physical and chemical oceanography base could
be established.
Proposed Research: Physical Oceanography, Contaminant Sources, and
Transport and Retention of Contaminants
These three areas of concern are intimately linked. Both nutrients and PAHs are contaminants of
major concern for the Massachusetts Bays system. With the completion of the Contaminant
Source characterization studies described above, we should have a reasonable assessment of
quantity of contaminant inputs to the Bays system. The Massachusetts Bays Program does not
recommend committing additional resources to contaminant source characterization. However,
the Massachusetts Bays Program does recommend that some funding be awarded for a limited
characterization of organic contaminants in the sediments being collected by USGS-MWRA pro-
gram, in order to complete the picture of accumulation of contaminants in the sediment. Due to
the costs associated with organics analyses, this should only be done for a limited number of
organic contaminants, after specific areas of concern are identified based on deposition rates,
grain size, and inorganic contaminant inventories have been completed Funding would be
targetedfor the 1992-1993 years. In addition, the Massachusetts Bays Program recommends that
appreciable funding be provided in 1992,1993, and 1994 for nutrient loading issues and nutri-
ent-phytoplanktoncommunityinteractions (biological oceanography) to address concerns about
bayswide effects of nutrient inputs. These issues can more easily be addressed once the prelimi-
nary results of the physical oceanographic hydrodynamic model are made available.
Proposed Research: Bioaccumulation and Biotransformation
Substantial advances in our knowledge of bioaccumulation and biotransformation, beyond the
present efforts described above, would require far more funding than is available through the
Massachusetts Bays Program. The Massachusetts Bays Program recognizes that a significant
amount of research in this area is being conducted both in the Boston area and throughout the
country. The Massachusetts Bays Program supports efforts to integrate these studies and other
information on risks and effects associated with contaminant exposure with the risk characteriza-
tion/management components of the Massachusetts Bays Program (funded outside of the re-
search budget). In addition, establishing a statewide toxics monitoring program (described
below) and some aspects of the Mini-Bays Program (funded outside of the research budget) will
partially address the bioaccumulation and biotransformation issues. Contaminant issues related
to living resources will be considered under the Living Resources category below. The Massa-
chusetts Bays Program therefore recommends only limited additional funding in 1992 and 1993
for Bioaccumulation and Biotransfonnation.
Proposed Research: Social Benefits Assessment
The Massachusetts Bays Program recommends that additional funding be made availablein order
to continue to support the development of a model to estimate social benefits of different pollution
control strategies. These additional funds would be used to develop parameters and test the
model, and to assess the success of regulatory/mitigation efforts. The Massachusetts Bays Pro-
gram recommends that this funding be provided in the 1992 through 1995 period.
Proposed Research: Living Resources
Living Resources is an area that the Massachusetts Bays Program has identified as needing
considerable support. Other than human health risks and aesthetic considerations, the ultimate
impact of environmental degradation is on the living resources of the system. It is not enough to
know loading and fates, we must begin to assess effects. Because of this, living resource issues are
intimately linked with contaminant bioaccumulation and biotransformation. In addition, how-
ever, living resources issues also encompass areas such as habitat availability/suitability, food
chain dynamics, disease processes, and life history traits. The primary goals of the Living
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
V-5
Resources program area is to identify critical living resources and to develop a strategy for
protecting them. The Massachusetts Bays Program recommends that significant funding be
provided for this initiative throughout the 1992 through 1995 period.
Proposed Monitoring
The Massachusetts Bays Program will conduct monitoring under the National Estuary Program
agreement, which will not only assess impacts of contaminants, but will also determine the
effectiveness of specific mitigation activities. The monitoring program will support the goals of the
Massachusetts Bays Program, including protection of the habitats of living resources, protection
of public health, and protection of water and sediment quality. Funds should be made available to
design and implement a monitoring plan in 1994 and 1995.
OUTREACH AND EDUCATION PROGRAM GOALS
Overdienextfiveyean.theMassachusettsBaysProgramwillworktodevdopanewcoastal ethic.
It will do so by strengthening public values for natural resources to the point where citizens expect
the environment to be protected and are willing to take the necessary steps to ensure this protec-
tion. It will foster a collective voice on issues throughout the region, and it will establish a regional
consdousness and identity for the Massachusetts Bays. Outreach and education programs will be
tailored to the CCMP Action Plan priorities of:
• Public health
• Habitat protection and enhancement
• Aesthetic quality
• Waterfront access
The Public Outreach and Education Agenda will bring positive attention to coastal issues, foster a
sense of stewardship in those who use the coast, and, for those to whom stewardship comes
naturally, accentuate the vested interest they have in the coast
In addition, the program will encourage communities to use a proactive, resource-based ap-
proach to resource management and prevent pollution before it occurs. Pollution prevention
complements the traditional reactive approach to natural resource management
Because funding for the Massachusetts Bays Program will exist only for a limited time, an indig-
enous, grassroots infrastructure will be developed to provide a permanent constituency that can
be enlisted for assistance, support, and participation in solutions to the problems and issues faced
by the Massachusetts Bays Program.
Over the next two years, the Massachusetts Bays Program will educate people about threats to the
Bays. The program will strive to eliminate complacency, initiate action on water pollution prob-
lems, and establish communication between municipal governments, de-emphasizing the limits
of political boundaries in favor of embayment or watershed-oriented approaches to planning. The
education programs, publications, and proposed actions will cultivate a new level of public
awareness and involvement, empower those who are currently involved and concerned about
pollution and environmental protection, and begin to create a new coastal ethic.
STRATEGY
The PublicOutreach and Education Strategy is an integral part of the Massachusetts Bays Program.
It supports and reflects all other facets of the program, including research, management, plan-
ning, and implementation activities. In addition, it links the CCMP Action Plan to a program that
will build awareness, support, involvement, and leadership among program participants.
PublicOutreach
Agenda, 1991-1993
-------
V-6
Chapter V. The Massachusetts Bays Program Unfinished Agenda
Successful implementation oftheAction Plan requires publicsupportthatis best achieved through
active participation. The public outreach and education strategy will maintain this driving force of
public involvement through a soundly-designed structure of citizen advisors and local governance
representatives. The strategy will identify targeted audiences and develop aggressive public
participation and education campaigns that span the Massachusetts Bays region.
Structure
Citizens Advisory Committee. The mission of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) is to
represent diepubh'cin all phasesofprogramdevelopmentandimplementation, and to ensure that
the Management Committee and Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) staff include the public in
die decision-making process. The CAC will help with the following functions:
• Establish the MBP goals and objectives
• RecommendmemosteffedivewaystoinformmepubUcandsou'dtdtizenparticipation
• Identify key people and organizations that can help bring estuary-related issues to the
public's attention and rally support for the program
• Advise on the allocation of funds for program activities
• Comment on research objectives
• Translate the research process and findings into non-technical terms
• Identify and educate targeted audiences
• Help develop implementation plans for the outreach and education portions of this
program
The CAC will have representation on the Management Committee, the Technical Advisory Commit-
tee, and the Local Governance Committee. The Local Governance Committee will begin as a
subcommittee of the CAC. However, it may evolve into its own entity. At that point, the Massachu-
setts Bays Program may wish to address staffing and budgetary needs, and revise the CCMP Public
Outreach and Education Strategy accordingly.
Membership is open to the public and represents a broad spectrum of individuals, resource
groups, education institutions, businesses, industries, and public agencies.
CAC activities are coordinated by a steering committee elected by and chosen from the CAC
membership. The Steering Committee meets monthly to define and implement the outreach and
education program goals, relay information to andgatherfeedbackfrom their constituendes and
the full CAC, and ensure that the mission and objectives are followed.
Local Governance. A goal of the public outreach and education strategy is to have a local
governance committee structure in place by the spring of 1992. This committee will provide cities
and towns with opportunities to participate in the development and implementation of the Action
Plan, and to advise the Management Committee about local issues and needs. It will serve as a
forum for communication between the management conference and municipalities, and will
facilitate communication across municipal boundaries, and expedite the implementation of
sound environmental programs for the protection and enhancement of Massachusetts Bays.
Massachusetts Bays cover such a large region that involvement of local governments must be
representative to be manageable. Over time these regional committees may change, but a two-
tiered committee structure is proposed now;
Tier I - Regional Governance Committees
At the first tier, four or more regions will either participate through the formation of regional
committees or through existing structures such as the four Regional Planning Agencies which
represent communities along the Massachusetts Bays coastline.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
V-7
The four or more regions will be encouraged to take an embayment-based approach when
addressing water quality issues, with technical assistance and grants offered by the Massachusetts
Bays Program. Issues will be identified that are caused by, or that affect, two or more communi-
ties. Those communities will be brought together for discussion and possible resolution of shared
problems.
Tier n - Bays-Wide Governance Committee
A second tier will be established on a Bays-wide level. Representatives from the four or more
regions will serve on this committee and choose a delegate to represent the local governments on
the Management Committee. Through this membership, the local governments will take part in
Massachusetts Bays Program decision making. The Bays-wide Governance Committee will serve
as a forum for information sharing and discussion of Bays-wide problems. The Committee will
have the responsibility of synthesizing the recommendations of the regional governance commit-
tees and relating them to the Management Committee to participate in Action Plan development
and implementation.
Prior to forming local governance committees, a local governance contact/support person will be
identified in each community along the coast The contact/support persons will participate in the
MBP by ensuring that their municipal boards are kept informed of Program activities, such as
CCMP distribution and critique. Regional contact/support persons may be drawn from the CAC
membership and/or Regional Planning Agencies or other appropriate organizations.
For example, when the CCMP is distributed to local governments, the contact/support person will
ensure thatit is received by each local board (e.g. selectmen/mayor/city council, board of health,
planning board, conservation commission.) The boards will be asked to review and critique the
CCMP in preparation for a regional meeting that may be hosted by a state senator or representative
for that area. Atthose meetings, afull review of theCCMPwillbeconducted. Each municipality will
be asked to vote to appoint a representative to a new Local Governance Committee or an existing
regional agency as the Local Governance Committee. Thus, the LGC representatives will be chosen
by municipal officials present at the regional meetings, illustrating the importance of local involve-
ment at these meetings.
After a representative is appointed by each community to the Local Governance Committee, that
person will be responsible for staying informed about MBP activities, keeping open a dear line of
communication between MBP and the municipality, and attending LGC meetings.
legislative Caucus. To effectively involve the legislators and congressmen that represent the
Massachusetts Bays coastal residents, a Coastal Caucus will convene for formal discussion and
information exchange on Bays-wide issues. Participating state and federal legislators will be
asked to communicate with their constituencies about the goals and recommended actions, to
encourage local support and involvement, and to initiate actions at the state and federal levels that
further the goals of the program. This might include hosting regional meeting(s) in their area(s)
for local governments, and participating in yearly briefings. The Coastal Caucus will be repre-
sented on the Management Committee by a chosen delegate.
Targeted Audiences
Targeted audiences are those categories of people in the public and private sectors who work in
or around the Bays and depend on mem for their economic, recreational, educational, cultural, or
aesthetic value. Whether harvesting its resources, moving across or through its waters, disposing
of wastewater, advocating for its protection, or studying its intricacies, any user of the Bays system
should have a voice in the design of the comprehensive plan that aims to protect and enhance the
Bays. Some of the targeted audiences will be:
• Recreational Users—yacht dubs, dive shops, canoe and kayakdubs, fishermen, bird
dubs,waterfowlhuntingassociations,beachbuggy associations, whalewatchinggroups
-------
V-8
Chapter V. The Massachusetts Bays Program Unfinished Agenda
• Business and Industry—marinas, commercial fishermen, shipping companies, ferry
services, manufacturers, energy facilities, chambers of commerce, construction com-
panies, real estate firms, unions, support services to water-dependent industries,
business associations
• Government Bodies—local, state, and federal officials, regional planning agencies
• Educational Organizations—schools, universities, and student groups
• Citizen Organizations—environmental, farming, fishing, youth
By identifying and involving targeted audiences, the MBP will:
1) Ensure comprehensive review of die issues, goals, and action plans by all parties with
an interest in the Bays.
2) Ensure that the information received by the various audiences addresses the impacts
that their actions have on the Bays, andhdps them fulfill their role to protect the Bays.
Comprehensive review of the issues, goals, and action plan recommendations by all targeted
audiences is critical to the success of the Massachusetts Bays Program. In addition to the
governmental involvement described above, businesses, educational institutions, and citizen
organizations will play differing but crucial roles in the Plan's development A formal structure
may or may not be developed for these groups, but the importance of their participation cannot be
overemphasized
Business and industry, for example, should participate in order to fully understand any long-term
implications the recommended actions might have on their operating procedures, costs, and
permitting or regulatory requirements. Equally important, businesses should participate to
inform the Massachusetts Bays Program of these implications, as well as their operational con-
straints and concerns. Business and industry are immeasurably important to Massachusetts, and
the mutual interdependence of business on the environment, and the environment on business,
requires that a balance be struck to keep both flourishing.
The MBP fully recognizes the difficulty in involving businesses during an economic recession, but
feels their input is critical for their own sake, as well as for the environment The CCMP will
become state policy in 1996, and will therefore havelong-lasting effects on the way businesses may
operate in Massachusetts. Massachusetts businesses will be strongly encouraged to bring their
insight, support, comments, and criticism to the table. Their involvement will undoubtedly prove
invaluable to the success of the Program.
Educational institutions throughout the Bays area will be involved in the Massachusetts Bays
Program as well. Their position in society allows them the unique opportunity to contribute to the
expanse of knowledge on the issues surrounding the Bays, and, likewise, increase society's values
for our natural resources. School curriculums, as well as programs and events, might reflect these
issues, furthering the MBP goals of increasing public knowledge and awareness of the Bays.
Gtizen groups will play a major role in the success of this Program: as advocates for environmen-
tal protection, they will support and encourage implementation of theaction plan in their commu-
nities; as enthusiastic and enlightened residents, they will involve and educate their neighbors; as
organized groups, they will reach many more people than would otherwise be reached. Citizen
groups' interest, concern, and energy may carry the constituency for Massachusetts Bays through
the next decade, beyond the life of the Program, toward a permanent voice for the Bays. Involve-
ment in the Program, and review and critique of the CCMP by citizen groups is essential to long-
term survival of the Bays.
Ensuring comprehensive review of the Action Plan requires that information is received by the
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
V-9
targeted audiences and that their role is defined. To streamline the process, the Massachusetts
Bays Program will identify regional contact/support persons for each of the target audiences listed
above who will distribute materials to their constituents or similar organizations in their area, and
encourage their participation. Regional support persons will help ensure appropriate and timely
dissemination of information. In addition, these people may be asked to host meetings in their
region.
Support persons for business, education, and citizen groups may be asked by the Massachusetts
Bays Program to distribute the CCMP to their board members and similar organizations in their
area, and encourage their membership to read and critique it The contact/support person may
be asked to host a meeting inviting their members, constituents, and other similar organizations
for full CCMP review.
