lassaehnsetts Bays
»
Comprehensive Conservation
m if t\t
management Han
AN EVOLVING PLAN FOR ACTION
MASSACHUSETTS BAYS PROGRAM
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
1996 FINAL CCMP
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
' '•• ' •
. SEP 6 1996
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable William F. Weld
Governor .'••••
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts 02133
Dear Governor Weld:
It is my great pleasure to receive your concurrence and to approve
the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) submitted
for the Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. The Massachusetts Bays
Program that developed this CCMP is truly a model for the
intergovernmental relationships that I believe are fundamental to successful
environmental protection. The steady support from the Massachusetts
programs and staff during development of the CCMP has been crucial to its
timely completion.
The enthusiasm and high quality work of staff at the Massachusetts
Bays Program, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Office, and Urban Harbors
Institute have been outstanding. This program is an exciting model for
innovative collaboration with local communities and regional partners as
they direct the protection of their resources. I am confident that we have
strengthened and enhanced our relationships not only with each other, but
also with citizens and local elected officials. I look forward to a continuing
partnership with you and the Massachusetts Bays Program as we move
ahead in implementation.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me, or
call Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Water, at 202/260-5700.
Sincerely
Carol M. "Browner
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/dnola Ink on paper that
contain* it least 80% recycled flbtr
-------
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
STATE HOUSE • BOSTON 02133
WILLIAM F. WELD
GOVERNOR
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCl
LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR
HAND DELIVERED
April 3, 1996
Carol M. Browner
Administrator
U.S."Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Browner"
On behalf of the Massachusetts Bays Program Management Conference, the Commonwealth proudly presents this
ambitious Final Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for your consideration.
I have examined this Management Plan, and as Governor, approve it. The public and officials from all levels of
government have had an opportunity to review and comment on the document. The Plan has also been reviewed
by the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office (MCZM). As a result of a formal request from Jane
Downing (Manager, Massachusetts State Unit, EPA-N'ew England) on January 16, 1996, MCZM commenced
Federal Consistency Review of the Draft Final CCMP. While this Final CCMP reflects MCZM's initial review
and input to ensure consistency between the CCMP and the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Plan,
completion of this process will remain open until EPA-Headquarters is prepared to issue its approval of the Final
CCMP. This proposed Federal Action will ultimately be the subject of MCZM's Federal Consistency
determination.
You may be assured that my Office, with the support and assent of the Legislature, will aggressively identify and
appropriate resources to implement the CCMP actions and recommendations contained herein. The Commonwealth
is well aware of its partnership status with the Federal Government regarding the implementation of this Plan. As
with other Federal programs, the Commonwealth .is prepared to prioritize implementation based on the level of
support from our Federal partners. Such prioritization will also be tempered by the myriad of commitments and
limited fiscal resources available at the state level. As contributing partners, we can work together to provide
meaningful environmental conservation initiatives as specified in this CCMP.
Sincerelv,
William F. Weld
Governor
©
-------
MASSACHUSETTS BAYS
1996 COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT
An Evolving Plan for Action
MASSACHUSETTS BAYS PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
1996 FINAL COMP
-------
THE BAYS PROGRAM
The Massachusetts Bays Program is a joint effort of local, state,
and federal governments, as well as citizens, scientists, educators,
and businesses, to develop regional solutions to pollution
problems in the Bays and their adjacent watersheds. The Program
is funded under the Clean Water Act through the U.S«
Environmental Protection Agency, and is administered by the
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs' Coastal
Zone Management Office, In addition to developing a long-term
plan to improve water quality management the Program offers
information and technical assistance on innovative, locally-based
pollution prevention and remediation projects, and sponsors a
multi-faceted public outreach and education effort to heighten
awareness of pollution problems and to enlist support for and
participation in Bays protection.
For more information, call J~800-447-BAYS or write Massachusetts Bays
Program, 100 Cambridge Street, Room2006t Boston, MA 02202.
-------
The Massachusetts Bays Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) is the work of many dedicated people. Many thanks to Secretary Trudy Coxe,
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), and Regional Administrator
John DeVillars, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for their ongoing
involvement and support. The preparation of the CCMP was the result of an innovative
contractual agreement with the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission and we would
especially like to acknowledge Alan Macintosh, Environmental Program Manager for MVPC,
who served with unflagging commitment and enthusiasm as CCMP planner and principal
author, and Celine Bernier (MVPC), whose typing and formatting skills contributed to the
preparation of this and previous iterations of the document. State staff from the Massachusetts
Bays Program (MBP) who participated in the development of the document include Diane
Gould, Betsy McEvoy, Dillon Scott, Marie Studer, Ruth Kuykendall, and Susan Schneider.
Regional Planning Agency MBP staff participants included Lisa Nicol, MVPC; Nancy
Goodman and Bill Clark, Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC); and Patricia Hughes,
Cape Cod Commission (CCC). Faith Burbank, U. Mass Extension, also assisted. The
Environmental Protection Agency contributors included Tara Tracy, Matthew Liebman, and
Carol Kilbride. Members of the Massachusetts Bays Program Steering Committee, including
Peg Brady, Director, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (MCZM); Jane Downing, EPA;
Russ Isaac and Larry Gil, DEP; Gaylord Burke, MVPC; Armando Carbonell, CCC; Martin
Pillsbury, MAPC; Joan Foster, South Shore LGC; Peter LaPolla, Metro Boston LGC; Ted
Tarr, 8 Towns and the Bay; Tim Povey, Salem Sound 2000; Jim Watson, Old Colony Planning
Council; Judy Pederson, MIT Sea Grant; and William Robinson, U. Mass/Boston, helped to
guide the development of the CCMP.
Many others made invaluable contributions throughout the five years of planning that led to this
document. A list of current Massachusetts Bays Program Committee members is found as
follows. We would like to thank each of these individuals for their assistance and ongoing
commitment. We would especially like to thank our tireless committee chairs for their
dedication. In addition to the current chairs, whose names are noted in the list, we would like
to thank old friends who served in the past as chairs of Massachusetts Bays Program
committees, including Alan Hankin, Gwen Ruta, Jack Pitman, Mark Norton, John Farrington,
Gordon Wallace, Jay Kaufman, Dan Curll, Jack Clarke, and Jeff Benoit.
And finally, many thanks to all the local, regional, state, and federal officials, planners,
scientists, and interested citizens who generously gave of their time and who have made the
Massachusetts Bays Program and this CCMP a success.
-------
Massachusetts Bays Program Committee Members and Staff
POLICY COMMITTEE
Trudy Coxe, Secretary, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Co-Chair
John DeVillars, Regional Administrator, US Environmental Protection Agency • New England, Co-Chair
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Diane Gould, Massachusetts Bays Program, Chair
Peg Brady, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office
Leigh Bridges, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
Faith Burbank, Education Alliance Steering Committee
Gaylord Burke, Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Michael Connor, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Ralph Cox, Massachusetts Port Authority
Richard Delaney, Urban Harbors Institute
Cathy Demos, US Army Corps of Engineers - New England Division
Jane Downing, US Environmental Protection Agency - New England
•Pat Eldridge, c/o Senator Henri Rauschenbach/Coastal Caucus Stewart Fefer, US Fish and Wildlife Service/Gulf of Maine Project
Joan Foster, South Shore Local Governance Committee (LGC)
•Peter Gagnon, Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Stephen Greene, Business and Resource Users Group
* Janeen Hansen, Massachusetts Port Authority
•Carol Hanson, US Natural Resources Conservation Service
Pat Hughes, Cape Cod Commission
Russell Isaac, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Elaine Krueger, Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Peter LaPolla, Metro Boston LGC
'Wendy Leo, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Leslie Luchonok, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management
Marc MacQueen, US Natural Resources Conservation Service
Sharon McGregor, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Judy Pederson, Technical Advisory Committee
Martin Pillsbury, Metropolitan Area Planning Council
James Povey, Salem Sound 2000 LGC
William Robinson, University of Massachusetts-Boston
Jodi Sugerman, Coastal Advocacy Network (CAN) Co-Chair
Frederick (Ted) Tarr, 8 Towns and the Bay LGC
Patricia Trembly, Massachusetts Highway Department
Maria Van Dusen, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement
James Watson, Old Colony Planning Council
Mason Weinrich, CAN Co-Chair
Mark Zivan, Cape Cod Coastal Resources Commrdee LGC
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Judy Pederson, MIT Sea Grant Program, Co-Chair
Bill Robinson, University of Massachusetts-Boston, Co-Chair
Eric Adams, MIT-Civil Engineering Department
Andrea Arenovski, Marine Studies Consortium
Arnold Banner, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Gulf of Maine Project
Leigh Bridges, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
Robert Buchsbaum, Massachusetts Audubon Society: North Shore