To support these efforts, the Massachusetts Bays Program staff and CAC members will use an
expansive database of names, addresses, and telephone numbers—categorized by audience—to
provide for mass mailings. The recreational boating audience, for example, may need informa-
tion on proper disposal of on-board septage waste, used motor oil, and trash; use of environmen-
tally-safe boat paints and cleaners; and boater regulations. Local, state and federal governments
may need information on pollution sources and remedies, the importance of the Bays for attract-
ing tourism and business, and for enhancing fishing and recreation, as well as any opportunities
for funding and legal and technical assistance that become available.
Public Outreach and Education Plan
The public outreach and education strategy will be accomplished in two phases. The first phase
can be described as "network building." During the first two years of the program (1992 and
1993), emphasis will be placed on establishing working relationships between communities,
citizens, businesses, and non-profit organizations. A commitment to support and participate in
Action Plan implementation will be solicited, and other targeted audiences will be educated about
the program. This phase will lay the groundwork for productive committee work, a dear expres-
sion of citizen responsibilities, and new opportunities available for implementation.
The second phase can be described as "expanding and strengthening" public support The
programs and activities are organized around six dements which are used in a variety of formats
to most effectivdy achieve the Massachusetts Bays Program objectives. The committee structures
(outlined above) will support these program dements by providing opportunities for citizen
involvement and by bringing people together for discussion, information exchange, and coordi-
nation during Action Plan implementation. The six dements are mutually supportive, achieve the
necessary repetition for learning, and combine to form an enlightening and entertaining package
for the public to embrace. Highlights of these dements are listed bdow.
Plan Elements
1) Meetings—In order to mobilize the full CAC, the local governance committees, and
the Massachusetts Bays citizenry, meetings will be held throughout the region to
encourage participation in implementing the Action Plan. Meetings will allow for
information and ideas exchange, program updates, identifying resources, and dis-
cussion of local issues, funding opportunities, and technical assistance. Non-profits,
businesses, educators, state and federal agencies, and municipal and legislative
officials will be represented.
2) Media Rdations—Involving the press in the Massachusetts Bays Program is critical
to its success. Meetings will be hdd with editorial boards and program directors of
newspapers and radio and television stations to familiarize them with the Massachu-
setts Bays Program andencourageactivecoverage on Action Plan activities. Through
press releases and talk shows, the Massachusetts Bays Program will help keep
-------
V-10
Financing Agenda
Chapter V. The Massachusetts Bays Program Unfinished Agenda
media directors informed on Bay-wide issues. Special media programs and events
might include a "Bays Trivia" program for radio shows, press cruises on different
vessels representing water-dependent industries, and a television documentary
about the Bays.
3) Action Programs—Grant awards will be made to citizens, organizations, and com-
munities whose program ideas provide solutions to water-quality problems, create
models, demonstrate innovative technologies, educate the public, incorporate an
embayment or watershed-based approach to resource management, and contrib-
ute to developing a coastal ethic. Three grant programs are currently in place:
Demonstration Project grants, Mini-Bays grants, and Bays Action grants. Technical
support will also be provided to communities mat are working to implement the
Action Plan recommendations.
4) Publications—Informational materials will beproduced and distributed to targeted
audiences to publicize the goals, activities, and accomplishments of the Massachu-
setts Bays Program, and to increase public awareness about the Action Plan and
public involvement in its implementation. The Action Plan topics of public health,
habitat and living resources, waterfront access, and aesthetics will each be ad-
dressed through newsletters, brochures, fact sheets, posters, and progress reports.
5) Organizational—Maintaining and expanding the number of people involved in the
Massachusetts Bays Program is critical to its success. This will be achieved most
effectively with sound and timely communication. An in-house computer that stores
mailingUsts of targeted audiences, committee members, and the media for distribu-
tion of publications and correspondence will support this process, as will educa-
tional and scientific resources for public use, and telephone liaison with all commit-
tees and targeted audiences.
6) Programs and Events—By working cooperatively with other organizations and
businesses, and by sharing and providing resources, the educational component of
the Massachusetts Bays Program is strengthened Conferences, symposiums, work
shops, lecture series, video and slide presentations, and teacher training programs
are all under the scope of programs and events. Each activity will address the four
Action Plan issues of public health, wildlife habitat, public access, and aesthetics
It is important that CAC members, and especially the steering committee, actively participate in the
planning and implementation of these outreach and education activities. It is the CAC's job to
reinforce the program goals and ideals in outreach projects.
The local governance committees should be involved by ensuring mat their respective jurisdic-
tions have theinformation and technical assistance they need, andshould take thelead in initiating
action. This might include organizing workshops to address their region's concerns and imple-
menting parts of the proposed Action Plan.
Astrong effortwill be made to involve non-profit environmental organizations in theprogram. The
importance of these organizations lies in the interest and concern already within their member-
ship. By working with citizen groups, the Massachusetts Bays Program can draw upon an estab-
lished base of support, and span the entire region more efficiently than it otherwise could.
TheAction Plan Chapter of this report identifies a number of actions that should be or will betaken
between now and 1993 by the various levels of government concerned with protecting and
preserving the water quality and living resources of the Massachusetts Bays ecosystem. Some of
these actions are currently underway, others can be achieved without further financial resources.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
V-11
But, there are some that will require additional funding at either the local or state level.
The identification and evaluation of funding alternatives for die Massachusetts Bays Program is set
against a background of increasing costs for environmental protection and diminishing financial
capacity at the federal, state and local levels. Nationwide, government spending for environmental
protection is projected to increase by 37% between 1987 and the year 2000 just to maintain
current levels of environmental quality. It has been estimated mat an additional 38% increase will
be necessary to meet the requirements of new regulations and standards.
The burden of funding environmental programs is also shifting. In 1981, local governmentswere
already paying 76 percent of the cost of environmental protection (including air, water, solid and
hazardous waste programs). By the year 2000, local governments will bear 87 percent of the
public costs of environmental protection.
In Massachusetts, the current (and foreseeable) economic situation suggests that raising funds to
pay for state and local initiatives recommended as part of the Massachusetts Bays Program will be
extremely difficult In today's political climate, new taxes are unlikely to be viewed favorably. In
addition, a deteriorating economy further undermines the ability to raise revenues.
Between now and 1993, the Massachusetts Bays Program will establish the foundations for sound
financial planning to implement management recommendations. In its FY91 Workplan, the
Program has allocated funds to begin the process of developing financially sound and politically
acceptable funding alternatives.
As a first step, the Program will arrange for a financial planning seminar (which has been offered
as part of EPA's support to National Estuary Programs) to serve as a kick-off event for this effort. At
the same time, the Program will establish a Finance Committee. This Committee should be
composed of key stakeholders as well as representatives of state and local governments, regional
planning agencies, members of die business community, members of the state legislature, local
elected officials, and citizen's groups.
The Massachusetts Bays Program can benefit from the older, more established estuary programs
regarding financial planning. In particular, the Buzzards Bay Proj ect (BBP) prepared a Financial
Plan as Volume n of its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (May 1990. This
Financial Plan is comprised of three components that, taken together, provide the basis for
estimating costs and identifying funding sources for proposed actions. Much of the information
contained in mis Financial Plan is readily transferable to the Massachusetts Bays Program.
The first component of the BBP Financial Plan provides an evaluated inventory of potential funding
sources to finance the recommendations for estuary protection and restoration through existing
programs at the federal, state, and local level, or created through new initiatives at any of these
three levels. This component is not a comprehensive review; it identifies only the most relevant
revenue sources. Funding sources examined include grants and loans from federal and state
sources, taxes, fees, fines, and private funding.
The second component presents cost estimation procedures and preliminary cost estimates for
various management actions. The focus of this component is on those actions that may impose
significant capital or operating costs on public or private entities in the Buzzards Bay area. Cost
estimation procedures are presented for the following activities:
• Stormwater control
• On-site septic system improvements
• Boat pump-out facilities
• Oil spill containment equipment
• Toxic audit teams
-------
V-12
Data Management
Strategy
Chapter V. The Massachusetts Bays Program Unfinished Agenda
The third component provides additional guidance to local governments on potential sources of
new funding for recommended actions. This component reflects the fact that many of the actions
recommended will be implemented at the local level, and that new and dedicated sources of funds
arenecessary to ensure successfulimplementation. Thefinandalplanningguidebookreviews six
revenue options available to local governments, including general revenues, taxes, fees and
charges, fines and penalties, bonds, and grants and loans. For each option, the guidebook reviews
potential feasibility (e.g., the steps necessary to make use of that option and potential constraints
on its use) and suitability (e.g., revenue potential, political considerations, equity issues, and
administrative requirements).
In addition to revenue options, the guidebook covers four independent financial management
mechanisms, including enterprise funds, bond banks, special districts, and revolving funds.
Thesemechanisms can beused to facilitate access toaparticularrevenueoption,ortomanagethe
funds generated by one or more options, thereby Unking the sources of funds to their intended
uses. The guidebook includes examples of how die various revenue and institutional options can
be applied to selected actions.
These three components establish the foundation for sound financial planning for implementa-
tion of the Buzzards Bay CCMP and will be transferred to the Massachusetts Bays Program as a first
step to its financial planning effort. In addition, the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority recently
published a paper relating its experiences with financial planning including the lessons learned
both good and bad. This paper will serve as a background piece for discussion purposes as the
Massachusetts Bays Program undertakes its planning process.
Financial planning as part of the Massachusetts Bays Program will evolve along with the first
management plan. The overall goal of mis effort between now and 1993 should be to better
prepare Program participants to address the expected funding shortfalls to implement manage-
ment recommendations. Hopefully, the steps outlined in mis agenda will help the Program
achieve this formidable goal.
INTRODUCTION
The challenge of data management for the Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) is to integrate and
effectively communicate program findings about the effect of man's activities on the health of
Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay. The links between natural resources and the pollution
sources that surround them will be conveyed to decision makers and the public through summa-
ries of research data and maps showing spatial relationships. Data will be represented in the
context of watersheds and embayments in order to foster a resource-focused approach to prob-
lem solving around the Bays. These representations will support the Massachusetts Bays Program's
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), public outreach efforts, and the
Characterization ("state of the bay") Report by synthesizing research findings and illustrating the
status and physical setting of Massachusetts Bays resources in easily-understandable forms. The
CCMP, public outreach and education, and characterization efforts will support the goal of making
Massachusetts Bays Program data accessible by providinga vehicle for disseminating information
from the program.
Throughout the program, the Massachusetts Bays Program Data Manager will be a central point of
contact for data compilation, adherence to policy, and education of data users and generators.
The Data Manager's responsibilities for generating data products will evolve during the program
according to capabilities and management priorities.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
V-13
Data in the Massachusetts Bays Program includes two types:
• Geographic Data—including maps produced either by Massachusetts Bays Program
or the Massachusetts Geographic Information System (MassGIS)
• Non-Spatial Data—including findings from research and monitoring studies
LONG-TERM GOALS OF DATA MANAGEMENT
The long-term goals of data management in the Massachusetts Bays Program are to provide
pertinent data to managers, scientists, and the public so that informed decisions can be made to
reduce pollution inputs and improve the management of resources around Massachusetts Bays.
The goals are as follows:
1) Compile a data base of baseline information to:
• Synthesize and interpret research results in order to characterize the state of
the bay
• Identify priorities for further research
• Develop management plans
• Inform the public of program findings
• Design monitoring studies
2) Provide maps and data summaries for use in the CCMP, the Characterization Report,
and other program documents. The Data Manager will also provide, with approval
of the Massachusetts Bays Program Program Coordinator, products and assistance
for public outreach, action/demonstration projects, and program planning efforts.
As data management efforts evolve, an increasing amount of information will be
available to the public.
3) Educate managers, scientists, other agencies, and the public about valuable data
resources and effective information management techniques so that the data base
and resources created during the existence of the Massachusetts Bays Program can
be transferred to future monitoring, research, and planning efforts.
4) Comply with the OWOW (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Waterways) requirement of submitting data funded by the
National Estuary Program (NEP) to the Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES)
database
Theselong-termgoalswillbeachievedthroughshort-term(1991-1993) objectives. Thestrategy
must remain somewhat flexible in order to reflect changing program priorities and accomodate
tasks that develop at different rates. The priorities and tasks will be reviewed by a Data Manage-
ment Advisory Group (made up of program staff; committee chairs, or their designees, from the
Management, Technical Advisory, and Citizens Advisory committees; and the Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority (MWRA) Harbor Studies program). The Data Management Advisory Group
will review the data management strategy annually to ensure that data management is responsive
to the evolving needs of the program.
STRATEGY FOR 1991-1993
This strategy outlines the tasks and policies that have been developed to achieve short-term
objectives from 1991 to 1993. It reflects the limited resources of the program and the fact that
tasks develop at different rates. The rate of development, the scope, and the level of detail of each
taskwilldependontheevolvingpriorities of theprogram, as well as die quality of existing data sets,
-------
V-14
Chapter V. The Massachusetts Bays Program Unfinished Agenda
which will govern how much preparation is necessary to make them usable for program pur-
poses. Therefore, the proposed tasks will reach different stages of completion by 1993. Theshort-
term objectives are as follows:
• Create a Base Map—OneofmeprimarytasksoftheDataManagerin 1991 is to create
a base map of the Bays on which bathymetry, pollutant sources, onshore geographic
features, and drainage areas can be displayed with research findings. This map is
important for characterization and public outreach becauseitwill aidin illustration of
spatial relationships among pollution sources and affected areas.
• Create aData Base for Characterization—In 1992, the emphasis will shift to integrat-
ing, synthesizing, and presenting data from program-sponsored and historical
research in order to characterize the "state of the bay." At any time, these activities will
take priority over other tasks.
• Prepare an Index of Bays Information—Throughout 1991-1993, the Data Manager
will design and oversee the development of an index of information about pollution
sources, research programs, and natural resources for use by a wide audience inter-
ested in learning about the Bays.
• Assisttontractors.ProcessRequestsfor Data, ProvideGraphicto Program—Through-
out 1991-1993, the Data Manager will assist contractors, prepare graphics and data
summaries, and fill requests for data on a limited basis according to program priori-
ties (such as preparation of the CCMP or workshop presentations), and the approval
of the Program Coordinator.
The Data Manager will address these goals with the actions described below.
ENTER MASSACHUSETTS BAYS PROGRAM CONTRACTOR AND HISTORICAL
DATA INTO THE MASSACHUSETTS BAYS PROGRAM DATA BASE FOR
CHARACTERIZATION
The purpose of research funded by the Massachusetts Bays Program is to provide baseline
information to scientists and managers for characterizing the state of the bay and designing
monitoring plans to assess changes that result from actions taken. The baseline information will
come from a data base created from Massachusetts Bays Program-funded research and demo
projects and historical research. The data from this research will be incorporated into the
Massachusetts Bays Program data base for use in the Characterization Report Since a significant
portion of the Massachusetts Bays Program-funded research will be completed in early to mid-
1992, and characterization must be finished by the fall of 1992, the Data Manager will review
representative subsets of data from researchers in January, so that final versions of data sets can be
easily incorporated when they arrive.
The data consist of a diverse array of information, and it would be labor-intensive to try to maintain
all of it online. Therefore, data from Massachusetts Bays Program and historical research will be
entered into the data base only if they are determined to be of priority for use in characterization.
Data from program-funded research that are not entered into the system will be stored on floppy
disks and in reports.
The Massachusetts Bays Program uses the same software (Arc/INFO Geographic Information
System (CIS), ORACLE Data Base Management System (DBMS)) as that used by the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority, MassGIS, and the Buzzards Bay Project. The data base structure is
identical to that designed for MWRA in order to ensure compatibility with this closely-related data
base. This data base is also compatible with that of the Buzzards Bay Project
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
V-15
PREPARE MAPS AND DATA SUMMARIES
The Data Manager will prepare maps and data summaries that are deemed to be priorities by the
Massachusetts Bays Program Program Coordinator and Data Management Advisory Group. This
work will include:
• Preparing data summaries for program publications
• Plotting data on maps for the CCMP, annual reports, meetings, workshops, and other
presentations
• Integrating different data types for input into decisions
For example, maps of towns and drainage basins included in the Massachusetts Bays Program
areahave been prepared. Statisticsforlanduse changes from 1971 to 1985 in each drainagebasin
have been compiled and incorporated into the 1991 CCMP. Selected Massachusetts Bays Program
and historical research data will be plotted on maps in order to illustrate its geographic distribu-
tion and relationships with other data. Such illustration will be a key to conveying program
findings and progress to the public.
Someofthemapsanddata summaries will require creation ofnewdataintheGIS.Thesource data
from which the CIS data will be developed must be quality-checked, made consistent, and format-
ted for CIS entry. The data types listed below are priorities that will be developed over time,
including:
a) BATHYMETRY OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY AND CAPE COD BAY. This base map will
contain bathymetry, place and feature names, and navigational features, and will be
critical in providing context for research findings around the Bays.
b) WATERSHED BOUNDARIES FOR CAPE COD, PLYMOUTH, AND SELECTED
EMBAYMENTS. These boundaries are essential to such tasksascalculatingaccurate
estimates of pollution inputs to the Bays based on land use, population density, and
other factors.
c) COASTLINE SEGMENTS. Segments of the coastline mat are united by common
characteristics (e.g., drainage basin/recharge area, embayment, uniformity of coastal
features) will be denned to allow GIS analysis of discrete portions of the coastline.
The Data Manager will work with the Data Management Advisory Group to define
appropriate criteria for defining the segments.
d) MAJOR NPDES DISCHARGES. The Data Manager will locate the best source of
NPDES permit locations and assess the feasibility of entering them into the GIS.
ASSIST CONTRACTORS (RESEARCH, ACTION/DEMO, MINffiAYS)
In order to ensure that contractors submit data that are compatible with the Massachusetts Bays
Program data base, the Data Manager will:
• Provide data submission requirements to contractors prior to the start of work
• Assist contractors in submitting properly-formatted data from their work
• Ensure that data delivery is satisfactory before final payment is made on any contract
• Assist contractors with requests to acquire data relevant to their work
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT INDEX OF MASSACHUSETTS BAYS
The Data Manager will design an index of data resources and information about resources,
research, policy, and programs in the Massachusetts Bays area. It will be designed for use by
interested members of the public, nonprofit organizations, students, scientists, and policymakers.
-------
V-16
Chapter V. The Massachusetts Bays Program Unfinished Agenda
The Data Manager will hire and supervise an intern to compile the entries. The information could
include: background/scope of the program, summaries of program findings, data sets, maps,
reports,sdentificpapers,andtheinformaiionnecessarytoloatesourcesnotiiidudedintheindex.
COOPERATE WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS ON RELATED DATA
POLICY, DEVELOPMENT, AND USE
In order to avoid duplication of effort and incompatibility of data among related projects, the Data
Manager will maintain contacts and exchange data with local, state, andfederal agencies conduct-
ing complementary work. In particular, the Data Manager will maintain contacts with other EOEA
agencies, the MWRA, the Regional Planning Agencies, the National Park Service, U.S. EPA, and
other National Estuary Programs (especially the Buzzards Bay Project, the Narragansett Bay
Project, and the Casco Bay Project). Cooperation with these groups will assure integration of
Massachusetts Bays Program data management with similar activities and enhance the work of the
program. The Data Manager may also request or provide assistance to agencies working on
themes of mutual interest. In addition, data in die Massachusetts Bays Program will be compatible
with established format and quality standards of EOEA, MWRA, and the Buzzards Bay Project for
creating CIS and tabular data.
Process Requests for Data and Information
The Massachusetts Bays Program aims to provide as much information as possible to the public
and to other agencies in order to support public outreach and education, and to convey the
findings and physical setting of program work. To this end, the Massachusetts Bays Program Data
Manager is preparing a set of maps and data summaries mat can be requested from the Program.
Anyone (nonprofit organizations, government agencies, interested members of the public, and
others) can request data by contacting the Data Manager. However, the availability of data and
preparation of special data products (e.g., special theme maps, data from scientific research) is
governed by the Massachusetts Bays Program Data Distribution Policy and will be carefully
considered on a case-by-case basis. The Massachusetts Bays Program Data Distribution Policy is
necessary because of the limited resources of the program and because access to different types of
data is subject to different considerations. Thefinal decision on providing data, and the exactform
of the data to be provided, will be made by the Massachusetts Bays Program Program Coordinator.
FUTURE OBJECTIVES 1994 -1995
In future years, data management activities will continue to address long-term goals with short-
term strategies. These strategies will include the tasks o£
• Incorporating NEP-funded research into the Massachusetts Bays Program data base
• Submitting NEP-funded research data sets to EPA in Ocean Data Evaluation System
(ODES) format
• Illustrating research findings on maps and in data summaries
• Providing data to decision makers
• Developing additional CIS data bases
• Assisting MiniBays projects with data development and submission
• Providing baseline data for designing the monitoring plan
• Transferring responsibilities of data management to long-term monitoring and imple-
mentation efforts
A future task recommended in the 1991 CCMP is to create a CIS data base that incorporates
findings from a future living resources and habitats study. The focus of data collection and
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
V-17
synthesis in such a study could be a bay-wide inventory for monitoring and emergency response,
or a detailed resource inventory of one or more embayments. In either case, the data should be
collected and synthesized at a scale suitable for local use.
The Management Conference Agreement of November 1990 identified two levels at which the
Massachusetts Bays Program will function: "bays-wide and on an embayment level." Theactivities
of the Program on the embayment level will involve working with local government and citizens
groups to "develop and implement strategies for effective embayment management."
Land use management will be a major issue at the embayment level, with the Massachusetts Bays
Program working to provide local managers with die tools to predict and minimize resource
impacts related to land use. Shellfish bed protection and restoration, an issue of environmental,
economic, and political concern, is intimately related to land use and will be one of the priority
local management issues.
Over the next several years, the Massachusetts Bays Program will employ a variety of tools to
facilitateimplementation ofwater quality management strategies at the local level. These tools will
include:
• Technical assistance and other staff support
• Research and monitoring
• Data management
• Funding action/demonstration projects
• Coordinating public outreach activities, especially at the local level
Specifically, the Massachusetts Bays Program will provide staff to offer technical assistance to
communities, to write the CCMP and promote its recommendations at the local level, and to
coordinate local governance committee activities.
Research and monitoring at the embayment level will investigate pollution-related problems in
order to relate the effects of land use to pollution and to further our understanding on an
embayment level of the sources, transport, fates, and effects of pollutants. Ultimately, this informa-
tion could be utilized as the technical basis for bylaws/ordinances changes at the local level. One
ongoing research project that may be of interest to local governments is a socioeconomic study
which will increase current knowledge and understanding of the value and benefits of our coastal
resources. The information generated will provide a baseline against which future improvements
in water quality can be judged
Data managementat the local level may include development of CIS maps of local embayments, as
well as building the Program's data base to include historical and newly-collected data. Ulti-
mately, data management activities should assist decision making at both the state and local levels.
The Massachusetts Bays Program also willrundavariety of demonstration projects to illustrate the
environmental and economic benefits of recommended management strategies by implementing
corrective action to problems with identifiable or specific causes or solutions. One focus of this
effort will be the Mini-Bays projects. The goal of mis program is to find appropriate solutions to
pollution-related problems mat will achieve a measurable improvement in environmental quality.
Such successful management models can then be transferred to other communities within the
Massachusetts Bays area. Three embayments within the Massachusetts Bays study areahave been
sdectedtopartidpatemthisprograniThesembaymentsarePlumIslandSound,ForeRiver,and
Wellfleet Harbor.
Embayment
Management Strategies
-------
V-18
Chapter V. The Massachusetts Bays Program Unfinished Agenda
Also part of its demonstration agenda, the Massachusetts Bays Program will begin to identify and
support the implementation of administrative, legislative, or regulatory changes, enforcement
proceedings, technical solutions (stormwater best management practices, buffer zone experi-
ments, etc.) at the federal, state, and local levels.
In order to be successful, the Massachusetts Bays Program must establish the public consensus
mat will ensure long-term support of the estuary program, specifically in developing and imple-
menting the CCMP. This effort will involve working with local governments and citizens groups to
determine regional/local needs and issues and to design effective strategies for managing
embayments. Two ways to develop such strategies include information dissemination and build-
ing the technical capacity for pollution abatement at the local and regional levels.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
Bibliography-1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Buzzards Bay Project. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Draft Final. May 1991.
Cape Cod Commission. Draft Regional Policy Plan. March 1991.
Capuzzo, Judith McDowell, Anne McElroy, and Gordon Wallace. Fish and Shellfish Contamination
in New England Waters: An Evaluation and Revlewof Available Data on the Distribution of Chemical
Contaminants. 1987.
Castonguay, Wayne. Shellfishing in Ipswich: 1991 -Pollution and Its Effect on Shellfishing. Ipswich
Shellfish Advisory Board. May 1991.
Center for Marine Conservation. Cleaning North America's Beaches — 1990 Beach Cleanup Results.
May 1991-
Center for Marine Conservation. National Beach Cleanup Report. May 1990.
Clendenning, Bruce and Sharon Dean. Coastal Habitats of the Massachusetts Bav Region: Status.
Threats, the Future. Fall 1990.
Coastal Zone Management Office. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program -
Volume!. 1977.
Coastal Zone Management Office. Summary of Section 309 Assessment. 1991.
Coastal Zone Management Office. The Wav to the Sea - Methods for Massachusetts Communities to
Provide Public Access to the Coast. 1985.
Dean, Sharon. Prescription for Saving Our Coastal Waters. New England Aquarium. October 1991.
Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Water Pollution Control. Summary of Water
Quality im May 1990.
Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Wetlands and Waterways. Wetlands White
Paper A Report on the Protection of Wetlands in Massachusetts. February 1991.
Division of Marine Fisheries. Assessment at Mid-Decade: Economic. Environmental, and Manage-
ment Problems Facing Massachusetts' Commercial and Recreational Marine Fisheries. 1985.
Division of Marine Fisheries. Massachusetts Lobster Fishery Statistics. 1989.
Division of Marine Fisheries. Metal Concentrations in Marine Fish and Shellfish from Boston and
Salem Harbors, and Coastal Massachusetts. Progress Report. July 1990.
ExecutiveOfficeofEnvironmentalAffairs. Report of the Living Resources Committee of the Technical
Advisory Group for Marine Issues. June 1991-
Giese, Graham S., Dave G. Aubrey, and P. Zeeb. Passive Retreat of Massachusetts Coastal Upland Due to
Relative Sea Level Rise. 1987.
Greenbaum, Daniel andArlene O'Donnell, Massachusetts Audubon Society. LosingGround: TheCase
for Land Conservation in Massachusetts. October 1987.
Hall-Arber, Madeleine. Water Pollution and Water Quality in Massachusetts Coastal Zone -A Town
Manager's Primer. Draft. May 1991.
Hankin, Alan L, Lucille Constantine, Steve Bliven. Barrier Beaches. Salt Marshes and Tidal Flats.
January 1985.
-------
Bibliography-2
Bibliography
Mickey, J. Michael. "Massachusetts Shellfish Closures, Monitoring Programs, Regulations and the
Concern Over the Bacterial Standard" in Shellfish Closures in Massachusetts: Status and Options.
WHOI-89-35. September 1989.
Hubbard, William,]. Penko and Terry Fleming. Site Evaluation Studies of the Massachusetts Bav
Disposal Site for Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material. US Army Corps of Engineers, New England
Division. 1988.
Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Science. Seafood Safety. National Academy Press. Wash-
ington, DC. 1991
Karp, Caroline, Clayton Penniman, RichardZingarello, Ann Dixon. Sewage Contamination-Patho-
gens. Briefing Paper prepared for the Narragansett Bav Project 1990.
Kipp, K. Health Risk from Chemically Contaminated Seafood. Briefing Paper prepared for the
Narragansett Bay Project October 1990a.
Kipp. K. Seafood Contamination Issues. Briefing Paper prepared for EPA Region I. October 1990b.
Klauber.Avery. "Seafood Quality Assurance: Strategies for the 1990s" in Master- Spring 1991.
Kurlandjonathan. Habitat Mitigation Efforts in the Gulf of Maine: Stemming the Tide of Environ-
mental Degradation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries
Service. January 1991.
Leonard, Dorothy, Marlene Broufman, Kristen Hankness. The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters on
the East Coast of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA. March 1989.
Massachusetts Audubon Society. Special Report: Wetlands Under Seige. Fall 1991.
Massachusetts Bay Marine Studies Consortium. Coastal Zone Governance on Massachusetts Bay's
North Shore. Second Edition. July 1990.
Massachusetts Bay Marine Studies Consortium. Maritime Resources of Massachusetts Bay: Guide to
Identification and Preservation. April 1989.
Massachusetts Bay Marine Studies Consortium. Natural Resources of the Massachusetts Bav Area:
Values. Status, and Threats. April 1989.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Sum-
mary of Water Quality. 1990.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Massachusetts Water Quality Standards.
1990.
Massachusetts Offshore Groundfish Task Force. New England Groundflsh in Crisis-Again. 1990.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. The Sedimentary Environment of Massachusetts Bav: Physi-
cal. Biological and Chemical Characteristics. May 1991.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. The State of Boston Harbor: 1990. November 1990.
Menzie-Cura and Associates. Sources and Loadings of Pollutants to Massachusetts Bavs. Prepared for
the Massachusetts Bays Program. Draft Report April 1991.
Metropolitan District Commission. Task Force Report on Algal Fouling in Broad Sound and Nahant
Bjy.. October 1990.
Nassifjulianne. Massachusetts Marine Biotoxin Monitoring Project. State Laboratory Institute. FDA/
PHS/HHS #223-89-4064. Interim Report. October 1991.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
Bibliography-3
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Pollution Program—Federal
Plan for Ocean Pollution. Research. Development and Monitoring. Fiscal Years 1988-1992.1988.
New England Aquarium. Massachusetts Awash in Plastics: Can We Turn the Tide? November 1990.
Pennock, J.R., Chlorophyll Distributions In the Delaware Estuarv: Regulation bv Light-Limitation.
EsL, Coast and Shelf Sci. 21:711-725.1985.
Ridley, Nancy. Chemical and Microbiological Contamination of Seafood: A State Perspective, Testi-
mony before the Massachusetts Committee on Oversight and Investigations and Committee on Energy
and Commerce. May 1989.