Brad Butman, US Geological Survey-Woods Hole
Mark Chandler, New England Aquarium
Michael Connor, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Martin Dowgert, US Food and Drug Administration
Kenneth Finkelstein, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/US Environmental Protection Agency -
New England
-------
Mike Gildesgame, Mp?gflrfarefftg Department of Environmental Management
•Debbie Graham, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management
Paula Kullberg, US Army Corps Engineers
Robert Lent, US Geological Survey
•Wendy Leo, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Matt Liebman, US Environmental Protection Agency - New England
•Mike Mflcelson, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Julianne Nassif, Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Jerry Pesch, US Environmental Protection Agency/Environmental Research Lab
Dave Ryan, University of Massachusetts-Lowell
Dale Saad, Bamstable Health Department
Mike Shiaris, University of Massachusetts-Boston
David Terkla, University of Massachusetts-Boston
Tracy VUlareal, University of Massachusetts-Boston
BUSINESS AND RESOURCE USERS GROUP
Business Participants
Stephen Greene, Polaroid Corporation, Chair
Scott Cassel, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Joy Con way, Greater Boston Real Estate Board
Roy Crystal, Goldman Environmental
Diane Davis, Schneider and Associates
Betty Diener, Environmental Business Council of New England
Peggy Fantozzi, R.H. Cole Associates
Larry Goldman, Goldman Environmental/Small Business Association of New England
Bob Ingram, Daylor Consulting Group
Vivien Li, The Boston Harbor Association
Renato Miele, Environmental Business Council/University of Massachusetts
Dan Moon, Longwood Environmental Management
Joseph Newman, Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce
Bob Ruddock, Associated Industries of Massachusetts
Claudia Smith-Reid, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Resource Users Participants
Bill Adler, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association
Andy Ayer, Quincy Shellfish Department/Massachusetts Shellfish Officer's Association
Al Frizelle, Boston Shipping Associauon/Charlestown Navy Yard
Tom Gloria, New EngJanH Aquarium Divers Club
John Grabski, Massachusetts Bay Yacht Club Association
John Hicks-Courant, Divers' Environmental Survey
John Sheeny, Massa dura-Ms Harbormasters Association
COASTAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
Jodi Sugerman, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay, Co-Chair
Mason Weinrich, Cetacean Research Unit, Co-Chair
Steve Aubrey, Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod
Gaye and Tom Berube, Massachusetts Sportsmen's Council
Polly Bradley, S.W.LM. (Safer Waters in Massachusetts)
Robert Buchsbaum, Massachusetts Audubon: North Shore
Paul Bums, MassPIRG (Public Interest Research Group)
PriscilU Oupman, Fall River Conservation Commission
Russell DeConti, Center for Coastal Studies
Richard Delaney, Urban Harbors Institute
Gay Gillespie, Westport River Watershed Association
Tom Gloria, New England Aquarium Divers Club
Eileen Gunn, Coalition for Buzzards Bay
Nancy Ho, Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod
Joan LeBlanc, The Boston Harbor Association
Vivien Li, The Boston Harbor Association
Mary Loebig, S.T.O.P (Stop the Outfall Pipe)
111
-------
Bob Loring, Clean Water Action
Jay McCafifrey, New England Siena Club
Valerie Nelson, Coalition for Alternative Wastewater Treatment
Susan Nickerson, Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod
Stephan Nofield, Bays Legal Fund
Susan Redlich, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority/Wastewater Advisory Committee
Peter Shelley, Conservation Law Foundation
Caroline Simmons, New England Environmental Network
Roger Stem, Marine Studies Consortium
Alison Walsh, Save the Bay
Metti Whipple, Plymouth First
Jack Wiggin, Coastal Resources Advisory Board/Urban Harbors Institute
John Williams, Mflssflfitiisffftq Toxics Campaign
Paul Wingle, Environmental League of Massachusetts
Julie Wormser, New England Environmental Network
EDUCATION ALLIANCE STEERING COMMITTEE
Reed Stewart, Bridgewater State College, Chair
Faith Burbank, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service, Facilitator
Janis Burton, Manomet Bird Observatory
EUie Calhoun, New England Aquarium
Susan Carver
Jack Crowley, Hingharn High School
Cindy Delpapa, Saugus River Watershed Council
Barbara Egon, Massachusetts Audubon Society/Ipswich River Wildlife Sanctuary
Laura Kursman, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Stafford Madison, US Environmental Protection Agency - New England
Jay Moore, Salem State College (retired)
Alan Morich, Cape Cod Museum of Natural History
Rboda Peck, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service
Jean Pena, Marine Education Center of Cape Arm
Bobbie Robinson, Commonwealth Museum
Ann Rodney, US Environmental Protection Agency - New Finland
Agnes Smith, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service
Arme Smrcina, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
Maria Van Dusen, Massachusetts Riverways Program
Barbara Waters, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service
Janey Winchell, Peabody-Essex Museum
David Woolley, Cetacean Research Unit
LOCAL GOVERNANCE COMMITTEES
Eight Towns and The Bay (Upper North Shore LGO
Steve Barrett, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Derek Brown, Town of Essex
Curtis Bryant, Town of Rowley
Gaylord Burke, Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Wayne Castonguay, Town of Ipswich
Robert Cram, Town of Ipswich
Wayne David, Town of Salisbury
Stephan Gersh, Town of Essex
Jill Haley-Murphy, City of Newburyport
Alan Macintosh, Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Ruth Perrautt, Town of Rockport
Dave Sargent, City of Gloucester
Frederick (Ted) Tarr, Town of Rockport
IV
-------
Salem Sound 2000 LGC
Russell Vickers, Hawthorne Cove Marina, Chair
Out Bellavance, City of Peabody
Helen Bethel], Town of Manchester
Joan Cannon, New England Power Company
Brad Chase, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries - Cat Cove Marine Laboratory
Sam Cleaves, Salem Sound 2000 Program Coordinator
Fare Courtney, The Industrial Services Program
Rebecca Curran, Town of Marblehead
Steve De Crosta, Town of Danvers
Steve Dibble, City of Salem
Lisa Evans, Town of Marblehead
Peter Gihnore, City of Beverly
Dehra Huriburt, City of Beverly
Christy Jones, Peabody-Essex Museum
Martine Kellett, New England BioJabs Foundation
Joan LeBlanc, City of Salem
John Marino, City of Peabody
Jay Moore, Town of Marblehead
Peter Ness, Stahl,US A
Fahh Ortrns, Northeast Scuba
James Povey, City of Beverly
Juli Riemenschneider, City of Salem
David Rimmer, The Trustees of Reservations
Tracey Roberts, Town of Danvers
David Roy, Eastman Gelatine Corporation
Thomas Schley, Salem Maritime National Historic Site
Ruth Taylor, South Essex Sewerage District
Janey Wincbell, Peabody-Essex Museum
Dr. Alan Young, Salem State College
Metro Boston LGC
Peter LaPolla, Town of Braintree, Co-Chair
Mark Reich, Esq., City of Everett, Co-Chair
David Cohon, City of Quincy
Mary Corcoran, Town of Winthrop
John DePriest, City of Chelsea
Lorraine Downey, City of Boston
Geralyn Falco, Town of Swampscott
Jean Fasano, Town of Saugus
Ken Fields, City of Boston
Jim Greene, Town of Milton
Betsy Russell Hkkey, Town of Nahant
Amy Keith, Boston Water and Sewer Commission
Richard Mertens, Boston Redevelopment Authority
Martin Pillsbury, Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Steven Smith, City of Lynn
Frank Stringi, City of Revere
•Mike Wheelwright, City of Quincy
Jack Wiggin, Urban Harbors Institute
South Shore LGC
Joan Foster, Town of Scituate, Chair
Sara Altherr, Jones River Watershed Association/Town of Kingston
Linda Beres, Town of Hull
Faith Burbank, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service/Education Alliance Steering Committee
•Jean Christensen, Metropolitan Area Planning Council
•Clifford DeBaun, Town of Plymouth
Peter Dillon, Town of Norwell
Joe Grady, Town of Duxbury
John Hartsbome, Gulf Association
Bruce Hughes, Old Colony Planning Council
Bill Johnson, Back River Committee/Town of Weymouth
-------
Jack Lennox, Town of Plymouth
Marc MacQueen, US Natural Resources Conservation Service
Deborah McKie, Jones River Watershed Association/Town of Hanover
•Brian Murphy, Town of Cohasset
Joanne Owen, Town of Pembroke
Peter Rosen, Town of Hingham
Jim Watson, Old Colony Planning Council
Cane Cod Coastal Resources Committee LGC
•Mark Zivan, Town of Orleans, Chair
•Neil Allen, Town of Eastham
•Robert Bainton, Town of Yarmouth
Brenda Boleyn, Town of Truro
Thomas Broidrick, Town of Yarmouth
•David Carlson, Town of Brewster
Bill Burt, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service
Russell Cookingham, Town of Bourne
Tanya Dagneault, Town of Dennis
David DeConto, Town of Sandwich
David Dhaccbio, Town of Provincetown
Bob Duncanson, Town of Chatham
Alice Fischer, Cape Cod Sierra Club
George Hampson, Town of Falmouth
James Hanks, Town of Mashpee
George Heufelder, Bamstable County Health and Environment Department
•Thomas Leach, Town of Harwich
Muriel Lightfoot, Town of Eastham
Donald Liptack, US Natural Resources Conservation Service
Bob Mant, Town of Brewster
Alan Marcy, Town of Dennis
•Richard Prince, Town of Bourne
Roger Putnam, Town of Wellfleet
Michael Reynolds, Cape Cod National Seashore
Jack Rosenquest, Town of Orleans
Dale Saad, Town of Bamstable
•Margaret Swansea, Town of Chatham
R. Gregory Taylor, Assembly of Delegates
•Bruce Tripp, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
•Steven Tucker, Town of Sandwich
•Mardee Verdina, Town of Truro
• Alternate Member
MASSACHUSETTS BAYS PROGRAM STAFF
Diane Gould, Ph,D, Executive Director
Bill Clark, Technical Assistant, Metro Boston and South Shore LGCs, Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Nancy Goodman, Technical Assistant, Metro Boston and Salem Sound 2000 LGCs, Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Pat Hughes, Technical Assistant, Cape Cod Coastal Resources Committee LGC, Cape Cod Commission
Deirdre Kimball, Manager, Interagency Shellfish Bed Restoration Program
Ruth Kuykendall, Assistant to the Executive Director
Alan Macintosh, Environmental Program Manager, Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Betsy McEvoy, Director of Public Policy and Outreach
Lisa Nicol, Technical Assistant, 8 Towns and the Bay LGC, Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Ann Riley, Grants Administrator, Urban Harbors Institute
Susan Schneider, Public Information Specialist
Dillon Scott, Data Manager
Marie Snider, Ph.D, Staff Scientist
Tare Tracy, Program Manager, US Environmental Protection Agency -New England
NOTE: All committee members and staff are current as of March, 1996.
VI
-------
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
History of the Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) I- 1
Structure and Goals of the MBP I -1
Overview of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) 1-2
CHAPTER n. THE STATE OF THE BAYS
Introduction n -1
Major Natural Features of the Bays II-1
Living Resources Habitats of the Bays H-3
The Human Habitat H - 5
Toxic Contamination of the Bays' Habitats and Resources n - 6
Pathogen Contamination of Sustainable Resources n - 8
CHAPTER m. OVERVIEW OF COASTAL SUBREOIONS
Introduction ffi -1
Upper North Shore Region ffi-3
Salem Sound Region m -19
Metro Boston Region m - 33
South Shore Region ffl - 47
Cape Cod Region ffl - 61
CHAPTER IV. PROJECTS OF REGIONAL SCOPE AND IMPACT
Introduction IV - 1
Boston Harbor ProjectUpgrading Sewage Treatment in the Metro Boston Area IV- 3
Central ArteryATunnel Project IV - 11
Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project IV - 15
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) IV -19
South Essex Sewerage District Project IV - 23
Saugus River Flood Control Project IV-25
Plymouth Sewage Treatment Project IV-29
CHAPTER V. ACTION PLANS
Introduction V-l
Summary of Recommended Actions V-3
Action Plan #1. Protecting Public Health V-11
Action Plan #2. Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resources V-15
Action Plan #3. Protecting and Enhancing Coastal Habitat V-23
Action Plan #4. Reducing and Preventing Stormwater Pollution V-55
Action Plan #5. Reducing and Preventing Toxic Pollution V-75
Action Plan #6. Reducing and Preventing Oil Pollution V-89
Action Plan #7 - Managing Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities V - 97
7.A. Managing Centralized Wastewater Treatment Facilities V - 99
7.B. Managing On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems V -107
7.C. Decentralized Wastewater Management and Treatment V-121
Action Plan #8. Managing Boat Wastes and Marina Pollution V-125
ActionPlan#9. Managing Dredging and Dredged Materials Disposal V- 131
Vll
-------
CHAPTER V. ACTION PLANS (continued)
Action Plan #10. Reducing Beach Debris and Marine Floatables V-137
Action Plan #11. Protecting Nitrogen-Sensitive Embayments V- 141
Action Plan #12. Enhancing Public Access and the Working Waterfront V- 149
Action Plan#13. Planning for a Shifting Shoreline V -165
Action Plan #14. Managing Local Land Use and Growth V-171
Action Plan #15. Enhancing Public Education and Participation V- 175
15.A. Educating Teachers, Students, and the Public About the Bays V -175
15.B. Developing a State Nonpoint Source Education and Outreach Strategy V - 195
CHAPTER VI. IMPLEMENTING THE CCMP THROUGHOUT THE BAYS WATERSHED
Introduction VI-1
Models for A Regional Approach to CCMP Implementation: Current Efforts VI-2
A Regional Approach to CCMP Implementation: Future Efforts VI-3
Taking Legislative Action VI-5
CHAPTER YE. FINANCING THE CCMP
Introduction VII -1
Financing Report Contents VII -1
CHAPTER Vffl. MONITORING CCMP IMPLEMENTATION
Introduction Vffl -1
Scientific Monitoring Vffl -1
Management Monitoring Vffl - 4
Data Management Vffl - 5
CHAPTER DC. MANAGEMENT CHARACTERIZATION (BASE PROGRAMS ANALYSIS) K-l
CHAPTERX. FEDERAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS X- 1
CHAPTER XL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/PUBLIC RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY XI -1
APPENDICES
Appendix A. The Management Framework in Massachusetts Bays
Appendix B. Acronyms
Appendix C. Glossary
Appendix D. Bibliography
Appendix E. Management Characterization/Base Programs Analysis (available under separate cover)
Appendix F. Federal Consistency Analysis (available under separate cover)
Appendix G. Public Comments and MBP Responses
Appendix H. MBP - Funded Research Reports (1990 -19%)
Appendix I. MBP Demonstration Projects (1990 -1996)
Appendix J. Endangered Species Act
Appendix K. National Historic Preservation Act
Appendix L. Agency and Community Letters/Resolutions of Commitment
vui
-------
I
ntroduction
-------
History of the Massachusetts Bays
Program
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). Initial funding of $ 1.6 million from the
Massachusetts Environmental Trust was the result of settle-
ment fines from a suit filed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the City of Quincy against the
Commonwealth for violations of the Clean Water Act in
Boston Harbor. The same year, Congressman Gerry Studds,
acting on behalf of the Massachusetts Congressional Delega-
tion, drafted an amendment to the Clean Water Act, giving
priority consideration to Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays
to become part of the National Estuary Program (NEP). The
HEP was established to identify nationally-significant
estuaries threatened by pollution, development, or overuse,
and to promote the preparation of comprehensive manage-
ment plans to ensure their ecological integrity. In June 1989,
Governor Michael Dukakis formally submitted the nomina-
tion package for Massachusetts Bays.
In April 1990, EPA Administrator William Reilty accepted
the Massachusetts Bays into 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.
Today, the program is a federal, state, and local partnership
funded by EPA, the Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (EOEA), and other sources. The
MBP is administered by the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Office (CZM) - an agency within EOEA - with
technical assistance and planning services provided by the
Regional Planning Agencies through grants from the MBP.
Grants administration is provided through the Urban Harbors
Institute at the University of Massachusetts/ Boston.
Structure and Goals of the MBP
The first step in carrying out the estuary program was to
establish a forum for open discussion and collaborative
decision-making. This forum is called the Management
Conference. The Management Conference oversees the
activities of the estuary program and consists of over 300
dedicated individuals representing 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 a network of committees: Policy Committee,
Management Committee (MC), Technical Advisory Commit-
tee (TAC), Local Governance Committees (LGCs), and
Public Participation Program Committees. The Policy
Committee is comprised of the EPA Regional Administrator
and the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs.
This committee approves the decisions of the Management
Committee, the major decision-making committee in the
Conference. The Management Committee is made up of
representatives of state and federal government, the Techni-
cal Advisory Committee, the five regional Local Governance
Committees, and the three Public Participation Program
Committees (the Coastal Advocacy Network, Education
Alliance, and Business and Resource Users Group). A list of
current Massachusetts Bays Program Committee participants
is provided in the Acknowledgements section at the front of
this document
The ultimate objective of the Massachusetts Bays Program is
to institutionalize the water quality management planning
process. This will ensure that a dynamic action agenda is
implemented to meet our principal goal - the preservation
and management of a healthy ecosystem of living re-
sources, useable by the pubEc. Work under the program has
been geared to:
• Improving the habitats of living resources in Massachu-
setts and Cape Cod Bays;
• Protecting public health by minimising risk from envi-
ronmental contaminants;
• Protecting and improving water and sediment quality,
• Enhancing the aesthetic quality of Massachusetts' coast
and coastal waters;
• Encouraging pollution prevention and other environmen-
tally and fiscally sound methods of treatment, cleanup,
and restoration; and
• Improving access as well as educational and recreational
opportunities in and around the waters of Massachusetts
and Cape Cod Bays.
To accomplish these, the Massachusetts Bays Program
Management Conference participants and their constituencies
have worked together for the last five years to develop a
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
1-1
-------
(CCMP) for Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. This plan
will serve as a blueprint for coordinated action aimed at
restoring and protecting water quality and the diverse natural
resources of the Massachusetts Bays estuary.
Overview of the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP)
Charting a New Course
The Massachusetts Bays Program charted an innovative
course among the nation's 28 National Estuary Programs by
producing an early version of the Comprehensive Conserva-
tion and Management Plan during the first year of the
program's federal funding. Other similar national programs
had typically completed several years of scientific research
before recommending a course of action. The Management
Conference believed that, while much remains to be learned
about Massachusetts Bays even now, enough was known
already to begin to take action to prevent further degradation
and restore the integrity of the Bays' ecosystem.
Developing the 1991 Draft Management
Plan
To help galvanize support and elicit ideas for developing this
initial plan, the Massachusetts Bays Program hosted a
"CCMP Development Workshop" inMarch 1991. Thisall-
day meeting brought together environmental advocates,
business leaders, citizens, and state, local, and federal
officials to focus their diverse viewpoints and expertise on
designing a challenging plan development process. Partici-
pants included members of the MBP committees and repre-
sentatives from numerous coastal and inland communities.
A series of key recommendations emerged from the work-
shop:
• 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 Massa-
chusetts Bays Program should be redefined in terms of
"uses" of the Bays and organized in a readable, "user-
friendly" format;
• The Plan should summarize what is known about the
Bays and what is being done from both a scientific and
management perspective;
• The Plan should contain a list or menu of options that
should or could be undertaken 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
(Management Committee, Technical Advisory Commit-
tee, and Citizens Advisory Committee) between 1991
and 1993; and
• The Plan should contain appendices with the supporting
technical information, a glossary of terms, and a bibliog-
raphy.
Responding to these recommendations, a Working Group
was formed to oversee the development of the 1991 draft
CCMP. The resulting draft document was widely distributed
for comment and served to guide the activities of the MBP as
the Plan was refined and revised over the following four
years.
Developing the 1996 Final CCMP
Peer Review
Several events helped to shape the CCMP during the period
from 1991 through the present In the fall of 1992, a peer
review was undertaken to strengthen and focus the program.
The recommendations of six outside advisors included
holding a Visioning Workshop to clarity our priorities,
setting measurable goals, defining a long-term regional
implementation strategy, and exploring potential mechanisms
and sources to fund our action agenda. Public comments on
the draft 1991 CCMP emphasized the need for an expanded
section on projects of regional significance (so-called
"megaprojects"), and development of specific action recom-
mendations for these megaprojects.
Visioning Workshop - Setting Priorities and
Measurable Goals
The Visioning Workshop, held in June 1993, helped to set
program priorities. These priorities include reduction of
pathogen pollution of shellfish beds and beaches, improved
habitat quality, and reduction of toxics and nutrients entering
the ecosystem through point and nonpoint sources. Subse-
quent meetings of an Ad Hoc Committee resulted in the
establishment of four measurable goals for the MBP, which
will be incorporated into a Monitoring Plan that will track the
progress of CCMP implementation. The following are the
measurable goals for the MBP:
1. Set target percentages for increased acreage of open
shellfish beds over time. Initially, the goal is to reopen
the 12 beds identified under the interagency Shellfish
Bed Restoration Program;
2. Identify embayments at risk of eutrophication;
1-2
-------
3. Quantify reduction in loadings from targeted toxicant
sources contributing to a specific habitat location and
monitor improvement in selected biological indicators;
and
4. Restore 12 coastal wetlands where restricted tidal flow
has led to habitat degradation. Monitor and report the
number of acres of coastal wetlands every five years to
ensure no net loss.
Please refer to Chapter Vm for a full discussion on monitor-
ing progress towards achieving these goals.
Focus Groups
To ensure that the CCMP provided accurate, informed
discussions of the megaprojects in the Bays (see Chapter IV),
a series of focus group discussions were held throughout
1994. Agency representatives and interested members of the
advocacy community exchanged ideas and reached agreement
on basic steps needed for protection of the Bays' environ-
ment Project information was periodically updated to reflect
new developments.
Regional Implementation Strategy
To ensure that the CCMP survives beyond the end of major
National Estuary Program funding, a series of workshops
beginning in January 1994 explored models for a regional
approach to ensure future revision and implementation of the
Plan. The resulting recommendation focused on institutional-
izing the existing partnership between the MBP and the
Regional Planning Agencies to provide technical and finan-
cial planning assistance and to promote watershed-based
water quality planning. A retreat held in January, 1996,
focused on the future role of the Local Governance Commit-
tees and reaffirmed their commitment to work towards local
implementation of the CCMP. Massachusetts Bays Program
staff will continue to provide guidance and technical assis-
tance throughout the implementation phase, and will work
closely with the Management Conference participants to
monitor CCMP implementation progress. Chapter VI
describes the implementation strategy and the future role of
the Massachusetts Bays Program in more detail.
Financing the CCMP
In 1994, MBP produced a companion document to the
CCMP (Financing the Massachusetts Bays CCMP: Federal,
State, and Local Funding Sources and Mechanisms) which
provides guidance on state and federal sources of funding for
CCMP implementation, as well as potential local and private
sources. Approximate costs related to implementation are
included. A matrix cross references funding sources and
CCMP action recommendations. Chapter Vn provides a
summary of this document
Public Review Process
Throughout the four years since the release of the 1991 Draft,
MBP committee members and their constituents have
devoted many hundreds of hours to CCMP issues and to
development and revision of the document In addition, in
December, 1995, the draft final CCMP was released to the
general public for review and comment (See Chapter XI for
a discussion of this process.) The Final CCMP incorporates
responses to comments received as part of the public review
process, as well as comments on the draft final CCMP from
numerous state and federal agencies. All comment letters and
MBP responses are provided in Appendix G.