Robinson, Mark. Non-Regulatorv Methods of Habitat Protection. Prepared for the Buzzards Bay
Project. December 1989.
Robinson. Mark. Strategy for aTown Conservation Restriction Program. Preparedfor the Buzzards Bay
Project January 1990.
Robinson, W.E., TJ. Coffey and PA Sullivan. New England Aquarium's Ten-Year Boston Harbor
Monitoring Program. First Report (March 1987-lulv 1989). 1990.
Simon, Anne and Paul Hauce. Contamination of New England's Fish and Shellfish. Coast Alliance.
June 1987.
Smithjan. The Status of Municipal Wastewater Systems with Discharges to Coastal Waters. April 1990.
The Boston Harbor Associates. Cleanup Action Network Report I—Review of the Swlmmabilitv Stan-
dard: Emphasis on Boston Harbor. March 1987.
The Boston Harbor Associates. Cleanup Action Network Report II -AClamor for Safer Shellfish: Empha-
sis on Boston Harbor. June 1987.
Titus,etal. GreenhQuseEffect.SeaLevelRiseandCoastalWetlands. lulv 1988. USEPAdoc.230-05-86-
013.
Urban Harbors Institute. University of Massachusetts. The Resources and Uses of Stellwagen Bank.
1990.
US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. Saugus River and Tributaries Flood Damage
Study. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Environmental Impact Report. December
1989.
USCongress. Office of Technology Assessment Wastes in Marine Environments. QTA-0-^4. April 1987.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Assessment of Oulncv Bav Contamination. Summary Report.
Prepared by Metcalf & Eddy. June 1988.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Evaluation of the Continued Use of the Massachusetts Bay
Dredged Material Disposal Site Draft Environmental Impact Statement. September 1989.
US Environmental Protection Agency. smHynf Flnatahle Debris in U.S. Waters. PreparedbytheBattelle
Memorial Institute. July 1990.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Designation of Dredged Material Disposal Site in Massachusetts Bav. Alternative Site Screening. July
1990.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality Standards Handbook. December 1983.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery Plans for the Peregrine Falcon. June 1987; Roseate Tern.
January 1989; Piping Plover. March 1988.
-------
Bibliography-4
Bibliography
US Food and Drug Administration. FY 1979 Pesticides and Metals in Fish Programs. Compliance
Program Report of Findings. 1982a.
US Food and Drug Administration. FY 1979 Total Diet Studies. Compliance Program Report of Find-
1982b.
USGeneralAccountingOffice. Seafood Safety-Seriousness ofProblems and Efforts toProtectConsum-
25. August 1988.
Valiela, 1. andJ.E. Costa. Eutrophlcation of Buttermilk Bav. a Cape Cod Coastal Embavment: Concen-
trations of Nutrients and Watershed Nutrient Budgets. Prepared for the Buzzards Bay Project 1988.
Wallace, Gordon, R.P. Eganhouse, L Petts, B. Gould Analysis of Contaminants in Marine Resources.
Prepared for Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the US Environmental
Protection Agency. 1988.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
A-1
APPENDIX A. THE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKS
MASSACHUSETTS BAYS
The wise management and utilization of the resources in Massachusetts Bays come under the
purview of a variety of legislative mandates and regulatory agencies at the federal, state, regional,
and local levels. In addition, there are a number of nonregulatory programs carried out by
governmental entities, including regional planning agendes, that play a role in restoring and
protecting Massachusetts Bays. This appendix provides both an overview of the existing govern-
mental framework and a context for many of the recommendations described in the CCMP Action
Plan.
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) operates under several important pieces of
federal legislation of concern in Massachusetts Bays. These include: the Clean Water Act; the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and liability Act; and the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act
The Clean Water Act of 1977 regulates "discharges" from all point sources into navigable waters
of the United States. Its coverage generally extends to pipeline discharges and the disposal of
dredged material in estuaries. Outfalls from land-based facilities such as sewage treatment plants
and industrial plants also are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act
Under the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, EPA is responsible for
• Coordinating the National Estuary Program, of which Massachusetts Bays is one of 17
"estuaries of national significance." EPA Region I has direct responsibility for the
administration of the Massachusetts Bays Program.
• Regulating industrial discharges and publicly owned sewage treatment facilities
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, which governs point
source pollution.
• Setting water quality standards for all significant bodies of surface waters.
• Controlling nonpoint source pollution, such as agricultural and stormwater runoff.
• Protecting wetlands and other waters by co-administrating, with the US Army Corps of
Engineers, a permitting program that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill mate-
rial into waters of the United States.
• Administering the Construction Grants Program and the State Revolving Loan Funds.
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and
the amendment SARA, better known as Superfund, EPA is to provide emergency response and
cleanup capabilities for chemical spills and releases from hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 requires that an Environment Impact Statement
(0S) be prepared for all proposed legislation and all major federal activities mat could signifi-
cantly affect me quality of the human environment
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provides engineering services and construction support for a
wide variety of military and civilian projects. The Corps' primary civil role is to develop and
manage the country's waterways and wetlands. Its projects include reducing flood damage,
Federal Agencies
-------
A-2
Appendix A. The Management Framework in Massachusetts Bays
improving harbors and navigation channels, protecting stream banks and shorelines, and other
activities aimed at preserving and safeguarding the environment
The Corps issues permits (under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) for discharging of dredged
materials into waters or placing dredged (or fill) material in waters or wetlands. Hence, con-
structing piers, docks, ramps, or any dredging activities in navigable waters requires 404 permits.
As part of its navigational responsibilities, the Corps develops, maintains, and improves harbors
and waterways to meet commercial and recreational needs. Operating and maintaining the 17.5-
mile-longCape Cod Canal is underthejurisdictionoftheCorps. TheCorpsof Engineers also helps
to protect and restore shores and beaches from erosion damage.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is part of the Department of
Commerce. As die nation's lead marine science agency, NOAA's estuarine and coastal program
responsibilities involve research, data collection and assessment, and management. As a part of
NOAA, the National Marine Fisheries Service seeks to" achieve a continued optimum utilization of
living resources for the benefit of the nation."
NOAA's research programs are directed at improving current knowledge of the physical pro-
cesses of estuaries, the natural and human-induced factors affecting the productivity and health of
fishery resources, and the effects of habitat loss and of chemicals and pathogens on ediblefish and
shellfish.
NOAA collects, archives, and synthesizes a variety of oceanographic, climatic, fisheries, and
pollution data. Its Status and Trends Monitoring Program measures the effects of environmental
degradation by toxic chemical in sediments, fish, and shellfish. Under this program, NOAA
conducts sampling in Massachusetts Bays.
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, administered by NOAA, provides funds, policy guid-
ance, and technical assistance to coastal states to help them establish and maintain coastal zone
management programs. Such programs are designed to promote the wise use and protection of
coastal land and water resources. The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program was the
first state effort on the East Coast and the fourth in the nation to receive federal approval in 1978.
As required by the Coastal Zone Management Act, the state program reviews all federally con-
ducted or supported activities that directly affect the coastal zone. The purpose of the review is to
ensure that these activities are in compliance with approved state environmental programs. This
federal consistency review process is a powerful implementation tool to protect and manage the
coastal zone in Massachusetts Bays. The Massachusetts Bays Program is administered by the
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management in conjunction with EPA Region I.
USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) is part of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). SCS
supports local communities in the areas of agricultural waste management and stormwater runoff
management, which are two nonpoint pollution sources in Massachusetts Bays. In the past, SCS
focused primarily on agricultural practices. Recently, SCS has redirected its efforts to provide
technical assistance to communities experiencing impacts from development
In addition, USDA is in the process of implementing a new program, the hydrographic unit
initiative, in response to Presidential concern for the declining quality of the nation's ground and
surface water. Under this initiative, SCS has begun a three-year program to provide education and
technical assistance to reduce nonpoint source pollution from agricultural operations and
stormwater.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
A-3
US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The US Fish and Wildlife Sendee has the principal federal responsibility for conserving the nation's
fish and wildlife, including their related habitats. The Service operates under a variety of federal
conservation statutes in implementing this mission and administers the National Wildlife Refuge
System, a national system of fish hatcheries and research centers, and operates several hundred
field offices involved in all aspects of wetlands protection, fish and wildlife surveys, contaminants
cleanup, and endangered species protection.
Although the Service has no direct regulatory control concerning discharges of pollutants into
waters of the United States or discharge of dredged or fill materials, the agency plays a direct
advisory role in these regulatory practices. Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the
Service must assess the impacts on fish and wildlife of all water and water-related development
projects that are funded by the federal government or constructed under a federal permit or
license. The Service provides information to federal construction or regulatory agencies and to
permit applicants. Such inovivement includes analyzing and reporting on construction proposals
and applications for dredge and fill permits issued by the COE, ocean dumping permits issued by
the EPA, bridgeand causeway permits issued oy me CoastGuard, license applications submitted to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and any proposed federal construction affecting fish
and wildlife resources.
Actions authorized, funded, or carried out by federal agencies require the Service's review under
the Endangered Species Act All such federal projects are to ensure that their activities do not
jeopardize the existence of an endangered species or result in the destruction or modification of
their critical habitat
The Service is also a coastal landowner via its acquisition of significant migratory bird habitat
(under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act), habitat for endangered species (under the Endan-
geredSpecies Act), and recreation and wilderness areas (under the LandandWater Conservation
Fund Act). All acquisitions become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The Fish and Wildlife Service also exercises other conservation activities pursuant to the Oil Pol-
lution Act; the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation and Liability Act; the Coastal
Barrier Resources Act; and the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Conservation and Restoration Act
US COAST GUARD
The United States Coast Guard enforces provisions of the Clean Water Act regarding discharges of
oil, hazardous substances, and sanitary wastes from boats and ships. The Coast Guard also
establishes regulations regarding performance standards for marine sanitation devices, in coop-
eration with EPA. The CoastGuard regulates all public and private aids to navigation usedin coastal
waters.
US FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
The US Food and Drug Administration is responsible for the safety of the nation's foods, including
seafood The FDA has authority to prescribe the level of contaminant that will render a food
adulterated by establishing an action level (an informal judgment about the level of a food
contaminant to which consumers may be safely exposed) or a tolerance (a regulation having the
force of law).
The FDA also develops methods for detecting, quantifying, and identifying contaminants in shell-
fish and estuarine waters. The FDA supports the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP), a
cooperative state/federal/industry program for the sanitary control of the shellfish industry. As
part of the NSSP, FDA provides technical assistance to states, such as Massachusetts, in studying
specific pollution problems, by providing data to establish closure levels for shellfish harvesting,
-------
A-4
State Agencies
Appendix A. The Management Framework in Massachusetts Bays
by conducting applied research in various contaminants to assist in developing standards and
criteria, and by evaluating the effectiveness of state shellfish sanitary control programs.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) is a cabinet-level secretariat whose princi-
pal authority is to implement and oversee state policies that preserve, protect, and regulatenatural
resources and the environmental integrity of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Of the depart-
ments and units within EOEA, the following are most involved with management issues for Massa-
chusetts Bays:
• Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office (CZM)
• Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Unit (MEPA)
• Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
• Department of Environmental Management (DEM)
•Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement (DFWELE)
The responsibilities and activities of these agencies are described below.
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office (CZM) develops state policy to protect
resources and manage development in the coastal zone. As officially defined, the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone extends landward to lOOfeetbeyondspecifiedmajorroads, rail lines or other visible
rights-of-way and seaward to the edge of the territorial sea and includes all of Cape Cod, Martha's
Vineyard, Nantucket and Gosnold.
Developed under the authority of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, the Massa-
chusetts Coastal Zone Management Plan was approved in 1978 and established twenty-seven
policies to protect and manage the Commonwealth's coastal zone and its valuable resources.
CZM is a planning and policy agency. To carry out its responsibilities, the agency relies upon
existing state regulatory authority and the federal consistency review process. CZM administers a
number of local financial assistance grant programs and provides technical assistance to local
communities. The primary areas of CZM concern include coastal hazards, marine environmental
protection, energy, waterfront development and harbor planning, and recreation. CZM also
supports scientific studies, mapping projects, and other activities that add to the knowledge of
coastal resources and enhance planning and decision-making in Massachusetts. The Coastal
Resources Advisory Board (CRAB) and various Citizens Advisory Committees add an essential
citizen perspective to CZM's work.
Through the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, CZM is empowered to review all federal
activities in Massachusetts to ensure they are consistent with state coastal policy. Any large coastal
project requiringafederalUcense or permit, implemented by a federal agency, or carried out with
federal funds must undergo this CZM consistency review.
The Coastal Facilities Improvement Program is administered by CZM to assist eligible coastal
communities in the construction, reconstruction, repair, or maintenance of coastal facilities and
the preparation of comprehensive harbor plans.
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Unit
The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) directs state agencies, when permitting and
licensing proposed development, to review, evaluate, and determine the impact on the natural
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
A-5
environment of these works, projects, or activities and to use all practicable measures to mitigate
their impacts and minimize damage to the environment Regulations under Tide 301 of the Code
of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) Chapter 11.00 define which projects are subject to MEPA
review. Projects below thresholds are exempt, although larger projects or projects in sensitive
areas are likely to trigger MEPA review.
Department of Environmental Protection
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) administers most of the Commonwealth's
environmental regulatory programs. These programs address a variety of concerns including air
and water quality, solid and hazardous waste disposal, and development of wetlands and water-
ways. The following discussion describes the divisions most closely related to the CCMP.
Division of Wetlands and Waterways.
The Division of Wetlands and Waterways administers three programs—the Coastal Wetlands
Restoration Program (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 130, Section 105), Wetlands Protec-
tion Program (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40), and die Waterways Act
(Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 91).
Wetlands Protection—Conservation commissions are the first line of defense in wetlands pro-
tection under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act They have primary authority to review
projects proposed in or near wetlands, and issue Orders of Condition (which are written state-
ments that control the impact of activities in wedands by stating the conditions under which the
activities must take place). Regulations and policies to guide the conditioning process are
developed by the Division of Wedands and Waterways. The division reviews local conservation
commission decisions which have been appealed. All decisions by DEP may be appealed to an
adjudicatory hearing.
Wetlands Restriction—Activities within especially large or otherwise significant wedand areas
throughout Massachusetts are controlled by the Inland and Coastal Wedands Restriction Acts.
Restrictions are placed on the deeds of properties within significant wedands, which gives diese
resource areas an extra measure of protection. About two thirds of the state's coastal wedands
have been mapped and restricted, and the Division is now working to complete the process
throughout the state.
Chapter91 (Waterways) Licensing—Massachusetts General Law Chapter 91 requires that DEP
review and license activity in state waterways. Activities which require Chapter 91 licenses include
die placement of piers, wharves, and other structures or fill; changes in use of existing structures
and fill; and dredging. Before a Chapter 91 license is issued, Wetlands and Waterways must
determine mat the proposed project will not interfere with navigation or the operation of public
facilities, is structurally sound, promotes public access and will not diminish public rights or the
rights of adjacent shoreline property owners, and finally, will not adversely impact environ-
mental resources such as wedands, fish runs, shellfish beds, and fish spawning and nursery areas.
Division of Water Pollution Control
The Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) is die lead unit for improved water quality and
water pollution prevention in accordance with the provision of the Massachusetts Clean Water Act.