Agency and Community Commitment
The action recommendations in the CCMP represent five
years of coordinated planning within and among the partici-
pating agencies and communities.
During the winter of 1995-96, participating state and federal
agencies were asked to sign letters citing their willingness to
implement the actions in the CCMP. These letters, presented
in Appendix L, affirm (heir commitments as developed
through meetings and discussions with the MBP staff and
committees. In addition, all four coastal Regional Planning
Agencies have signed a resolution of support for, and
commitment to, implementation of the CCMP. These
resolutions are included in Appendix L as well. During the
same period, LGC community representatives and MBP/
RPA/LGC technical assistance staff began a series of ongoing
meetings with the chief elected officials of the Massachusetts
Bays' coastal communities. As a result of these meetings,
many of the coastal communities have signed a formal
resolution of support for the CCMP, which includes a
voluntary commitment to implement the municipal actions
appropriate to each community. These community resolu-
tions also are included in Appendix L.
These many written commitments attest to the broad agency
and community support for the CCMP, and will help ensure
that the CCMP will be implemented and will serve to guide
the conservation and management of the Bays' resources into
the next millennium,
State and Federal Approval
Following approval from the Governor hi early spring, 1996,
the CCMP was submitted to the EPA for a 3-month review
and approval period. A celebration of "graduation" to the
official CCMP implementation phase is planned for early fall,
1996.
1-3
-------
Plan Organization
This 19% final plan is organized in 11 chapters. Chapter I
introduces the Massachusetts Bays Program and describes its
evolving management plan. Chapter n includes a summary
of the Characterization Report, a companion document to the
CCMP which describes the major features of the Bays -
physical, biological, and socioeconomic - and explores the
impacts of toxic pollutants, pathogens, and nutrients on the
Bays'resources. Chapter in presents specific information on
the Bays' five coastal subregions, including important
resource management issues. Chapter IV describes a number
of the major construction projects ("megaprojects") in the
Bays region. It offers an overview of the history of the
projects, summarizes key environmental issues, and provides
action recommendations for the major agencies and authori-
ties involved. Chapter V, the centerpiece of the management
plan, presents IS major Action Plans for preserving and
protecting the Bays' resources. Implementation of these
plans is presented as a series of targeted steps to be taken by
responsible federal, state, regional, and local agencies, with
proposed costs and timelines for both immediate and long-
term action. Chapter VI presents an overall strategy for
implementing the CCMP on a regional (i.e., watershed /
embayment) basis. Chapter VII provides information on
CCMP financing sources and mechanisms. Chapter VEtt
describes the development of "scientific" and "management"
monitoring programs that will be instituted to gauge progress
on achieving MBP goals. Chapter DC describes an approach
for developing a Management Characterization. Chapter X
describes an approach for developing an effective and
streamlined Federal Consistency analysis. Chapter XI
describes the MBP's public participation program and the
role the public, environmental advocates, and the business
community have played in shaping the CCMP.
The CCMP concludes with a series of informative Appendi-
ces, as follows:
A The Management Framework in Massachusetts Bays
B. Acronyms
C. Glossary
D. Bibliography
E. Management Characterization/Base Programs Analysis
(available under separate cover)
F. Federal Consistency Analysis (available under separate
cover)
G. Public Comments and MBP Responses
H. MBP-FundedResearchReports(1990-1996)
I. MBP Demonstration Projects (1990 -19%)
J. Endangered Species Act
K. National Historic Preservation Act
L. Agency and Community Letters/Resolutions of Commit-
ment
The loose-leaf format of this document, as provided to each
of the 49 coastal communities in the Massachsuetts Bays
region, underscores its development and purpose as a "living"
document, subject to future review and revision. Additional
copies, as well as companion documents such as the Finan-
cial Plan and the Characterization Report, will be made
available through the MBP, CZM, and Regional Planning
Agencies.
1-4
-------
I he State of the Bays
-------
Introduction
This chapter identifies important natural resource and
socioeconomic characteristics of the Massachusetts Bays
region, and offers an assessment of the current status of the
Bays ecosystem, focusing on the priority problems and risks
to habitats, living resources, and human health. It includes
discussions of the major physical and biological features of
the Bays; the diverse habitats of the Bays, including the
human habitat; toxic contamination of the Bays habitats and
living resources; and pathogen contamination of the Bays'
sustainable resources.
To characterize the pollution problems of the Massachusetts
Bays and to develop management solutions, the MBP
undertook a major research program. This program was
conducted by a variety of academic institutions, agencies, and
authorities. Included was an in-depth analysis of three
diverse embayments: Plum Island Sound, Weymouth Fore
River Estuary, and Wellfleet Harbor. The results of the MBP
research program and related studies were incorporated into
the CCMP planning process. In particular, the recommended
actions described in Chapters IV and V reflect the technical
data from the research and studies.
Major Natural Features of the Bays
Region
Geography, Geology, and Water Move-
ments
The Massachusetts Bays region, shown in Figure II-1,
encompasses all of the coastal waters of Massachusetts Bay
from the tip of Cape Cod to the New Hampshire border, an
area of about 1,650 square miles with a shoreline of more
than 800 miles. The Bays are located at the southern end of
the Gulf of Maine, a large coastal sea characterized by
relatively cool water and large tidal ranges. The land
draining into Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays covers more
than 7,000 square miles. Half of this area is comprised of
numerous watersheds within Massachusetts; the other half is
the watershed of the Merrimack River in New Hampshire.
The Bays region has a diverse geological history. Its shore-
line includes beaches comprised of sand and gravel deposited
by the glaciers, as well as rocky shores with exposed pregla-
cial bedrock. The underwater topography of the Bays is a
patchwork of mud, sand, gravel, and boulders (Knebel et al.,
1991). In places, these different types of ocean bottom occur
as a mosaic within a relatively small area, particularly where
fine sediments are constantly being reworked by physical and
biological forces. This geologic diversity explains to a large
extent the distribution pattern of pollutants. Areas with
muddy bottoms tend to be more prone to pollutant deposition,
as their relatively sluggish water movement facilitates the
settling of fine particles and attached pollutants. In contrast,
erosional areas are places where relatively rapid water
movement tends to scour the bottom free of fine sediments,
leaving behind relatively clean coarse grained particles and
rocks.
The MBP provided the funding for the first integrated study
of the physical oceanography of the Massachusetts Bays
(Geyer et al., 1992). A key step in developing management
solutions for the health of the Bays is understanding how
pollutants move and are deposited throughout the region.
Further, understanding the Bays' currents is essential in
predicting how human activities (such as the major sewage
outfall under construction in Massachusetts Bay) are likely to
impact the marine environment
In general, the Bays are strongly influenced by the southward
flowing coastal current of the Gulf of Maine. This current,
combined with the large flow of water from the Merrimack
River, enters northern Massachusetts Bay between
Stelhvagen Bank and Cape Ann. The strength of this current
varies with the season, running strongest during the spring
when heavy spring rains and snowmelt result in high flows
from the Merrimack River and the Maine rivers to the north.
The water then flows from Massachusetts Bay into Cape Cod
Bay, exiting the system around Provincetown. Water also
enters Massachusetts Bays across Stellwagen Bank under the
influence of strong tides. It should be understood that the
overall counterclockwise circulation pattern in the Bays is a
yearly average. This pattern may vary seasonally and even be
reversed on any given day (Geyer et al., 1992).
The residence time of water in different parts of the Bays
varies from as little as a few days (Boston Harbor and other
smaller embayments) to 20 - 45 days (Massachusetts Bays)
to over six months (Stellwagen Basin). Particles are flushed
more rapidly out of Massachusetts Bay than either Cape Cod
Bay or Stellwagen Basin.
Compared to other east coast estuaries, the Massachusetts
Bays do not contain a high volume of freshwater from
rivers. Nonetheless, rivers may be important sources of
selected pollutants to parts of the Bays since some pollutants,
such as heavy metals and toxic organic compounds, are
often adsorbed to particulate matter carried by rivers
(Menzie-Cura, 1991; Menzie-Cura, 1995 a,b). Unlike
H-l
-------
Figure II-l. The Massachusetts Bays and Their Watersheds
0 5 tOmi
0 5 10km
I//J/A*/ Al Data from M*MQIS
n-2
-------
much of the rest of the Bays region, Cape Cod Bay receives
almost all of its freshwater inputs from groundwater, since
there are no large rivers discharging in that area.
The Massachusetts Bays undergo an annual cycle of stratifi-
cation of water into distinct layers by depth. As the water
warms in spring, it begins to stratify into a wanner, lighter
surface layer, a narrow transitional layer called a pycnocline,
and a colder, denser bottom layer. These layers become most
pronounced in summer when there is little mixing between
the surface and ocean bottom. Cooling temperatures and
increasing winds during the fall season break down this
stratification by mixing the water. The significance of this
phenomenon for the biology of the Bays is that nutrients
which support the growth of phytoplankton are used up in the
surface waters during stratified periods and are eventually
replenished when the waters mix again in the fall (Geyer et
al., 1992).
Biological Processes
The patterns of primary production by phytoplankton are
related to the stratification cycle described above. As winter
moves toward spring, the increased day length initiates a
spring phytoplankton bloom, typically in February in Cape
Cod Bay and in March in Massachusetts Bay. (Townsend et
al., 1990). Under the stratified conditions of summer, the
phytoplankton, which must remain in the well lit surface
waters, eventually deplete the nutrients, and their growth
slows considerably. At the time of the fall turnover and
breakdown of stratification, nutrients brought up from the
bottom waters stimulate a fall bloom of phytoplankton. The
particular species of phytoplankton present at any time also
undergo seasonal changes, and can vary from year to year as
well.
Productivity and chlorophyll estimates of Massachusetts and
Cape Cod Bays are relatively low compared to other coastal
regions. The annual productivity of Massachusetts Bay has
been estimated at between 300-500 grams of carbon per
square meter per year (Cura, 1991;Kelly, 1991; Kelty etal.,
1993). Chlorophyll concentrations, an indicator of the
quantity of phytoplankton present, range from 1-4 mg per
cubic meter per year in most of Massachusetts and Cape Cod
Bays. Higher concentrations occur in some harbors and
along eastern Cape Cod Bay (Kelly et al., 1993).
Nutrients, particularly nitrogen, are required for the growth
of phytoplankton, and hence provide a key to understanding
patterns of productivity of the entire system. The largest
single source of nitrogen to the Bays is water that enters the
Bays from the Gulf of Maine (Cura and Freshman, 1992).
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority's (MWRA)
treatment plant on Deer Island is the greatest single
land-derived source of nitrogen to the Bays (Menzie-Cura et
aL, 1991). About 20 percent of the local nitrogen loading to
the Bays derives from the atmosphere (Zemba, 19%). In
general, nitrogen concentrations in the Bays are highest in
harbors and embayments, and then decrease with distance
from shore. A study funded by the MBP is examining how
the characteristics of Cape Cod Bay influence the physical
and biological processes controlling the availability of nutri-
ents, which can be a source of pollution when present in
excess concentrations (Gardner et al, in progress).
Cultural eutrophication, the excessive and deleterious growth
of algae stimulated by artificially high nutrient inputs, has
degraded a number of estuaries around the globe, including
Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound. Symptoms of such
eutrophication are not presently evident in Massachusetts and
Cape Cod Bays. Most of the Bays waters are extremely well
flushed, although the deep waters of Stellwagen Basin
experience occasional depressions of dissolved oxygen in
September and October (Geyer et al, 1992). In general,
eutrophication in the Bays system is considered a nearshore,
localized condition that is limited to smaller embayments.
Most marine organisms depend directly or indirectly on the
phytoplankton community. Zooplankton—most commonly
microscopic animals related to shrimp and lobster or the
larvae of fish and invertebrates-feed directly on phyto-
plankton as well as each other. The endangered right whale
is attracted to Cape Cod Bay in late winter because of the
high concentrations of copepods, the most abundant type of
zooplankton in the Bays.
Blooms of nuisance algae are a major management concern.
Red tide is caused by a dinoflagellate, Alexandrium tama-
rense. This organism produces a toxin that causes paralytic
shellfish poisoning (PSP) in humans who ingest shellfish
from waters where these organisms have bloomed. In recent
years, red tides have been limited primarily to the Upper
North Shore. One of the major concerns expressed by some
about the new MWRA outfall (currently under construction)
is that the nutrients it will release may stimulate blooms of
the red tide organism transported south from Maine by the
overall circulation patterns through the outfall area. Because
the overall amount of nutrients will not change and the
nutrients will be added below the zone where plankton can
grow, most scientific evidence suggests it is unlikely that the
new outfall will affect the frequency and extent of red tide
blooms (US EPA, 1993). Nonetheless, it is a focus of
monitoring efforts. (For more information on the MWRA
project, please refer to the "Boston Harbor Project" discus-
sion in Chapter IV.)
Other toxic algae occasionally identified in Massachusetts
Bays include Pseudonitzschia pungens, which causes
Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning (ASP) and Dinophysis sp.,
which induces diarrhetic shellfish poisoning. Phaeocystis
(brown tide) is not toxic but is considered a nuisance algae
because it fouls beaches, is odorous, clogs fishing nets, and
can smother eelgrass and other marine life.
H-3
-------
Living Resources Habitats of the
Bays
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays are blessed with a
diversity of estuarine and marine habitats. Protecting and
enhancing these habitats is a priority of the Massachusetts
Bays Program.
Salt Marshes
Salt marshes are intertidal grasslands and are among the
world's most productive ecosystems. Currently, there are
about 34,000 acres of salt marsh in Massachusetts and Cape
Cod Bays (calculated by MBP from Mass GIS 1985 land use
data). Almost hah7 of this acreage is the wide expanse of
marsh stretching from Plum Island Sound through Essex Bay
on the Upper North Shore. Other large salt marshes are
present in Scituate/Marshfield, Duxbury Bay, and Bamstable
Harbor.
Over the years, many salt marshes in Massachusetts, particu-
larly in the Metro Boston area, have been destroyed or
degraded by filling for urban development. Adoption of the
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and accompanying
Regulations in the 1970s has been instrumental in slowing
this trend, as indicated by some recent estimates. These show
only negligible losses since the 1970s in a relatively rural
area (Plymouth County) and along the coast from Plum Island
to Scituate. Another study, however, estimated an 8.8
percent loss of salt marsh over the same period in an urban
marsh (Rumney Marsh in Saugus) that has been subject to
encroachment and degradation.
Currently, the major threats to salt marshes are not the
widespread filling witnessed in the past, but rather, small
incremental losses and degradation due to commercial
development, legal filling (e.g., public works projects),
illegal filling^ mosquito control, and pollution. Encroachment
of salt marshes by the giant reed, Phragmites australis, has
degraded numerous marshes where the natural flushing by
seawater has become constrained. This aggressive and
invasive plant can become the sole dominant species in a salt
marsh, choking out other native flora and fauna that are
dependent on the marsh environment Sea level rise and the
effects of development in the upland buffer zones adjacent to
marshes present future challenges to the health of the Bays'
salt marshes. MBP has provided funding to map potential
coastal salt marsh restoration areas and to provide a socio-
economic justification for restoration of these critical marshes
(King etal.,in progress).
Tidal Flats
There are approximately 30,000-36,000 acres of tidal fiats in
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. About 40 percent of this
acreage occurs along Cape Cod Bay in Bamstable County.
Duxbury and Plymouth Bays on the South Shore, and
Ipswich Bay on the North Shore, also contain extensive tidal
Sals (Hankin et al, 1985). In the past, tidal flats have been
subjected to the same filling activities that have plagued salt
marshes ]h addition to outright loss, tidal flats are also prone
to high levels of pollutants since they are areas of sediment
accumulation. Tidal flats are especially important to human
beings as they provide habitat for a number of commercially-
important shellfish. They are also major feeding areas for
migratory shorebirds, including several threatened and
endangered species such as the piping plover and roseate
tern.
Rocky Shores
Rocky shorelines constitute our most dramatic coastal
scenery. They are most prevalent in the North Shore region
extending from Nahant north through Cape Ann. Because
they are well flushed by wave action, both the rocky intertidal
shore and submerged kelp forests tend to be less affected by
pollutants than other coastal habitats. Nonetheless, a recent
study by Northeastern University indicated that even rocky
shores can be degraded by severe pollution; in particular, oil
spills constitute a potential threat (Witman, 1994).
Eelgrass Meadows
Eelgrass, Zostera marina, forms a rich underwater meadow
that is a haven for a variety of fish and invertebrates
(Buchsbaum, 1992). Because these meadows are subtidal
(i.e., beneath the water surface), estimating their current
acreage and health is a challenging proposition. Neverthe-
less, several initiatives have been launched in an effort to
accomplish this.
Major threats to eelgrass are declines in water clarity,
eutrophication, dredging, and boating activity (Orth and
Moore, 1983; Costa, 1988 a,b). Eelgrass also is prone to
natural population fluctuations resulting from intense coastal
storms and a naturally occurring "wasting" disease.
Open Water
The nearshore open water of Massachusetts and Cape Cod
Bays extends from the immediate shoreline to as deep as 100
meters in Stellwagen Basin. Much of this habitat is within
the Commonwealth's Ocean Sanctuary Program or the
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. A major
management concern for this habitat is the protection of a
number of endangered species, such as whales and sea
turtles, that visit the area. Other concerns include fisheries
management and maintenance of water quality and habitat
integrity in the presence of a number of wastewater outfalls
and dredge disposal sites.
H-4
-------
Barrier Beaches and Coastal Dunes
Barrier beaches and coastal dunes encompass a complex of
habitats, including intertidal areas, upper beach, wrack line,
foredune, back dune, washouts, and interdunal swales and
forests. These habitats are particularly important resting and
feeding areas for migratory birds, and support a number of
unique animals and plants, including various rare or endan-
gered species, that can tolerate the desert-like conditions.
Barrier beaches are the coastal habitat used most intensively
by people. As such, they present especially difficult manage-
ment challenges. Conflicts commonly arise over balancing
residential, commercial, and recreational interests with the
preservation of natural values. In an effort to address this
problem, the Commonwealth established a task force that
brought diverse interest groups together to find areas of
common ground and to reconcile differences. The result of
their work is a guidance manual (Guidelines for Barrier
Beach Management in Massachusetts, February 1994),
which prescribes best management practices for a broad
range of barrier beach activities and interests.
Estuaries as Fish and Waterfowl Habitat
Numerous coastal and offshore fish species spend at least
part of their lives in estuaries. Although the number of
commercially important "estuarine dependent" species is
lower in New England than in other parts of the east coast,
these habitats are important nursery areas to several species
valued by humans, most notably populations of winter
flounder. Pollution of some of the Bays' urban estuaries, such
as Boston and Salem Harbors, has been associated with a
high incidence of disease in this fish (Moore et al., 1985).
Anadromous fish are those that migrate inland from marine
habitats to spawa hi the Massachusetts Bays region, these
include alewives, blueback herring, American shad, rainbow
smelt, Atlantic salmon, and Atlantic and short-nosed sturgeon
(RebackandDicarlo, 1972; Chase, 1994). Over the years,
these fish have suffered greatly from habitat degradation,
particularly in the coastal rivers that are their spawning sites
(Chase, 1994). The state's smelt fisheries, in particular, have
declined sharply in recent years. Presently, Boston Harbor is
one of the few regions where a viable smelt fishery still
exists. (The top three rivers for smelt production in the Bays
region are the Neponset River, Back River, and Fore River).
Much of the decline in their populations can be attributed to
the restricted access to these spawning sites caused by dams
and other physical impediments, hi addition, key spawning
sites have been destroyed by siltation, excessive growth of
algae, and other forms of pollution. The success of present
anadromous fish runs requires a vigilant and effective stream
management effort
Large wintering populations of sea ducks, gulls, and alcids
(penguin-like sea birds) use a variety of estuarine and
nearshore habitats, hi addition, gulls, terns, cormorants,
herons, and egrets summer in the Bays region and depend on
a number of offshore islands for nesting. The greatest threat
to these birds is habitat degradation, both here in Massachu-
setts and in areas where they spend the rest of their migratory
lives (Buchsbaum, 1992).
The Human Habitat
In 1992, a major socio-economic analysis of the Bays'
resources (Bowen et aL, 1992) paved the way for CCMP
priority setting.
Population Pressure
People are the ultimate source of most of the water quality
problems and habitat degradation in Massachusetts and Cape
Cod Bays. The coast of Massachusetts Bay is among the
most densely populated of any estuary in the National Estuary
Program (NOAA, 1990), and the population is expected to
grow. Population projections for the United States as a
whole indicate that mere is a national trend toward living in
the coastal zone. Two Massachusetts Bays counties in which
significant future population growth is projected are Mid-
dlesex and Bamstable Counties. The primary environmental
issue associated with population growth is new development
that triggers increases in sewage effluent, stormwater runoff,
and other nonpoint sources of pollution.
Shipping, Boating, and Dredging
Boston is the major shipping port in the Massachusetts Bays
region, generating $1.858 billion in economic activity, based
on 1992 figures from the Massport Authority (Massport,
1995). The recreational boating industry hi Massachusetts
employs nearly 9,000 workers who receive a total payroll of
$187 million (Cavanaugh and Lewis, 1990). To maintain
mis shipping and boating activity, Boston and other harbors
require periodic dredging. A major and ongoing manage-
ment issue is the disposal of dredged materials, especially
those that are contaminated At present, there is no entirely
satisfactory solution. Other management issues associated
with maritime activity are chronic oil spills and bacterial
pollution from marine sanitation devices.