The Division issues Water Quality Certificates—permits that regulate pollution discharges and the
effects of dredgingprojects on water quality. TheDivision also issues National PollutantDischarge
Elimination System Permits (NPDES) for surface water discharges and separate permits for
groundwater discharges. NPDES permits are joindy issued by DEP and EPA, who develop dis-
charge limits to ensure compliance with water quality standards. Groundwater permits are
required for discharges greater than 15,000 gallons of sewage and any industrial waste. In
addition, the DWPC administers die Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Control Program.
-------
A-6
Appendix A. The Management Framework in Massachusetts Bays
Bureau of Municipal Facility Grants and Loans
The Bureau of Municipal Facility Grants and Loans administers the state/federal construction
grants program which has evolved from a previous federal and state combined grant program that
once provided state grants for planning, and federal and state grants for the construction of
municipal sewage treatment plants. This program is now principally a loan program under a state
revolving fund. A construction grants program is also available. This program is directed at
wastewater projects that arenotfundedbythefederalprogramorhavelowerpriorityinthefederal
system.
Division of Hazardous Waste
The Division of Hazardous Waste regulates transportation, storage, and disposal of waste materi-
als within the Commonwealth, and monitors the environmental impact of these materials with
regard to public health and safety. The Division licenses haulers of hazardous waste, uses
computers to track waste disposal, and penalizes offenders of state and federal hazardous waste
regulations. The Division also works to dean up existing hazardous waste sites, and assists
communities in cleaning up oil and chemical spills.
Division of Solid Waste Management
The Division of Solid Waste Management regulates solid waste generated by mundpalities, indus-
try, commercial sources, and consumers. The Division assesses waste sites and waste facilities,
and enforces all provisions of the Massachusetts Solid Waste Act The Division also develops and
manages programs for recycling, composting, and other technologies for waste minimization and
source reduction.
Department of Environmental Management
TheDepartmentof Environmental Management (DEM) is responsibleforpreservingandprotect-
ing the natural resources of the Commonwealth and for managing state lands and waters. The
work of the following divisions are most closely related to the CCMP.
Division of Water Resources
The Division of Water Resources has three priorities: to collect, refine, and update basic water
resources data for dissemination to state, federal, and local agencies and the general public; to
prevent loss oflife and damage to property through flood control; and to facilitate the development
of a comprehensive water resources management plan for Massachusetts.
The Division acts as state coordinator for the National Flood Insurance Program administered by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
The State's Ocean Sanctuaries Program is located in mis Division. The Ocean Sanctuaries Act
(Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 132A, Section 13-16 and 18) established sanctuary areas
mat must receive a special level of protection from "...any exploitation, development, or activity
that would seriously alter., .endanger the ecology or the appearance of the ocean, the seabed, or
subsoil.
Division of Waterways
The Division of Waterways improves, develops, maintains, and protects the Commonwealth's
inland and coastal waterways. Specific programs include the Rivers and Harbors Program, which
identifies the need for renovations and improvement to the state's inland and coastal waterways;
waterways projects, which include dredging to maintain navigable channels, beach nourishment,
and the construction and rehabilitation of piers and other coastal facilities; the State Piers in
Gloucester, New Bedford, and Fall River, which are administered by the Division and leased to
private operators and managers; recreational facilities projects, including capital improvements
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
A-7
to existing state recreational facilities (beaches, etc) and construction of new ones; and public
access projects, including the design and construction of marinas, boat ramps, and Public Access
Board projects funded by the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforce-
ment, but administered by the Division of Waterways as the contracting agent
Office of Technical Assistance
The Office of Technical Assistance (formerly Safe Waste Management) is responsible for planning
andfacilitating thesafeandefficientmanagementof hazardouswastein Massachusetts. TheOffice
of Technical Assistance sponsors the Household Hazardous Waste Program, which funds commu-
nity collections of household hazardous waste, and works to increase public awareness of the
larger problem of hazardous waste disposal statewide. They have also conducted pilot projects on
source reduction in industrial discharges. This program employed audit teams—a free multi-
media, nonregulatory service provided to businesses with industrial discharges.
Department of fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement
The Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement (DFWELE) is respon-
sible for the management and conservation of the Commonwealth's fresh and saltwater fisheries
and its wildlife, including rare and endangered species. The Department enforces the state's
wildlife laws and regulations, and conducts research on wildlife and the environmental factors
that influence them. The Department also has jurisdiction over registration and operation of
motorboats and off-road vehicles, and operates 140 public access sites statewide.
Division of Marine Fisheries
The Division of Marine Fisheries protects and enhances the state's living marine resources,
especially commercially and recreationally caught shellfish, lobster, and finfish. As part of its
management responsibilities, the Division issues permits forme taking, harvesting, and landing of
fish for commercial purposes as well as permits for the recreational harvest of lobsters. A unique
feature of the Massachusetts fisheries laws provides local control of shellfish, eels, sea worms, and
alewives.
The Division administers the Shellfish Sanitation Program and determines the classification of
shellfish areas within the state. It also works to promote and develop Massachusetts' commercial
and recreational fisheries and to implement strategies that will maintain the integrity and future
availability of the Commonwealth's valuable marine resources.
Department of Public Health
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which is housed within the Executive Office of
Human Services, is the state agency responsible for disease prevention. This administrative
mandate encompasses a broad spectrum of public health issues relating to environmental health,
communicable disease control, community health, health care quality, and health education. The
divisions within the Department whose activities most closely relate to the goals and objectives of
the CCMP are highlighted below.
Division of Communicable Disease Control
The Division of Communicable Disease Control conducts epidemiological investigations of
foodbome illnesses to determine their source, and implements disease prevention strategies to
minimize further transmission of disease.
Division of Food and Drugs
The Division of Food and Drugs is die regulatory branch of the Department The Division enforces
state and federal regulations regarding the wholesomeness of food products, performs inspec-
tions of food establishments for compliance with hygienic standards, and conducts field investiga-
tions of foodborne illnesses.
-------
A-8
Regional Planning
Agencies
Local Agencies
Appendix A. The Management Framework in Massachusetts Bays
State Laboratory Institute
The State Laboratory Institute analyzes fish, shellfish, and biological fluids for bacterial contami-
nation and marine biotoxins. The laboratory data are useful for determining the cause of an acute
foodbome illness and for ensuring compliance with existing regulatory limits. In the past, the
laboratory also tested food, environmental, and biological samples for a variety of chemical
contaminants of chronic health concern.
Division of Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology
The Division of Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology evaluates the risk of exposure to
chemical contaminants by performing quantitative risk assessments, health assessments, and
epidemidogjcal studies. The Division may recommend a variety of exposure reduction strategies
including regulatory action and public health advisories.
Regional planning in Massachusetts is carried out by 13 active regional agencies (RPAs) formed
under Chapter 40B of Massachusetts General Laws. The RPAs represent the participating cities
and towns in each region and employ professional staff that carry out planning activities. The RPAs
compile data, conduct research, and prepare comprehensive plans for the area's physical, social,
and economic development
One of the responsibilities of the RPAs is to participate with the Executive Office of Communities
and Development in the review of federal funding applications and federal development propos-
als. This review is the so-called "A-95" review and gets its name from the U.S. Oflice of Manage-
ment and Budget circular A-95 which was established in 1969 to provide for the review of almost
1,000 federal programs. In 1982 this was modified to allow states and RPAs to develop their own
process and reduce the number of programs to be reviewed to approximately 200. This process
is known as me Intergovernmental Review Process.
Four RPAs represent the 48 communities of the Massachusetts Bays area. These are Merrimack
Valley Planning Commission (MVPC), Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), Old Colony
Planning Council, and Cape Cod Commission (CCC). Planning staff from each of these RPAs
provide a broad range of technical assistance to their respective communities and produce
regional plans in the areas of environmental protection, housing, and transportation.
A significant new focus on regional planning may be on the horizon for Massachusetts. Beginning
in 1986, the then Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission (CCPEDC), prede-
cessor to the Cape Cod Commission, embarked on an innovative approach to planning for the
future of Cape Cod. Through a process of consensus-building, citizens of the Cape identified a
need to have more effective land use planning, and have greater authority to regulate land use,
control urbanization, and better manage shared resources. The result was a proposal to create a
Cape Cod Commission with certain regulatory and regional powers. In November 1988,76% of
Cape Cod voters supported a non-binding referendum to establish the Cape Cod Commission. In
January 1990, state legislation was passed to create the Cape Cod Commission. This legislation
was ratified by the voters of Cape Cod in a special countywide election on March 27,1990.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a long-standing tradition of local self-determination or
home rule. But it was not until 1966, with the adoption of the Home Rule Amendment to the state's
constitution, that this philosophy changed the thinking and actions of legislation and coun deci-
sions in Massachusetts. Generally, municipalities are authorized to exercise through the "adop-
tion, amendment, or repeal of local ordinances or by-laws...any power or function...not denied"
by the State. This is one of the strongest declarations in this country of the right to local control.
The legislature, while it has the authority, has rarely used its power to preempt local initiative.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
A-9
Home rule authority is highly valued and strongly defended in Massachusetts communities. Land
use controls, in particular, are viewed as a local prerogative. In the Massachusetts Bays region,
attention to land use issues is of vital importance to environmental quality and conservation of
resources. However, towns and cities must follow ground rules for local governments as stipu-
lated in state law. Legal decisions that strike down local controls are most likely to be based on
procedural problems than on the substance of what the community is attempting to accomplish.
BOARDS OF HEALTH
Towns elect a Board of Health (most have three members), or the selectmen can act in this
capacity. A Board of Health has far-reaching authority in exercising its responsibility to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the community. Their broad regulatory authority has thrust them into
the forefront of environmental protection on the local level. Boards of health can adopt regula-.
tionsforany activity that might endanger public health or contaminate surface or groundwater. In
many communities, the chief duties of boards of health have become the regulation of landfills and
approval of septic system installations. Under Tide 5 (State Sanitary Code), health boards issue
permits for any septic system receiving up to 15,000 gallons per day (e.g., a large condominium
project); larger systems must be approved by DEP. In granting or denying a permit, the Board
relies primarily on two tests: a percolation test to see if the soil will pass liquid through at a
reasonable rate and a deep-hole test to determine the level of groundwater.
Boards of health have a major role in subdivision review. They have special authority over
drainage and waste disposal in proposed subdivisions. Every definitive subdivision plan must be
submitted to the board for its recommendations to the planning board. If the board of health
rejects a plan, providing specific reasons why areas are not suited for building, the planning board
cannot override the decision. However, there must be evidence that a serious pollution problem
is likely to occur if the development goes forward.
CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS
The Conservation Commission Act of 1957 enabled local towns to establish a special commission
to protect natural resources, serve as an advisor in municipal decision-making, accept gifts of
money and land, and regulate local wetland use. When the DEP developed its regulations for the
Wedands Protection Act in 1978 and 1983, most municipalities found it necessary to establish a
Conservation Commission to administer new and relatively stringent state wetland regulations.
Commissions consist of three to seven members appointed by the selectmen.
Conservation Commissions determineifaproposedproject will alter wedand resources and what
conditions are required to protect the statutory wedand interests of water supplies, prevention of
storm drainage, prevention of pollution, and protection of fisheries and wildlife habitat Commis-
sions have the authority to order modifications of a proposed project if they determine that it will
damage or destroy a wetland resource. Conservation Commissions have authority to regulate
within 100 feet of inland and coastal wedand and areas within 100 feet of inland and coastal
wedands within the 100-year floodplain, and within land under water bodies and waterways.
Home rule allows die municipalities to expand state regulations by adopting local wetland bylaws.
These bylaws may give conservation commissions the authority to adopt regulations, tighten
permit requirements, and add wedand values to be protected. Conservation commissions also
have the authority to accept and hold permanent or temporary conservation restrictions. These
restrictions authorize and enable the Commission to prevent landowners from using their land in
.away that damages natural resources. Conservation commissions can also acquire conservation
lands that are valuable forhabitatprotection.aquiferprotection, open space, orany environmen-
tal value.
-------
A-10
Appendix A. The Management Framework in Massachusetts Bays
HARBORMASTERS
Harbor masters have broad powers to regulate uses and activities of waterways. The harbor
master is typically appointed by the selectmen to oversee harbor activities and enforce Massachu-
setts General Laws Chapter 90B Section 15B. These regulations authorize towns, through their
harbor masters, to regulate vessels in municipal waterways. The regulations address the safe
operation of boats, boat speed limits, channel obstructions, boat seaworthiness, fishing, swim-
ming, diving, and refueling. Some municipalities have harbor regulations that limit the number of
moorings to avoid crowding and boat pollution in certain areas. Harbor regulations may also
prohibit the discharge of trash, oil, and untreated sewage into town waters.
PLANNING BOARDS
Planning Boards are authorized by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 41 (containing the
municipal planning and subdivision control acts) to plan for the "resources, possibilities, and
needs" of their communities, including the protection of natural resources. Planning Boards
contain from five to nine members. Towns have the option of deciding by town meeting vote
whether the Board shall be appointed by the selectmen or elected by the voters.
Planning Boards are generally responsible for community development through the adoption and
implementation of zoning and subdivision ordinances or bylaws. Zoning is one of the basic
powers conferred on local government under home rule. Zoning in Massachusetts is employed to
guide the physical development of a community by dividing the municipality into zones and
specifying the permissible land use, for example, residential, commercial, industrial.
Subdivision regulations govern the process of dividing a parcel of land into two or more lots.
Under these regulations, Planning Boards generally require each developer to submit a subdivi-
sion plan for approval prior to the start of any construction. Approval or nonapproval is based on
compliance of the proposed development with standards as provided in the local subdivision
regulations.
ZONING BOARDS OF APPEALS
Boards of Appeals were established by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A to authorize
zoning variances to alleviate individual hardship from subdivision control and zoning by-laws or
ordinances. In addition, decisions may also be appealed to the Superior Court. The mayor
(subject to confirmation of the city council) or Board of Selectmen appoint the three or five-
member Zoning Board of Appeals. Under the law, no variances can be granted unless three
circumstances existing on a property create a hardship for the owner and entitle that owner to a
variance: soil conditions, shape of lot, and topography. The other major duty assigned to boards
of appeals is to hear and decide applications for special permits. Often this involves permits in
special zoning areas, such as an overiayprotectiondistrict Theboardsofappealsalsoare empow-
ered to issue comprehensive permits under the affordable housing provisions of Chapter 40B.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
APPENDIX B. EOEA LONG-RANGE HABITAT RESEARCH
AND MONITORING AGENDA
B-1
1. Re-examine die marine living resources of some of the estuaries that were sur-
veyed by die Division of Marine Fisheries in die 1960's and early 1970's as part of
their estuarine studies program.
Accelerated growth and development in the coastal zone over the past 20 years have caused
concern over potential long-term effects of habitat alteration and pollution on estuarine re-
sources. In order to learn how these alterations have affected the resources within the estuaries,
and to better understand the structure and function of estuarine ecosystems, representative
estuaries should be intensively surveyed and re-assessed. The estuaries surveyed 20 years ago by
MDMF can provide a basis for comparison with current conditions.