Tourism
Tourists in Massachusetts coastal regions spend about $1.5
billion per year and support nearly 81,000 jobs. A major
management issue associated with tourism is the conflicts
that arise between recreational use and the protection of
critical coastal resources, especially those on barrier beaches.
n-5
-------
Whalewatching is one of the Bays' most popular tourist
pastimes. About 1.25 million passengers per year visit
Stellwagen Bank and Jefferies Ledge to view these spectacu-
lar cetaceans. Guidelines have been issued by the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to address concerns about
die potential inadvertent harassment of whales by observation
boats approaching too closely.
Cultural Resources
The Bays region has a long and rich cultural history, begin-
ning with the first Native American inhabitants of approxi-
mately 12,000 years ago (when the continental shelf was
exposed as a broad coastal plain) and continuing into the
present A recent survey of data at the Massachusetts
Historical Commission (MHC) indicates that the coastal
region has the highest density of ancient archaeological sites
in the state. Marine resources have been a significant part of
Native American subsistence strategies for millennia.
European explorers were initially attracted to the Bays for
their fishing potential in the 15th century and much of the
early colonial settlement was oriented here. Key aspects of
the Commonwealth's history are related to its sea-faring
industries and dependence on the maritime trades and
economies. Important historic and archaeological resources
include shipwrecks, marine-dependent structures (e.g.,
wharves and lighthouses), and various archaeological sites.
The latter include Native American habitation areas and
villages, historical colonial settlements, and historical marine
industries (ships, shipyards, saltworks, fish flakes). To-
gether, these rich cultural resources help define the unique
character of the Bays region and provide a better understand-
ing of its historical use and development
Fishing
Fishing has been an economic and cultural staple of coastal
Massachusetts since Colonial times. According to a recent
MBP-funded study (Bowen et al., 1992) the total value of
fish and shellfish landed in Massachusetts and Cape Cod
Bays in 1990 was about $53 million. Lobsters accounted for
about 60 percent and finfish 33 percent of this amount
Bluefin tuna brought in the greatest landed value among the
finfish, followed by cod, winter flounder, yellowtail flounder,
Atlantic herring, and spiny dogfish. Shellfish other than
lobsters (primarily soft-shelled clams, quahogs, and sea
scallops) accounted for 6.5 percent of the total landed value.
Recreational and sport fishing are also significant to the
region's economy. In 1989,634,000 recreational fishermen
harvested $ 12 million worth offish from the Massachusetts
Bays. Bowen et aL (1992) estimated that the annual eco-
nomic benefit of recreational fishing in the Massachusetts
Bays is between $45 and $355 million, equaling or exceeding
that of commercial fishing.
It is widely known that major commercial species of Massa-
chusetts Bays are overfished in the region, an ecological
tragedy that has led to severe economic hardship for tradi-
tional fishing-dependent communities, such as Gloucester
(Correia, 1992; Buchsbaum et al., in progress). Eight out of
eighteen species of finfish that occur in the Massachusetts
Bays region were listed as overexploited by the Northeast
Fisheries Science Center of NMFS in their 1993 survey.
Total landings of the three most important species of
groundfish in Massachusetts waters ~ cod, winter flounder,
and yellowtail flounder - are now roughly only 15 percent of
what they were in the late 1970s (EOEA, 1990). Haddock,
a species long prized by fishermen and consumers, has all but
disappeared from Massachusetts waters. Ocean scallops and
lobsters in the Gulf of Maine are also classified as overex-
ploited
hi response to these distressing trends, NMFS recently issued
new regulations designed to drastically cut fishing mortality
by limiting the areas open to fishing the length of time
fishermen can fish, and the total number of people who can
fish. At the same time, the Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries (DMF) has placed limits on the size of boats that
can fish in state waters. Despite these actions, however,
recovery of the stocks is uncertain. Atlantic herring is one of
the few species that have made a successful comeback from
an overfished condition.
Although overfishing is generally considered to be the
primary cause of the current crisis in the fishing industry,
pollution and habitat loss are thought to play a role as well,
especially among fish that spawn nearshore or are ana-
dromous. Such fish have much greater exposure to polluted
water and sediments than offshore species. Entrainment of
fish in power plant intakes may account for some additional
localized impacts. In the spring of 19%, MBP hosted a
workshop to present the results of a MBP-funded analysis of
the factors impacting fish populations (Buchsbaum, etal.,in
progress).
Toxic Contamination of Massachu-
setts Bays Habitats and Resources
Pollutants in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, such as
nitrogen, suspended solids, potycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), chlorinated hydrocarbons, trace metals, and patho-
gens, can increase risks to human health, habitats, and
sustainable resources. These pollutants enter the Bays in
either one of two general modes: from point sources (i.e.,
direct discharges) or from nonpoint sources (i.e., diffuse
sources such as stormwater, groundwater, or the atmo-
sphere).
E-6
-------
Sources of Pollutants to Massachusetts
Bays
Recent studies indicate that the drainage basins for Boston
Harbor, the lower North Shore, and the Merrimack River
contribute the largest pollutant loads to the Bays. Major
sources within these basins are effluent from municipal
wastewater treatment facilities and industries, rivers, storm-
water runoff, and atmospheric deposition (Menzie-Cura,
1991; Menzie-Cura, 1995 a,b; Golomb et al, 1995).
Wastewater treatment facilities, particularly the large ones
run by the MWRA, are among the greatest contributors of
trace metals, especially copper, lead, and zinc (Alber and
Chan, 1994;Uhlere/a/., 1994; Menzie-Cura, 1995b). In
recent years, the level of metals discharged by MWRA
facilities has declined due to an industrial pretreatment
program and a slower economy (Alber and Chan, 1994).
Industrial pipes are generally not a large "direct" source of
toxic pollutants to the Bays, as most industries discharge their
wastewater into municipal sewer systems rather than directly
into the Bays or their tributaries.
The Merrimack River, which drains the largest watershed to
the Bays, contributes an estimated 10-40 percent of the total
copper load to Massachusetts Bay. It is also an important
source of lead, chromium, and mercury. Many of these
pollutants are discharged to the Merrimack River by munici-
pal wastewater treatment facilities and industries in the urban
centers along the river (Menzie-Cura, 1991). Rivers entering
Boston Harbor are major sources of lead and PAHs (Menzie-
Cura, 1991; Alber and Chan, 1994).
Stormwater is a significant cumulative source of pollutants on
a Bays-wide scale and a major contributor to the degradation
of many nearshore waters, including Boston Harbor. Com-
bined sewer overflows (CSOs) also are a significant contrib-
utor of various pollutants to Boston Harbor. Atmospheric
deposition is a significant contributor of nitrogen, organic
compounds (PAHs and potychlorylbiphenyls, or PCBs), and
certain trace metals (cadmium, lead, zinc, and mercury).
These pollutants enter the atmosphere from car exhaust and
emissions from power plants and municipal incinerators
(Golomb etal, 1996; Zemba, 19%).
Concentrations of Toxic Pollutants in the
Water Column and Sediments
In general, the concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water
column in Massachusetts Bays gradually decrease with
distance from shore. In parts of Boston Inner Harbor, Salem
Sound, and northern Massachusetts Bay, levels of trace
metals exceed those recommended by EPA for chronic
toxicity to marine life, hi addition, contaminated sediments
can be a steady source of some toxic pollutants to the water
column.
The contaminant levels in virtually all sediments in the Bays
are above background levels, even in relatively pristine Cape
Cod Bay (Knebel etaL, 1991; Hyland and Costa, 1995; Shea
and Seavey, in progress). To assess the impact of contami-
nated sediments on the community of marine invertebrates
inhabiting the sediments, MBP funded a sediment triad
analysis (Hyland and Costa, 1995). For a variety of coastal
sites, this study compared sediment toxicity, contaminant
concentrations, and the health of the benthic community, hi
most areas of the Bays, contaminant levels are below those
thought to impact benthic organisms. Nevertheless, there are
a number of toxic "hot spots" in depositional areas where
toxic contaminants and high levels of organic matter accumu-
late, resulting in fewer benthic species (Hyland and Costa,
1995). Nearshore sediments in Boston Harbor, Salem
Sound, and Broad Sound contain a long list of potentially
toxic compounds at hazardous levels (Moore et al, 1995;
Hyland and Costa, 1995; NOAA, 1991). In Boston Harbor,
levels of chromium, copper, zinc, lead, mercury, PCBs, and
DDT significantly exceed the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration's (NOAA's) lowest effect range.
Chromium is elevated in Salem Harbor sediments (MacDon-
ald, 1991). The Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site and the
future MWRA outfall site both violate EPA's proposed
sediment criteria for certain PAHs (Cahill and hnbalzano,
1991). (However, with respect to the MBDS, it should be
pointed out that the MBDS has not been found to have a
significant adverse impact on the habitat of Massachusetts
Bay, based on the findings of the MBDS Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) and Disposal Area Monitoring
System (DAMOS) research. The Public Record of Decision
for the Final EIS for the designation for the MBDS indicated
that "The MBDS has been previously used without any
significant adverse effects to the marine ecosystem or human
health and the proposed future use of the modified MBDS
should have no such effects either.")
To further our understanding of the nature of the sediment
pollution in the Bays, MBP funded an analysis of pollution
levels in cores taken from Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays
(Shea and Seavey, in progress). In addition, MBP funded a
review of available sediment pollution data (Cahill and
Imbalzano, 1991). These and related studies assist the MBP
in understanding the potential impact of major dredging and
dredged materials disposal projects in the Bays, as well as
characterizing the results of long-term disposal of pollutants
into the Bays' waters.
Levels of selected contaminants are expected to decrease in
Boston and Salem Harbors as a result of ongoing improve-
ments to wastewater treatment facilities, reduction in CSOs,
and the reduced use of certain toxic pollutants, such as DDT,
PCBs, and chromium. To help these and other communities
implement CCMP actions related to controlling sediment
pollution, the MBP funded an analysis of stormwater Best
Management Practices and related costs in the Salem Sound
area (Battelle, in progress).
H-7
-------
Effects of Contaminants on Organisms in
the Bays
Diseases and other physiological effects attributed to toxic
pollutants have been found in fish and shellfish from Boston
Harbor, Broad Sound, and Salem Harbor (Moore et al.,
1995; McDowell etaL, in progress). Diseases associated
with PAHs (e.g., a precancerous condition of the liver) were
much higher in winter flounder from Boston Harbor than in
flounder from offshore sites (Sullivan and Robinson, 1990;
Moore etaL, 1992; Moore and Stegeman, 1993). A study by
DMF showed that tissue PCB concentrations are elevated in
winter flounder and lobsters from Salem Sound and Boston
Harbor compared to those from non-urban coastal sites
(Schwartz et al., 1991). The effect of toxic pollutants on
important marine organisms at the population level is
currently being investigated (McDowell, in progress).
To clarify the role of food chain transfer in PAH uptake, the
MBP funded a study of PAH metabolism in clams and marine
worms (McElroy et al., 1994). hi addition, a MBP study
examined a biochemical marker that is induced in popula-
tions offish and intertidal shellfish from the Bays which have
been exposed to organic contaminatioa The marker has the
potential to serve as monitoring tool to assess pollution
exposure (Moore et al., 1995). These studies and related
research will be useful in tracking the recovery of the Bays as
the CCMP is implemented.
The risk to humans of consuming fish and shellfish contain-
ing toxic pollutants is assessed by comparing contaminant
levels in edible tissues with action levels set by the federal
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In general, fish in the
Massachusetts Bays are considered safe to eat by current
standards of risk analysis. The only current health advisory
is for the consumption of lobster tomalley from lobsters
caught anywhere in Massachusetts Bay and a limited advisory
for sensitive people for lobster, flounder, and bivalves from
Boston Harbor and bluefish from Massachusetts Bay (US
EPA, 1988). An EPA study offish and shellfish in Quincy
Bay puts the risk of developing cancer as a result of consum-
ing PCBs in winter flounder, clams, and lobsters (excluding
tomalley) at between one in 1,000 to one in 100,000, depend-
ing on how regularly the fish or shellfish is consumed (US
EPA, 1998). The consumption of lobster tomalley alone
posed the highest risk, one in 100.
Most fish advisories in Massachusetts are restricted to rivers
and lakes. Health risks associated with consumption of fish
from our marine waters, even those of Boston Harbor, are
low. Nonetheless, there are some risks, though fish in the
Bay are generally considered safe to eat
Pathogen Contamination of
Sustainable Resources
Shellfish Bed Contamination
The closure of shellfish beds due to pathogen contamination
is, in the eyes of the pubh'c, one of the major environmental
and economic problems facing Massachusetts and Cape Cod
Bays. Indeed, the 80,000 closed acres of shellfish beds
represent a significant annual economic loss to the state. A
1991 estimate of the economic loss from closed beds in the
Ipswich River alone was $500,000 (Ipswich Shellfish
Advisory Board, 1991). Coastwide, the annual losses are
many times this amount
Contaminated shellfish beds are closed to reduce risks to
public health from pathogens in sewage. The two most
frequent diseases attributed to sewage pollution of marine
waters are gastroenteritis (caused by the Norwalk virus) and
hepatitis A. Between 1961 and 1984,6,000 and 1,400 cases
of these two diseases, respectively, were reported in the
United States (Williams and Fout, 1992). Many cases go
unreported. Massachusetts has shown a promising trend of
no reported cases over the past few years.
Although fecal coliform bacteria generally do not cause
diseases themselves, they are used as an indicator of the
presence of pathogens. Shellfish beds are open to harvesting
when overlying waters are less than a (geometric) mean of 14
fecal coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters (ml) of water for 15
samples. No more than 10 percent of those 15 samples can
exceed 43 fecal cohTorms per 100 ml. (See U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administra-
tion's 1989 Revision of the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program's (NSSP) Manual of Operations, Parti, Sanitation
of Shellfish Growing Areas.) Many shellfish areas in
Massachusetts are conditionally approved, meaning that they
are open except during certain predictable pollution events,
such as rainstorms or sewage overflows. These areas may be
closed during certain seasons or classified as restricted, in
which case die shellfish can be harvested but must "cleaned"
at a relay site or depuration facility for several days prior to
marketing. Beds may be classified as "prohibited" due to
higjb levels of fecal coliforms or subjected to management
closure because they were not surveyed. DMF has responsi-
bility for monitoring and classifying all shellfish harvesting
areas in the Commonwealth.
At the time of this writing, 61 percent, or 252,568 out of
413,341 acres of Massachusetts Bays coastal waters, are
classified as permanently open to shellfishing. As mentioned
above, 80,000 acres of the total closed acreage is considered
productive (i.e., contains harvestable shellfish). On a
regional basis, only 36 percent of the coastal waters from
New Hampshire through Boston Harbor are open, compared
with 81 percent on the South Shore and 90 percent on Cape
Cod (DMF statistics).
H-8
-------
Over the past twenty-five years, the acreage of coastal waters
open to shellfishing has gradually declined (Buchsbaum,
1992;Heufelder, 1988;LeonardetaL, 19S9). Between 1970
and 1990, the closed acreage roughly tripled on the South
Shore and increased about twenty-fold on Cape Cod. On a
more positive note, however, several shellfish beds in the
region have been reopened since 1991.
Studies in a number of areas around Massachusetts and Cape
Cod Bays (Ipswich, the Annisquam River, Salem Sound, the
North River-Scituate, and Cape Cod) show that the primary
causes of closures of shellfish beds are inadequate sewage
treatment systems, illegal sewer tie-ins to storm drains,
stonnwater runoff, and wastes from livestock, pets, and wild
animals (Roach, 1992; Cooper and Buchsbaum, 1994;
Heufelder, 1988). Most of the recent large increases in
closures of shellfish growing waters in Massachusetts are
attributed to increased development along the coast, resulting
in increased nonpoint source pollution, and more intensive
monitoring. Nonpoint source pollution of shellfish beds,
particularly from stonnwater, is often technically difficult to
mitigate, since it requires the tracking of many small and
diffuse sources, each of which may be polluting only intermit-
tently. Creative land use planning and innovative engineering
solutions are required to alleviate this problem and prevent
future degradation. MBP is developing a model to help
communities identify shellfish beds at risk of closure from
future development (Horsley-Witten, in progress).
[Note: While most shellfish bed closures are due to pathogen
contamination, certain biotoxins such as paralytic shellfish
poisoning (PSP) periodically play a role in bed closures as
well. PSP is a naturally-occurring seafood toxin that is
caused by a tiny microorganism known as a dinoflagellate,
Alexandrium tamarense. When the PSP-causing organism
is present in large numbers, it is often referred to as "red
tide." PSP can lead to serious health effects, and there is no
known antidote. Shellfish that are harvested as part of a
recreational or subsistence fishery appear to pose the greatest
health risk because individuals may not be aware of a
problem or do not heed the warnings.
Data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) indicated
that between 1978 and 1985, there were IS reported cases of
PSP in Massachusetts. While the Northeast Technical
Services Unit (NETSU) of the US food and Drug Adminis-
tration (FDA) reported 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. Nevertheless, the PSP problem has been spreading
down the coast of the Gulf of Maine for years, with red tide
events now occurring periodically in Cape Cod Bay.
Coastal waters as well as the marketplace are monitored for
indications of PSP by the Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries (DMF) and the Massachusetts Department of
Public Health (DPH), respectively. This monitoring system
appears to provide adequate public health protection.]
Closures of Swimming Beaches
Beaches are closed to swimming if fecal conform counts
exceed 200 cells per 100 ml seawater. Gastroenteritis is the
most common disease that is contracted by swimming in
contaminated waters. The Massachusetts Bays Program has
calculated that about 10,000 swimmers annually may suffer
illness as a result of incidental ingestion of marine waters.
This translates to an annual risk of about one in a hundred.
The beaches posing the greatest risks are primarily in the
region extending from Boston Harbor through Salem. These
same beaches experience the greatest number of pollu-
tion-related closures.
A positive trend is the decrease in beach closures in Boston
Harbor over the past few years. This has been attributed to
chlorination of CSOs, repair of sewage interceptor conduits,
and cessation of sludge discharges to the Harbor (Rex et al.,
1992).
Massachusetts Water Quality Standards
The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control
(DWPC), a division within the state Department of Environ-
mental Protection (DEP), sets water quality standards and
designated uses for specific coastal and inland waters. These
are goals, and are based on an assessment of what a particu-
lar body of water should be able to achieve, both in terms of
water quality and for shellfishing, fishing, swimming, and
sustenance of aquatic life. Coastal waters are classified as
either "SA," waters with the highest expected uses, or "SB,"
areas which cannot meet SA standards. The DWPC, through
its biennial water quality assessment reports (under §305(b)
of the Clean Water Act) to EPA, periodically assesses how
well water bodies are achieving their targeted goals and
designated uses.
About 60 percent of Massachusetts marine and estuarine
waters assessed by the DWPC do not support their desig-
nated uses due to pollution. Another 30 percent support
their uses and 10 percent are in partial compliance. Desig-
nated uses, such as shellfish harvesting, were achieved for
only 58 percent of the waters classified as SA, and for only
one percent of those classified as SB. The parameter most
frequently causing non-attainment is fecal conform bacteria.
Stonnwater, CSOs, and municipal point source discharges
are the major sources of non-attainment Toxic contaminants
H-9
-------
and organic enrichment often prevent waterbodies from
achieving their designated uses for maintenance of aquatic
life and fishing. These observations provide strong support
for the MBFs priority goals of reducing pathogen contamina-
tion of shellfish beds and reducing toxic pollution from
stonnwater runoff. MBP-funded studies which have contrib-
uted to our understanding of the sources and loadings of
pollutants entering the Bays include Menzie-Cura (1991),
Menzie-Cura (1995a and 1995b), Golomb et al. (1995), and
Zemba(1995).
Conclusion
Characterizing the status of the physical and biological
resources of the Bays, as well as the sources, loadings, fate
and effects of pollutants, serves as an essential first step in
developing a sound comprehensive management plan. The
recommendations in this CCMP have evolved from our
understanding of the state of the Bays, coupled with the
practical wisdom and experience of concerned citizens and
agency professionals working together over the past five
years.
[An expanded State of the Bays report is in preparation and
will serve as a companion document to the CCMP.]
n-io
-------
o
verview of Coastal Subregions
-------
Introduction
This chapter provides important background information on
each of the five coastal subregions that comprise the larger
Massachusetts Bays region. These five subregions and the
communities they include are listed in Table ffl-1. Also
listed are the five Local Governance Committees (LGCs)
which represent their regions in the Bays Program, and which
are working with MBP and Regional Planning Agency staff
to facilitate CCMP implementation at the local and regional
levels.
Table m-1. MBP Coastal Subregions
Upper North Shore Region
{Eight Towns & the Bav LGO
5 Salisbury
Newboryport -
Newbury
Rowley
Ipswich
Essex
Gloucester . .