The goals of the estuarine studies would be to:
• Evaluate the current health, historical changes, and nursery value of salt marshes and
eelgrass beds, so that these areas can be better managed and, if necessary, restored.
• Determine the status of and threats to the shellfish resources within each estuary so
that remedial actions can be proposed and implemented.
• Compare the present species composition, abundance, and diversity of inshore fish
and invertebrates with that found in the past.
The information from these studies will be essential to formulating future management decisions,
regulations, and restoration plans. The proposed studies will focus on fewer estuaries but be
broader in scope than the earlier MDMF studies, in which 17 estuaries were surveyed. As in the
earlier studies, the proposed surveys should include comprehensive biological, chemical, and
physical information. The new studies should include an expanded survey of the estuary as a
habitat that supports the propagation of commercially-important resources, but should also
include a comprehensive assessment of the structure and health of the ecosystem, pinpoint
specific threats to the living resources, and evaluate how the estuary has changed since the past
MDMF survey.
Three estuaries that were examined by MDMF previously should be re-examined hi this evalua-
tion. The three would be chosen to represent an urban harbor, a moderately impacted area, and
an area that was relatively pristine when the original MDMF survey was done. Although suggestions
are made for each cateogry, the final selection of estuaries to be surveyed might be based to some
extent on available funding.
• Urban Harbor
Dorchester Bay, Quincy Bay, or Hingham Bay
Beverly/Salem
Lynn/Saugus
• Moderately Impacted Harbor
Gloucester/Annisquam
Ptymouth/Kingston/Duxbury
Marshfield/North River
• Relatively Undeveloped Harbor
WellfleetBay
Coastal Habitats
-------
B-2
Appendix B. EOEA Long-Range Habitat Research & Monitoring Agenda
2. Study die use of indices of appropriate buffer distances that will protect water
quality and wildlife habitat functions of coastal wetlands.
The present 100-foot buffer distance in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Regulations may
be inadequate for protecting these wetland functions. Buffer distances should be designed using
site-specific information.
3. Evaluate die cumulative impacts of projects adjacent to coastal wetlands.
Coastal vegetated habitats can be degraded as easily by the cumulative effects of many small
projects (houses, piers, etc) as by one large project Such small projects often fall through the
regulatory net, because they are too small individually to have a significant effect on coastal
habitats. The impact of gradual, but cumulative, encroachment on coastal habitats should be
reviewed and, if necessary, controlled. Creative zoning approaches, such as the nutrient loading
bylaws of Falmouth, should be employed to deal with cumulative impacts.
4. Evaluate die potential for restoring salt marshes and eelgrass beds that have been
degraded by past human activity.
As part of this evaluation, the Technical Advisory Group suggests examining the potential of
adapting Open Marsh Water Management mosquito control procedures to restore degraded salt
marshes. Mitigation for current development should be avoided unless research demonstrates
that artificial wetlands adequately replace all the functions of natural ones.
Shellfish
1. Identify clam flats widiin impacted estuaries for cleanup.
Clam fiats would be prioritized statewide based on the extent and type of pollutants, the value of the
resource, and the cost of restoration. Much of the data needed for this prioritization is currently
being collected by MDMF. Determining the sources of bacterial and, when relevant, ancillary
pollutants (PCBs, hydrocarbons, metals, etc) may be required in certain locales. Cost-benefit
analysis is currently the major data gap that must be filled.
2. Establish astatewide toxics monitoring program using die sentinel sessile bivalve,
Mytilus edulis, in representative estuaries.
This program should be compatible with NOAA's National Status and Trends Program and be
integrated with the upcoming Gulf of Maine Monitoring Program. It will be valuable for detecting
long-term trends in water quality throughout the Commonwealth. This program should be
initiated as pah of the estuarine studies recommended above.
Finfisheries
1. Assess die impact of loss of estuarine nursery habitats as they relate to coastal
fishery resources.
2. Evaluate die relative impact of fishing, contaminants, and estuarine habitat degra-
dation on marine fisheries.
This complex issue ultimately needs to draw on several data sources, such as the semi-annual
MDMF stock assessment and site-specific estuarine surveys described previously. Understanding
the relative impact of each will contribute to the development of appropriate management strate-
gies for an inshore fisheries management plan, as recommended by the Marine Resources
Coordinating Committee.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
C-1
APPENDIX C. ACRONYMS
A
ACEC
AGP
ASP
C
CAC
CA/T
CCC
Area of Critical Environmental Concern
Area Contingency Plan
Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning
Citizens Advisory Committee of the MBP
Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project
Cape Cod Commission....
CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
CDC Centers for Disease Control
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
cfs cubic feet per second
Army Corps of Engineers
Combined Sewer Overflow
Coastal Zone Management Office
COE
CSO
CZM
D
DEM
DEP
Department of Environmental Management
Department of Environmental Protection
DFWELE Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement
DMF Division of Marine Fisheries
DPA Designated Port Area
DPH Department of Public Health
DSP Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning
DWPC Division of Water Pollution Control
E
EIR Environmental Impact Report
E3S Environmental Impact Statement
Executive Office of Environmental Aflairs
Environmental Protection Agency
Food and Drug Administration
EOEA
EPA
F
FDA
M
MAPC Metropolitan Area Planning Council
MassGIS Massachusetts Geographic Information System
MBDS Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
MBP Massachusetts Bays Program
-------
C-2
Appendix C. Acronyms
MDC
MEPA
MESA
mgd
MSD
MVPC
MWRA
N
NAS
NETSU
NMFS
NOAA
NPDES
NSSP
NWR
0
OCPC
ODES
ODMDS
OWOW
P
PAC
PAH
PCB
PSP
R
RDOA
RPA
S
SCS
SESD
T
TAG
U
USFWS
USGS
w
WPA
Metropolitan District Commission
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
Massachusetts Endangered Species Act
million gallons per day
Marine Sanitation Device
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
National Academy of Sciences
Northeast Technical Services Unit
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Shellfish Sanitation Program
National Wildlife Refuge
Old Colony Planning Council
Ocean Data Evaluation System
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Waterways (EPA)
Port Area Committee
Poh/cyclic Aromated Hydrocarbons
Poh/chlorinated Biphenyls
Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
Request for Determination of Applicability
Regional Planning Agency
Soil Conservation Service
South Essex Sewage District
Technical Advisory Committee of the MBP
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Geological Survey
Wetlands Protection Act
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
D-1
APPENDIX D. GLOSSARY
Action Plan. A compilation of agreed-upon goals and objectives and a list of specific strategies
or actions indicating who, what, where, and when the objectives will be achieved.
Aerobic Living, active, or occurring only in the presence of oxygen.
Algae. Aquatic, non-flowering plants that lack roots and use light energy to convert carbon
dioxide and inorganic nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus into organic matter by photo-
synthesis. Common algae include dinoflagellates, diatoms, seaweeds, and kelp.
Algal Bloom. Acondition resulting from excessive nutrientlevelsorotherphysicalandchemical
conditions that enable algae to reproduce rapidly.
Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning (ASP). An illness associated with the consumption of shellfish
contaminated with domoic acid (an amino acid produced by a diatom). Symptoms of ASP usually
develop within 24 hours of eating contaminated shellfish. The acute illness is characterized by
gastrointestinal symptoms of vomiting, abdominal cramp, and diarrhea, within 48 hours, neuro-
logical symptoms such as confusion, disorientation, or memory loss may develop. There may be
chronic effects associates with ASP which include permanent loss of short-term memory and
central nervous system dysfunction.
Anadromous Fish. A species, such as salmon, alewives, or river herring, that is bom in fresh
water, spends a large part of its life in the sea, and returns to freshwater rivers and streams to
reproduce.
Anaerobic. A process occurring in the absence of free oxygen.
Anoxic. A condition in which oxygen is absent
Antidegradation provision. Standards in the Clean Water Act which regulate activities in order
to maintain and protect existing water uses in designated areas.
Aquaculture. The controlled cultivation and harvest of aquatic plants or animals (e.g., edible
marine algae, dams, oysters, and salmon).
Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). An area encompassing land and water
resources of regional, statewide, or national importance, designated by the Secretary of the
ExecutiveOfficeof Environmental Affairs (inaccordancewith 301CMR112:6.40-6.55), to receive
additional protection and management
Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Compounds that contain at least one 6-carbon ring; often important
components of oils.
Attenuation. The process by which a compound is reduced in concentration over time or
distance through absorption, degradation, or transformation.
Barrier Beach. A narrow, low-lying strip of land generally consisting of coastal beaches and
coastal dunes extending roughly parallel to the trend of the coast It is separated from the
mainland by a narrow body of fresh, brackish, or saline water or by a marsh system.
Beneficial Uses. Uses designated in Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards — for
public water supply, for protection and propagation offish and other wildlife, and for primary and
secondary contact recreation—and any other uses that do not impair these designated uses.
CMR=Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulation
-------
D-2
Appendix D. Glossary
Best Management Practice (BMP). A method for preventing or reducing the pollution result-
ing from an activity. The term originated from rules and regulations in Section 208 of the Clean
Water Act. Specific BMPs are defined for each pollution source.
Bioaccufflulation. The process by which a contaminant accumulates in the tissues of an
individual organism. For example, certain chemicals in food eaten by a fish tend to accumulate in
its liver and other tissues.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOO). The quantity of oxygen-demanding materials present
in a sample as measured by a specific test Amajor objective of conventional wastewater treatment
is to reduce the biochemical oxygen demand so that the oxygen content of the water body will not
be significantly reduced. Although BOD is notaspetific compound, itis defined as aconventional
pollutant under the federal Clean Water Act
Board of Health. A municipal, elected or appointed, authority responsible for administering
bylaws addressing health, safety, and welfare issues covered in the State Environmental Code,
including Title 5.
Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW). As defined in 310 CMR 10.55, the Wetlands Protec-
tion Act Regulation, freshwater wetlands that border on creeks, rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes.
The types of freshwater wetlands are wet meadows, marshes, swamps, and bogs. They are areas
where the topography is low and flat, and where the soils are saturated at least part of the year.
Buildout Analysis. A parcd-by-parcel analysis to estimate the total number of existing and
developable units, based on current zoning and other land-use regulations. Such an analysis is
essential for managing and limiting impacts of growth.
Carcinogen. A substance that causes cancer.
Carrying Capacity. The limit of a natural or man-made system to absorb perturbations, inputs,
or population growth.
Cesspool A covered pit with a perforated lining in the bottom into which raw sewage is
discharged: the liquid portion of the sewage is disposed of by seeping or leaching into the
surrounding porous soil; the solids, or sludge, are retained in the pit to undergo partial decompo-
sition before occasional or intermittent removal. Cesspools are no longer permitted for waste
disposal.
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CHCs). AUaromaticandnonaromatichydrocarbons containing
chlorine atoms. Includes certain pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyis, and other solvents.
Coastal Bank. As defined in 310 CMR 10.30(2), the Wetlands Protection Act Regulation, the
seaward face or side of any elevated landform, other than a costal dune, which lies at the landward
edge of a coastal beach, land subject to tidal action, or other wetland Atypical working definition
is "the first major break in slope above the 100-year flood elevation," but this definition may not
apply in certain special circumstances.
Coastal Wetland. As defined in Massachusetts General Law Chapter 131, Section 40, the
Wetlands Protection Act Regulation, any bank, marsh, swamp, meadow, flat, or other low land
subject to tidal action or coastal storm flowage and such contiguous land as the Commissioner of
the Department of Environmental Protection deems necessary.
Coastal Zone. As officially defined in 301 CMR 20.00, thezone that extends landward to 100 feet
beyond specified major roads, rail lines, or other visible rights-of-way; includes all of Cape Cod,
Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, and Gosnold; and extends seaward to die edge of the state territo-
rial sea.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
D-3
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program. A federally-funded and approved state pro-
gram under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The program reviews federal
permitting,
licensing, funding, and development activities in the coastal zone for consistency with state
policies.
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO). Any intermittent overflow, bypass, or other discharge from
a municipal combined sewer system which results from a flow in excess of the dry weather
carrying capacity of the system.
Combined Sewer System. A sewer system which, by design, collects and conveys both wastewa-
ter and storm water runoff,
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
A federal law administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, dealing with the assessment
and remediation of hazardous material disposal sites. Superfund activities are performed under
this Act.
Conservation Commission. An appointed municipal agency responsible for administering the
Wetlands Protection Act at the local level.
Contaminant A substance that is not naturally present in the environment or is present in
unnatural concentrations mat can, in sufficient concentration, adversely alter an environment.
Federal regulations (40 CFR 230) for the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable
waters regulated by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act define a contaminant as a chemical
or biological substance in a form that can be incorporated into, onto, or be ingested by and that
harms aquatic organisms, consumers of aquatic organisms, or users of the aquatic environment
Cumulative Effects. The combined environmental impacts that accrue over time and space
from a series of similar or related individual actions, contaminants, or projects. Although each
action may seem to have a negligible impact, the combined effect can be serious.
Department of Environmental Management (DEM). The state agency responsible for
managing natural resources, including, but not limited to, water resources. DEM administers the
Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act.
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The state agency, formerly known as the
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, responsible for administering laws and regu-
lations protecting air quality, water supply, and water resources, such as Chapter 91 and Tide 5,
and for administering programs such as the Wetlands Protection Program and Wetlands Restric-
tion Program. It is also responsible for overseeing the cleanup of hazardous waste sites and
responding to hazardous waste emergencies and accidents.
Department of Public Health (DPH). The state agency responsible for disease prevention. Its
administrative mandate encompasses a broad spectrum of public health issues relating to envi-
ronmental health, communicable disease control, community health, health care quality, and
health education. TheStateLaboratorylnstitutewithfr meDepartmentanah^ and
biological fluidsforbacterial contamination and marine biotoxins. The laboratory data are useful
for determining the cause of an acute foodbome illness and for ensuring compliance with existing
regulatory limits.
Designated Port Areas. As defined in Chapter 91 Regulation, that portion of certain urban
harbors where maritime-dependent industrial uses are encouraged to locate. This concentration
of uses maximizes public investments in dredging, bulkheads, piers, and other port facilities.
-------
D-4
Appendix D. Glossary
Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP). An illness caused by eating shellfish contaminated
with okadoicadd (which is pnxlucedbyseveralspedes of dinoflagdlatesofthegenus/^
The symptoms of DSP are diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramp, and chills.
Dissolved Oxygen. Oxygen that is present (dissolved) in water and therefore available for fish
and other aquatic animals to use. If the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water is too low, then
aquatic animals may die. Wastewater and naturally-occurring organic matter contain oxygen-
demanding substances that consume dissolved oxygen.
Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF). The agency within the Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs responsible for managing the Shellfish Sanitation Program, overseeing
shellfish relays, depuration plants, commercial fishing licenses, and management and stock
assessmentof Massachusetts fisheries.
Drainage Basin. The land that surrounds a body of water and contributes fresh water, either
from streams, groundwater.or surface runoff, to that body of water.
Dredging. Anyphysicaldigginginto the bottom sediment ofawater body. Dredging can be done
with mechanical or hydraulic machines, and it changes the shape and form of the bottom.
Dredging is done in parts of Massachusetts Bays in order to maintain navigation channels that
would otherwise fill with sediment and block ship passage.
Ecosystem. AcommimityofUvingorganismsinteractingwith one another and with their physical
environment, such as a salt marsh, an embayment, or an estuary. A system such as Massachusetts
Bays is considered a sum of these interconnected ecosystems.
Eelgrass (Zostera marina). A marine flowering plant that grows subtidally in sand and mud.
Edgrass beds are an important habitat and nursery for fish, shellfish, and waterfowl.
Effluent The outflow of water, with our without pollutants, usually from a pipe.
Embayments. A small bay or any small semi-enclosed coastal waterbody whose opening to a
larger body of water is restricted.
Enterococcus. Agroupofbacteriafoundinthefecesofwarm-bloodedanimalsindicativeofthe
presence of sewage.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The federal agency principally responsible for
administering the Clean Water Act, National Estuary Program, CERCLA, Superfund, and other
major federal environmental programs.
Estuary. A semi-enclosed coastal body of water having a free connection with the open sea and
within which seawater is measurably diluted with fresh water.
Eutrophication. Theprocessofnutrientenrichmentinaquatic ecosystems. In marine systems,
eutrophication results principally from nitrogen inputs from human activities such as sewage
disposal and fertilizer use. The addition of nitrogen to coastal waters stimulates algal blooms and
growth of bacteria, and can cause broad shifts in ecological communities present and contribute
to anoxic events and fish kills. In freshwater systems and in parts of estuaries below 5 parts per
trillion salinity, phosphorus is likely to be the limiting nutrient and the cause of eutrophic effects.
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA). A cabinet-level secretariat whose
principal authority is to implement and oversee state policies that preserve, protect, and regulate
natural resources and the environmental integrity of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (For
more information, see Appendix A.)
Fecal Coliform Bacteria. Fecal coliform bacteria are those coliform bacteria that are found in
the intestinal tracts of mammals. The presence of high numbers of fecal coliform bacteria in a
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
D-5
water body can indicate the recent release of untreated wastewater and/or the presence of animal
feces. These organisms may also indicate the presence of pathogens that are harmful to humans.
High numbers of fecal coliform bacteria therefore limit beneficial uses such as swimming and
shellfish harvesting.
Floodplain. Theareaofshordandsextendrngmlandfromthenormalyea^
level to the highest expected stormwater level in a given period of time (e.g., 5,50,100 years).
Flushing Time. The mean length of time for a pollutant entering a water body to be removed by
natural forces such as tides and currents; also referred to as residence time or turnover time.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The federal agency that is responsible for, among
other things, administering the National Shellfish Sanitation Program.
General Bylaws. Local laws that can be adopted withasimplemajorityvoteatthetownmeetings.
Cities adopt ordinances by a simple majority vote of the city council.
Goal A general statement describing what is to be achieved in the future. Goals reflect a
consensual vision for a specific or general resource.
Grandfathering. A provision from Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40 that allows existing
land uses or structures to remain without coming into compliance with upgraded zoning or
building requirements.
Habitat The specific area or environment in which a particular type of plant or animal lives. An
orgam^m^habitatmustprovideaUofthebasicrequkmentsforMeandshouldbefreeofhannM
contaminants. Typical Massachusetts Bays habitats include beaches, marshes, rocky shores, the
bottom sediments, intertidal mudflats, and the water itself.
Holding Tank. An enclosed container used as part of a sewage disposal system on a boat The
tank is used to temporarily store sewage for later pumpout at a marina pumpout facility.
Hypoxia. A condition in which oxygen is deficient.
Impervious Material With respect to Tide 5 regulan'ons,amaterialorsoilhavingapercolation
rate greater than 30 minutes per inch; including, but not limited to, bedrock, peat, loam, and
organic matter.
Impervious Surface. A surface that cannot be easily penetrated. For instance, rain does not
readily penetrate asphalt or concrete pavement
Industrial Pretreatment The removal or reduction of certain contaminants from industrial
wastewater before it is discharged into a municipal sewer system. Reduced loading of contami-
nants from industries can reduce the expense of managing and designing municipal treatment
facilities.
Infiltration. The penetration of water through the ground surface into subsurface soil. Some
contaminants are removed by this process.
Leaching Facility. An approved structure used for the dispersion of septic-tank effluent into the
soil. These include leaching pits, galleries, chambers, trenches, and fields as described in 310
CMR15.11 through 15.15.
Loading. The total amount of material entering a system from all sources.
Marine Sanitation Device (MSD). Adeviceinstalledonaboat to treatorholdsewage. Section
312 of the federal Clean Water Act requires all vessels with installed toilets to have approved MSDs.
Federal regulations describe three types of MSDs: Type I and Type n MSDs are treatment devices,
while Type HI MSDs are holding tanks.
-------
D-6
Appendix D. Glossary
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30,
the state law, administered by the MEPA unit within the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs,
establishing a uniform system of environmental impact review.
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40. The state zoning law for which the municipal
planning boards and the zoning boards of appeal are responsible.
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 41. The state law governing subdivisions, administered
by municipal planning boards and zoning boards of appeal.
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 91- The Waterways Licensing Program governing
waterfront development in Massachusetts, administered by the Department of Environmental
Protection and the Office of Coastal Zone Management
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 111. State law (Section 40) that vests municipal boards
of health with the broad authority for maintaining the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
Regulations are promulgated under this act through 310 CMR 10.0.
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 131, Section 40. The Wetlands Protection Act (WPA)
administered by conservation commissions on the municipal level and by the Department of
Environmental Protection on the state level.
Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act Administered by the Department of Environmental
Management, the state law governing activities and structures in the ocean, seabed, or subsoil that
would have an adverse affect on the "ecology or appearance" of the ocean sanctuary.
Mean High Water. The average height of the high tides over a 19-year period.
Mean Low Water. The average height of the low tides over a 19-year period.
Metals. Elements found in rocks and minerals that are naturally released to the environment by
erosion, aswdl as generated by human activities. Certain metals (such as mercury, lead, zinc, and
cadmium) are of environmental concern because they are released to the environment in exces-
sive amounts by human activity. They are generally toxic to Me at certain concentrations. Since
metals are elements, they do not break down in the environment over time and can be incorpo-
rated into plant and animal tissue.
National Estuary Program (NEP). A state grant program within the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency established to designate estuaries of national significance and to incorporate
scientific research into planning activities.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). A requirement in the federal
Clean Water Act for dischargers to obtain permits. EPA is responsible for administering this
program in Massachusetts.
Neotropical Migrants. Birds mat breed in North America and winter in Central and South
America. These birds generally migrate through the Massachusetts Bays region.
Nonpoint Source Pollution. Pollution that is generated over a relatively wide area and dis-
persed rather than discharged from a pipe. Common forms of nonpoint source pollution include
stormwater runoff, failed septic systems, and marinas.
Notice of Intent A form submitted to the municipal conservation commission and DEP which
serves as the application for an Order of Conditions under theWetiandsProtectionAct. Itindudes
information on the site's wedand resources and the proposed work.
Nutrients. Essential chemicals needed by plants and animals for growth. Excessive amounts of
nutrients, nitrogen, and phosphorus, for example, can lead to degradation of water quality and
growth of excessive amounts of algae. Some nutrients can be toxic at high concentrations.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
D-7
Objective. A short term target that, as achieved, incrementally attain goals.
Order of Conditions. Hie document, issued by a conservation commission, containing condi-
tions that regulate or prohibit an activity proposed in the resource area defined in MGL Chapter
131 Section 40.
Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP). An illness, sometimes fatal to humans and other mam-
mals, caused byaneurotoxin produced byatypeof plankton cafteAAlexandrium. During certain
times of the year and at certain locations, these organisms proliferate in "blooms" (sometimes
called red tides) and can be concentrated by dams, mussels, and other bivalves. The nervous
system of shellfish is unaffected. Consumption of the shellfish can cause acute illness in humans
and other mammals.
Pathogen. An agent such as a virus, bacterium, or fungus that can cause diseases in humans.
Pathogens can be present in municipal, industrial, and nonpoint source discharges into Massa-
chusetts Bays.
Performance Standards. Federal, state, or local codified speculation that condition develop-
ment activities to limit the extent to which a structure or activity may affect the immediate environ-
ment
Petroleum Hydrocarbons. The mixture of hydrocarbons normally found in petroleum; in-
cludes hundreds of chemical compounds.
Point Source Pollution. Pollution originating at a particular place, such as a sewage treatment
plant, outfall, or other discharge pipe.
PolychlorinatedBiphenyls (PCBs). A class of chlorinated aromatic compounds composed of
two fused benzene rings and two or more chlorine atoms; used in heat exchange, insulating fluids,
and other applications. There are 209 different PCBs.
Polycydlc or Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). A class of complex organic
compounds, some of which are persistent and cancer-causing. These compounds are formed
from the combustion of organic material and are ubiquitous in the environment PAHs are
commonlyformed by the combustion of gasohneand other petroleum products. They often reach
the environment through atmospheric fallout and highway runoff.
Porous Pavement A hard surface that can support some vehicular activities, such as parking
and light traffic, and which can also allow significant amounts of water to pass through.
Pretreatment The treatment of industrial wastewater to remove contaminants prior to dis-
charge into municipal sewage systems.
PrimaryTreatment Awastewatertreatmentmethod that uses settling, skimming, and (usually)
chlorination to remove solids, floating materials, and pathogens from wastewater. Primary
treatment typically removes about 35 percent of BOD and less than half of the metals and toxic
organic substances.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). Any sewage treatment system operated by a
public agency.
Pumpout The process through which septage is removed from a septic tank or boat holding
tank, usually by a mobile tank attached to a truck, and taken to a wastewater treatment plant for
disposal.
Request for Determination of Applicability. A written request made by any person to a
conservation commission or to the Department of Environmental Protection for a determination
as to whether a site or work on that site is subject to the Wedands Protection Act
-------
D-8
Appendix D. Glossary
Runoff The part of precipitation that travels overland and appears in surface streams or other
receiving water bodies.
Salt Marsh. A costal wetland that extends landward up to the highest high tide line (i.e., die
highest sprmgtideofmeyear)andis characterized byplants that arewell adapted to living in saline
soils.
Secondary Treatment A wastewater treatment method that usually involves the addition of
biological treatment to the settling, skimming, and disinfection provided by primary treatment.
Secondary treatment may remove up to 90 percent of BOD and significantly more metals and toxic
organics than primary treatment
Septage. That material removed from any part of an individual sewage disposal system.
Septic System. A facility used for the partial treatment and disposal of sanitary wastewater,
generated by individual homes or small businesses, into the ground. The system includes both a
septic tank and a leaching facility.
Septic Tank. A watertight receptacle that receives the discharge of sewage from a building sewer
and is designed and constructed so as to permit die retention of scum and sludge, digestion of the
organic matter, and discharge of the liquid portion to a leaching facility.
Sewage. The water-carried human or animal wastes from residences, buildings, industrial
establishments or other places, together with such ground water infiltration and surface water as
may be present
Sewer System. Pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, force mains, and all other structures,
devices, appurtenances, and facilities used for collecting and conveying wastes to a site or works
for treatment or disposal.
Shellfish. An aquatic animal, such as a mollusc (dams and snails) or crustacean (crabs and
shrimp), having a shell or shell-like exoskdeton.
Shellfish Bed. An area identified and designated by the Division of Marine Fisheries or conser-
vation commissions as containing productive shellfish resources. Shellfish bed maps are based
upon written documentation and field observations by the shellfish constable or other authorita-
tive sources. In identifying such an area, the following factors shall be taken into account and
documented: the density of all species of shellfish, the size of the area, and the historical and
current importance of the area to recreational or commercial sheUfishing. Protecting designated
shellfish beds may be an important consideration when local boards and state agencies review
projects.
Shellfish Resource Area. An area, designated by the Division of Marine Fisheries, that contains
productive shellfish beds, and is used for establishing shellfish resource area closure boundaries.
Shellfish Resource AreaClosures. Closure, due to potential health risks, of shellfish resource
areas to shellfish harvesting. Closure decisions are made by the Division of Marine Fisheries, using
a current standard that specifies that if the geometric mean of 15 samples equals or exceeds 14
fecal coliform per 100 milliliters of sample water or if 10% of the samples exceed 49 fecal coliform
per 100 milliliters of sample water, the station can be dosed. The five shellfish bed classifications
are Approved, Conditionally Approved, Restricted, Conditionally Restricted, and Prohibited.
Sludge. Solid or semisolid material resulting from potable or industrial water supply treatment
or sanitary or industrial wastewater treatment
Soil Conservation Service (SOS). A branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture mat, among
other things, provides technical assistance in resource management and planning and implemen-
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
D-9
tation of agricultural BMPs. SCS works closely with the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS) and County Extension Services to achieve their goals.
Spring Tides. Higher than normal high tides observed every two weeks when the earth and moon
align.
Storm Drain. A system of gutters, pipes, or ditches used to carry stormwater from surrounding
lands to streams, ponds, or Massachusetts Bays. In practice, storm drains carry a variety of
substances such as oil and antifreeze which enter the system through runoff, deliberate dumping,
or spills. This term also refers to the end of the pipe where the stormwater is discharged
Stormwater. Precipitation that is often routed into drain systems in order to prevent flooding.
Subdivision. A means for dividing a large parcel of land into more than one buildable lot,
administered under MGL Chapter 41.
Superseding Determination. A Determination of Applicability issued by the Department of
Environmental Protection deciding whether or not the area and activity are subject to the regula-
tions under the Wetlands Protection Act
Superseding Order of Conditions. A document issued by the regional office of the Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection containing the conditions necessary for a project to proceed
and still protect the interests and resource areas specified in the Wetlands Protection Act These
conditions supersede Orders of Conditions set by the local conservation commission unless the
local order is also issued under the authorization of a local bylaw. These superseding orders can
be requested by a number of people who may not be satisfied with the local Order of Conditions.
Suspended Solids. Organic or inorganic particles that are suspended in and carried by the
water. The term includes sand, mud, and day particles as well as organic solids in wastewater.
Swales. Vegetated areas used in place of curbs or paved gutters to transport stormwater runoff.
They also can temporarily hold small quantities of runoff and allow it to infiltrate into the soil
Tertiary Treatment The wastewater treatment process that exceeds secondary treatment;
could include nutrient or toxic removal.
Tidal Flat Any nearlylevd part of the coastal beach, usually extending from the low water mark
landward to the more steeply sloping seaward face of the coastal beach or separated from the
beach by land under the ocean, as defined in 310 CMR9.-04.
Tidelands. All lands and waters between the high water mark and the seaward limit of the
Commonwealth's jurisdiction, as defined in 310 CMR 9:04. Tidewaters are synonymous with
tidelands.
Tide 5. The state regulations (CMR 15) that establish minimum standards for the protection of
public health and the environment when circumstances require the use of individual systems for
the disposal of sanitary sewage. The local board of health is responsible for enforcement of these
regulations.
Total Nitrogen. A measure of all forms of nitrogen (for example, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia-N,
and organic forms) that are found in a water sample.
Toxic. Poisonous, carcinogenic, or otherwise directly harmful to life.
Wastewater. Water that has come into contact with pollutants as a result of human activities and
is not used in a product, but is discharged as a waste stream.
Waterbirds. A group of birds that utilize wetland habitats during their life cyde, induding
waterfowl (ducks and geese), seabirds (terns and gulls), and wading birds (herons and egrets).
-------
D-10
Appendix D. Glossary
Water Column. The water inalake, estuary, or ocean which extends from the bottom sediments
to the water surface. The water column contains dissolved and paiticulate matter, and is the
habitat for plankton, fish, and marine mammals.
Watercourse. Any natural or man-made stream, pond, lake, wetland, coastal wetland, swamp,
or other body of water. This includes wet meadows, marshes, swamps, bogs, and areas where
groundwater, flowing or standing surface water, or ice provide a significant part of the supporting
substrate for a plant community for at least five months of the year, as defined in 310 CMR 15:01.
BoardsofHealmcanadoptthedefinitionofwedandsinSlOCMRlO.Oor broader languagein Tide
5 as a "watercourse" in determining setbacks.
Wetlands. Habitats where the influence of surface water or groundwater has resulted in the
development of plant or animal communities adapted to aquatic or intermittently wet conditions.
Wetlands include tidal flats, shallow subtidal areas, swamps, marshes, wet meadows, bogs, and
similar areas.
Wrack. Algae, plant and animal matter, and drift material (including solid wastes and other
pollutants) that accumulate on beaches, usually at the high tide mark.
Zoning Bylaws. Local laws that designate areas of land for different uses at established densities.
These bylaws require a two-thirds majority vote of town meeting or city council.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
E-1
APPENDIX E. MASSACHUSETTS BAYS
PROGRAM GRANTS 1991
Recognizing that many critical pollution problems in the Bays demand immediate attention, the
Massachusetts Bays Program has developed and funded three "Action Now" grant programs:
• Bays Action Grants
• Action Plan Demonstration Projects
• Mini-Bays Grants
These programs focus limited financial resources in a hands-on efforts to help citizens, organiza-
tions, and municipal and city governments take early actions to address threats to coastal re-
sources. All three of these programs have been active in 1991 • The following appendix describes
each program and provides a list of 1991 grant recipients.
The Massachusetts Bays Program created the "Bays Action Grant" program to fund community-
based coastal awareness projects. This program was conceived as a means to help mobilize
organizations and individuals interested in promoting coastal protection by providing all, or a
share.ofthefmandalassistanceneededtoti^slateavarietyofprooosalsintotangibleprojectsor
products.
Fifteen environmental projects were awarded a total of $9,383 in "Bays Action Grants" by the
Massachusetts Bays Program in 1991. The winning projects were selected for their promise to
help educate the public about the need for coastal pollution control, ranging from a solo sail
around the world to a children's educational guide to the ecology of local tidepools.
The 1991 Bays Action Grants are as follows:
Cape Cod
Cape Outdoor Discovery
Scorton Creek, E. Sandwich
Centerville Elementary School $370
Bays Action Grants
$250 Citizen water quality monitoring program
Dennis-Yarmouth Regional High $879
School Science Department
North Shore
Jed Sneed( 11-year-old
Gloucester resident)
Ipswich River Watershed
Association
Massachusetts Audubon:
North Shore
Boston
Boston Voyages in Learning $ 1,000
Environmental awareness program for 75
second graders
Environmental study of Yarmouth's Mill Pond by
60 students
$182 To produce a children's guide to tidepools
$ 1,000 To produce an Ipswich River macroinvertebrate
booklet
$300 To expand its Ocean Discovery Coastal
Environmental Education Initiative to Lynn's
Bricket School
To being the "Voyages Pinkney Project," linking
10 teachers and 1,300 students to William
Pinkney's around-the-world solo sail
-------
E-2
Appendix E. Program Grants 1991
Action Plan
Demonstration
Projects
Nick Haddad (Cambridge educator) $500
MIT Sea Grant College Program $ 1,000
Friends of Belle Isle Marsh
$500
South Shore
Ten Quincy Elementary Schools $1,000
Great Woods Environmental $500
Network
Reay E. Sterling Middle School $ 1,000
Weymouth Waterfront Committee $400
Hull Conservation Commission $500
To edit and reproduce 50 copies of his "Boston's
Working Port" video
Toinaugurateits "SewageStack" interactive com-
puter program for elementary schools
To produce a self-guiding, interpretive trail
brochure
To involve students with MWRA and local officials
in an exploration of wastewater technology
To offer computer modem-users a free data base
on the Boston Harbor cleanup
To involve 50 sixth graders in a study of Quincy's
coastal waterfront and marshlands
To produce an informational brochure on the
functions of the Weymouth waterfront
Toproduceabrochureonrecommendedsolutions
to pollution and insect problems in Straits Pond
Action Plan Demonstration Projects are designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of selected
clean-up strategies and improvements which can be achieved on a small scale, and to help define
the time and resources required for basinwide implementation.
TheMassachusetts Bays Programhassdectedandfundedfour Action Plan Demonstration Projects
in 1991:
$33,000 to the North and South Rivers Watershed Association to maintain, upgrade,
and monitor stormwater drainage systems discharging into the North River in
Marshfield, Norwell, Hanover, and Pembroke.
Although the Norm River in Massachusetts is classified SA water quality for most of its 12 miles,
increasingly the shellfish beds near the mouth of the river are dosed due to pathogen contamina-
tion. During rainstorms, most of the drainage pipes directly entering the river or tributaries have
been shown to contain relatively high concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria. In addition,
surveys have shown a high proportion of catch basins with sumps filled with sand and debris, and
in some cases with pipes inappropriately discharging into the catch basins from unidentified
sources.
The objectives of this project in the North River watershed are to:
• Provide proper monitoring and maintenance of the existing storm drain systems
• Remove illicit or inappropriate connections to the system
• Replace key inadequate catch basins wim leaching structures
Funds requested would allow cleaning and structural improvements for five catch basins and
purchase of monitoring equipment for an existing volunteer monitoring program.
$15,000 to the Town of Barnstable to monitor die effectiveness of a stormwater
infiltration system to be installed at the parking lot area and boat ramp at Scudder
Lane, an important shellfish relay area in Cape Cod Bay.
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
E-3
Receivingwater samples taken and analyzed by theTownofBamstablehave shown that stormwater
has a large impact on receiving water quality. Bacterial standards are frequently exceeded after a
rainstorm event, causing closure of shellfish beds.
The objective of the project is to install and monitor the effectiveness of a stormwater infiltration
system at the Scudder Lane site, a small recreational area with a parking lot and boat ramp. The
system will be monitored for its effect on bacterial loads and heavy metals in the receiving
groundwater and water column overlying shellfish beds. In addition, the stormwater will be
monitored before and after sediment removal tanks to determine their effectiveness in removing
sediment The funds would allow the Town to:
• Install four monitoring wells and two observation points into the infiltration system
• Purchaselaboratorymaterialsforanalysis,anautomaticsamplerwithflowmeter,and
a Teflon bailer
$ 16,000 to the City of Gloucester Board of Health to expand a dye-testing program to
control direct sewage discharges from inadequate septic systems.
In February 1990, die Gloucester Office of the Board of Health, in conjunction with the Shellfish
Officer, designed a formalized plan of action leading to the elimination of direct sewage discharge
from antiquated subsurface sewage disposal systems to local shellfish areas of various water-
courses in Gloucester. This problem is extreme in the city because the maj ority of systems serving
dwellings are located within 200 feet of coastal waters and are of an archaic design. The problem
is compounded by a lack of municipal sewage availability to serve these dwellings. A goal of the
local board of health is to eliminate direct discharges through identification by dye testing, water
analysis, and enforcement To date, 34 direct discharges have been eliminated; as a result, some
shellfish harvesting areas have been reopened.
Funding is requested to expand the present dye testing program and purchase a computer and
software in order to compile a data base including parameters regarding septic tankpumping and
a CIS link.
$35,000 to the City of Quincy for the installation of a new tidegate to control tidal
influx into the stormwater system.
This proj ect is designed to address high levels of pathogen contamination in the nearshore waters
of Quincy Bay. The proposed project has two objectives:
• Reduce bacterial contamination and resultant adverse impacts in Quincy Bay by
installing or repairing stormwater drainage systems
• Assess the feasibility of an alternative to management of recreational beach and
shellfish harvesting areas which is forward-looking rather than retrospective, and
which does not rely primarily on bacterial examination (i.e., review system design
alternatives and monitor before and after system modifications).
Funds are sought to support tidegate improvements at the Milton Road/Colby Street location to
prevent tidal influx into the storm sewer system, an identified source of pathogens to nearby
waters, and to prepare a report which will express and translate the Quincy Program experience
basin-wide.
The Mini-Bays program was established by the Massachusetts Bays Program to address land use
issues and their impact on water quality at the embayment level. The program is designed to deal
with specific problems in embayments, and implement projects that reduce pollutant loadings
and/or improve habitat Mini-Bays projects will promote innovative technologies or strategies
Mini-Bays Grants
-------
E-4
Appendix E. Program Grants 1991
and are intended to be replicable Bays-wide. Funding for the projects will be shared by the
Massachusetts Bays Program and local sources. Three embaymenls have been selected in the
Massachusetts Bays area to carry out research, planning, implementation, monitoring, and pubic
outreach efforts over five years, culminating in the production of an embayment management plan
in 1995. The Mini-Bays grant recipients are:
• Plum Island Sound in Ipswich, Newbury, and Rowley
• The Fore River Embayment in Braintree, Weymouth, and Quincy
• Wellfleet Harbor in the Town of WeMeet
The recipients were selected from a total of 17 applicants through a highly competitive process.
Criteria for selection included: dear identification of pollution-related problems; evidence of a
regionally cooperative effort to address those problems; and broad public interest and support.
Also considered were: local and regional financial or in-kind service contribution; likelihood of
the lessons learned being replicated region-wide; and likelihood of a measurable and sustainable
improvement in water quality. The program will provide approximately $200,000 to $250,000
over five years to each of the emabyments selected. A description of each embayment project is
provided below.
Plum Island Sound
The proposed study area, the Plum Island Sound/Rivers ecosystem, is defined as the tidal portions
of the Plum Island Sound, including the Ipswich, Eagle Hill, Rowley, Parker, and Plum Island
Rivers Jhis ecosystem haslong been recognized as oneofthemostpristineandvaluableestuarine
habitats in the Northeast and as an area of regional and statewide significance. In recognition of
this, the site was included in the Parker River/Essex Bay ACEC in 1979, the first coastal ACEC so
recognized. Renowned for its shellfish, fisheries, recreational, and wildlife resources, the area is
increasingly threatened by nonpoint and point source pollution, in addition to wildlife habitat
losses. Increases in fecal bacterial levels and shellfish bed and swimming beach closures, coupled
with decreases in anadromous fish populations, are evidence of growing environmental degrada-
tion.
The overall goals of the proposal are to develop, implement, and monitor a research/policy/
education plan designed to reduce nonpoint and point source pollution of the Plum Island Sound/
Rivers ecosystem. In addition, the research team will focus on and propose recommendations to
protect and monitor the region's unique coastal habitats.
The project will be undertaken by the Massachusetts Audubon Society, in collaboration with
Applied Sciences Associates, Inc. and the Towns of Newbury, Rowley, and Ipswich.
Fore River Embayment
Tri-community planners representing the municipalities of Braintree, Quincy, and Weymouth,
with management assistance from the Tdlus Institute, a non-profit environmental research orga-
nization, will coordinate a research program directed at the Fore River Embaymenl
The Fore River Embayment is approximately a five-square-mile estuary bordered by the commu-
nities of Braintree, Quincy, and Weymouth. The water quality classification of the river is SB, which
means the Fore River is designated for protection and propagation offish, other aquatic organ-
isms, primary and secondary contact recreation, and shellfish harvesting. Because of shoaling
conditions, coupled with historic filling and development, the US Army Corps of Engineers has
determined that the future use of the Fore River for boating and recreation is contingent upon
channel dredging.
The embayment contains substantial coastal wetlands. While their environmental integrity has
been significantly compromised, these wetlands continue to serve as important fishery and wild-
-------
Massachusetts Bays 1991 CCMP
E-5
life habitat Shellfish beds totaling about 220 acres exist, but none of these beds has been used on
an unrestricted basis since the 1970s. Although virtually no commercial fisheries remain in the
embayment, the area remains a popular sport fishery.
At various times in the embayment's past, the Fore River has been home to a major shipyard, oil
refinery, petroleum storage facility, hazardous waste processing facility, and power generating
facilities. In addition, the embayment will soon be home to the MWRA's sludge processing facility,
as well as the new Boston Edison Edgar Station. Much of die growth on the Fore River has occurred
without forethought or consideration of the cumulative environmental consequences, and with-
out effective coordination among the communities. As a consequence, the environmental quality
within the Fore River has declined to a point where the embayment's beaches are often dosed by
contamination in order to protect public health.
While Braintree, Quincy, and Weymouth recognize that the Fore River's environment has been
damaged by urbanization and industrial development, no attempt has been made to systematically
document and understand the environmental health of the embayment in an integrated manner.
More importantly, no attempt has been made to mitigate these impacts and comprehensively
manage the embayment in order to protect it from further degradation and possibly restore some
of its previous uses.
The objective of this proposal is to initiate a tri-community effort to end the piecemeal manage-
ment of the embayment and begin to measurably improve environmental conditions. This project
will begin to forge the institutional mechanism required for better understanding and manage-
ment of the embayment. Further, the group will identify one or more critical environmental
problems which can be measurably improved within the time frame and resources of the Mini-
Bays program.
Wellfleet Harbor
While the primary focus is on Wellfleet Harbor and associated subembayments, additional work
will involve the Harbor's watershed. The Harbor itself boasts a variety of commercial and recre-
ational activities accommodating over 500 recreational and commercial vessels. The Harbor is
one of the state's most important aquaculture sites containing one third of the state's total shellfish
grants. Designated an ACEC in 1988, the Harbor and areas extending to Gulf Pond support a major
finfish nursery.
Although water quality within Wellfleet Harbor is generally good, increasing signs of environmen-
tal degradation have been noted, including shellfish bed closures, the disappearance of eelgrass
beds, and the increasing occurrence of nuisance algae. This may not be altogether surprising as
Wellfleet has experienced a 43% growth in population during the past two decades.
The overall objective of the proposed work is to formulate and implement a comprehensive
conservation and management plan for Wellfleet Harbor and its watershed. This would help to
protect the marine resources of Wellfleet Harbor from further degradation, protect the public
from exposure to human pathogens originating from on-site sewage disposal systems or marine
sanitary wastes, and increase the acreage open to shellfishing within the harbor. In order to
achieve these first two goals, the initial phase of the project will characterize the present state of the
harbor and compare this with past studies. Extensive inventorying will be conducted and water
chemistry monitored. Alterations in land use and growth within the harbor watershed will be
documented and these changes related to observed changes in resources. This will be accom-
plished by researching the historical record, coupled with aerial photography. Detailed maps
displaying resource and critical habitat areas may then be developed.
The project will be undertaken by the Town of Wellfleet, the Barnstable County Health and
Environmental Department (BCHED), the County Cooperative Extension (CCE), and the Water
Resources Office of the Cape Cod Commission.
------- |