Rockpoft
South Shore Region
(South Shore LGO
Plymouth
Kingston
Buxbury
Marshfield ,
Norwell
Salem Sound Region
I Salem Sound 2000
Metro Boston Region
(Metro Boston LGO
Swampscott
Lynn -
Nahant
Sangus
Revere -
Everett
Chelsea
Winthrop
Boston
Milton
Quincy
Braintree
Manchester-by-the-Sea
Beverly
Danvers
Peabody
Salem
Marblehead
Cape Cod Region
(Cape Cod Coastal Resources
Committee LGO
Provincetown
Hanover
Scitnate
Cohasset
Hull
Hinghanj
Weymouth
Eastham
Orleans
Brewster
Denni$
Yarmoutn
Barostafale
Sandwich
Bourne
Each of five the subregions is described in terms of its major
physical characteristics, population and economy, land use,
water quality (including municipal sewage treatment meth-
ods), shellfish resources, public beaches, and other commer-
cial and recreational uses. Information is also given on
selected resource management issues important to each
region - for example, rapid population growth, contaminated
shellfish beds, or coastline erosion. Major coastal improve-
ment projects and activities also are described, such as the
MBP Mini-Bays projects, stormwater remediation activities,
and harbor management planning. Finally, an extensive
directory is given of regionally-important projects and
programs, key contact persons, and sources of financial and
technical assistance.
m-i
-------
m-2
-------
chapter III
Upper North Shore
Region
-------
Upper North Shore Region
I Description of the Region
A. Map
The Upper North Shore region of the Massachusetts Bays
Program includes the eight communities of Salisbury,
Newburyport, Newbury, Rowley, Ipswich, Essex, Gloucester,
and Rockport
LEGEND
/*/ Major watersheds
N Towns
/V Major rivers
rf
Cape Ann
g>
Eastern Point
0 1 2ni
'0 1 1 3km
AH data from MassGIS
m-3
-------
B. Physical Characteristics
1) Geology and Soils
The Massachusetts landscape was covered by glaciers
15,000 years ago. Many present-day geological features of
the Upper North Shore (such as depositional beaches,
bedrock outcroppings, drumlins, poorly drained soils, and
numerous wetlands) reflect the region's glacial history.
Salisbury, Newburyport, Newbury, Rowley, Ipswich, and
Essex are characterized by long barrier beaches, estuaries,
salt and freshwater marsh systems, and generally poorly
drained soik To the south and east, the Cape Ann communi-
ties of Gloucester and Rockport are characterized by rocky
headlands and shallow soils covering ledge.
2) Description of the Coastline
The Upper North Shore coastline is dominated by long,
sandy beaches backed by extensive estuaries in the north, and
rocky beaches with small coves in the south. Salisbury
Beach, a coarse sand barrier beach, stretches from the
Massachusetts/New Hampshire border south to the mouth of
the Merrimack River. Plum Island, a nine mile long barrier
island sheltering Plum Island Sound, extends from the mouth
of the Merrimack south to the mouth of the Ipswich River.
Crane Beach (which begins south of the mouth of the Ipswich
River) and Coffin Beach (which begins east of the Essex Bay
inlet) run south and east, protecting the important estuarine
resources of Essex Bay. All told, nearly 20,000 acres of
coastal wetlands are shielded by Salisbury, Plum Island, and
Crane Beaches. Cape Ann's coastline, which extends
eastward from the Annisquam River, is characterized by
rocky headlands with intermittent stretches of sand or gravel
"pocket" beaches. The rocky headlands are erosion resistant
and the shoreline has remained virtually stationary through
time.
3) Watersheds and Important Tributaries
The region contains four major watersheds. The largest of
these is the Merrimack River, which begins in the White
Mountains of New Hampshire and drains extensive portions
(5,010 square miles) of New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
The mouth of this 116-mile river broadens into an expansive
estuary that is shared by the communities of Salisbury and
Newburyport The Merrimack River is used extensively for
both drinking water and wastewater disposal. The once-
serious industrial point source pollution of the past has been
largely abated, leaving municipal sewage treatment plant
discharges (including combined sewer overflows) and
nonpoint sources as the major contributors to the Mem-
mack's current water quality problems.
The Parker River drains 66 square miles in portions of nine
communities, the foremost of which are Newbury,
Rowley, and Georgetown. Beginning in freshwater wetlands
in West Boxford, the Parker River flows in an easterly
direction to Newbury, where it empties into Plum Island
Sound. Major tributaries to the Parker River and Plum Island
Sound include the Mill, Little, Egypt, Rowley, and Eagle Hill
Rivers. Historically, water quality in the Parker River has
been good, but the river is now under stress from increasing
development in once-rural communities.
The Ipswich River originates in Burlington, MA and drains
155 square miles before emptying into Plum Island Sound at
Ipswich. Its watershed is approximately 24 miles long and 6
miles wide and includes portions of 22 communities. As with
many coastal streams, the Ipswich River's surrounding
topography is generally characterized by low-lying land
interspersed with slow-draining swamps and marshes. The
Ipswich River is an important source of drinking water and
outdoor recreation. With the exception of selected headwater
areas (e.g., Burlington and Wilmington), the river's water
quality is generally good until the river passes through the
Town of Ipswich, where it picks up contaminants from urban
runoff and septic systems.
The estuarine portions of the Parker River and Ipswich River
watersheds, as well as the Castle Neck River, Essex River,
and Essex Bay, are located within the Parker River/ Essex
Bay Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).
Designated in 1979, this is the only ACEC located on the
Upper Norm Shore, but is the largest ACEC in the Common-
wealth-approximately 25,500 acres. The ACEC is located
in the towns of Essex, Gloucester, Ipswich, Newbury, and
Rowley.
The North Coastal Basin includes the communities of
Essex, Gloucester, Rockport, and northern Salisbury. This
basin is characterized by small aquifers and streams whose
yields are generally insufficient to meet municipal water
supply needs.
C. Economic and Demographic Characteristics
The eight Upper North Shore communities differ in their
economic and demographic structures. However, all depend
on the diversity and vitality of the area's coastal resources to
bolster their economies and provide a desirable quality of
life. The communities support a broad array of marine-
related industries, including commercial and recreational
fishing (finfishing, lobstering, and shellfishing), tourism,
whale watching, and boating. The following chart highlights
two of the region's important fisheries (lobster and shellfish).
ffl-4
-------
Community
Salisbury
Newburyport
Newbury
Rowley
Ipswich
Essex
Gloucester
Rockport
Region
\»$$j^W't$vi&tqto
IjObsSfei* and SbfcSfis
1993 Commercial Lobster Landings
Pounds Economic Value
18,828
65,149
42,696
4,146
1,603,492
374,024
2,108,335
$54,789
189,584
124,245
12,065
4,666,162
1,088,410
$6,135,255
!^':i^ji
-------
D. Land Use
The Upper North Shore region includes two cities (New-
buryport and Gloucester) and six towns. Newburyport,
Gloucester, and to a lesser extent Ipswich, contain the largest
industrial areas in the region. The communities north of
Cape Ann have substantial acreages of tidal marsh, estuary,
freshwater wetland and barrier beach. Portions of several
towns (Rowley, Newbury, Essex, Ipswich, Salisbury) are still
rural in nature and support fanning activities. These rural
towns grew rapidly in the 1970's and early 80's, creating an
overload on community planning and the delivery of services.
However, most of the towns still contain considerable
developable open land.
E. Water Quality
Overall, water quality in the region is fairly good. The area
is not heavily industrialized, and except for a few municipal
sewage treatment plant outfalls, coastal point source pollution
is not a major concern. Communities have the opportunity
to exercise considerable control over coastal pollution, since
many smaller streams and rivers remain within municipal
boundaries, hi spite of this, all of the region's streams are
impacted to some degree by nonpoint source pollution. The
Merrimack River, while much improved in recent years, is
still sufficiently polluted by upstream and local sources to
keep all productive Salisbury and Newburyport shellfish beds
closed, and occasionally cause water quality criteria for.
selected metals to be exceeded hi the late 1980s, the
Merrimack River was recognized as a critically important
regional resource and became the focus of an Environmental
Protection Agency watershed initiative. The goal of the
Merrimack River Initiative (MRI) is to develop and imple-
ment a Watershed Management Plan, similar to the Massa-
chusetts Bays CCMP, that will restore and maintain the
physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the river and its
watershed to meet existing and future multiple uses and to
protect its natural resources. Because the Merrimack River
has been the subject of MBP-funded research (Menzie-Cura
and Associates, 1991; Menzie-Cura and Associates, 1995),
River Segment
Merrimack River Basin
NH state line to Little River,
Haverhill (4 segments)
Little River to Indian River,
West Newbury
Indian River to mouth
Plum Island River
Use*
Class
B
SB
SA
SA
Status** Pollutants - Sources
NS pathogens, nutrients, metals, pH - CSOs,
urban runoff, municipal & industrial point
sources, agriculture
NS unionized ammonia, thermal modification,
pathogens - CSOs, urban runoff, munici-
pal point sources
NS pathogens - urban runoff, municipal point
sources
PS pathogens - unknown
Parker River Basin
Source to Central St., Newbury
Central St to mouth
Eagle Hill River
B
SA
SA
Not assessed
PS pathogens - source unknown
continued
m-6
-------
River Segment
Parker River Basin (continued)
Paine Creek
Rowley River
Bull Brook
Ipswich River Basin
Source to Sylvania Dam, Ipswich
Sylvania Dam to mouth
Miles River
North Coastal Basin
Essex River
Annisquam River
Rockport Harbor
Gloucester Harbor
Use»
Class
SA
SA
B
B
SA
B
SA
SA
SB
SB
* "Use Classes" are State goals for the river:
S prefix denotes coastal or marine segment
A = public water supply, fishable, swimmable
B = fishable, swimmable
C = fishable
PS
S/T
S
NS
S/T
Pollutants - Sources
nutrients, pH, metals, pathogens, toxics-
landfills, unknown
pathogens, unknown
pesticides, nutrients, siltation, organic en-
richment/DO, pathogens - agriculture,
natural
pathogens - septic tanks, non-urban runoff,
unknown
metals, toxics, nutrients - recreation, land-
fills
NS pathogens, organic enrichment/DO -
septic tanks, recreation, agriculture, natu-
ral
NS pathogens - CSOs, recreation, urban run-
off, unknown
NS pathogens - source unknown
NS pathogens - CSOs, source unknown, ur-
ban runoff/ storm sewers, industrial point
sources
** Status Codes;
S = supports all indicated uses
S/T = supports all uses, but is threatened
PS = supports some uses
NS = supports no uses
Source: DEP 305(b) Report
which has identified the Merrimack as a significant source of
contaminants to Massachusetts Bay, it is important that both
the management plans of the MBP and the MRI recognize
their mutual goals and the efforts needed to obtain those
goals.
m-7
-------
The Ipswich River is relatively clean until it passes through
the Town of Ipswich, where it picks up heavy loads of
bacterial pollutants before entering Ipswich Bay. The Parker
River also is still relatively clean, but periodically has
elevated pollutant levels due to development and agricultural
activity (e.g., runoff from horse farms) in its basin. Many
smaller coastal streams contribute significantly to shellfish
bed closures. The major causes of the area's nonpoint source
pollution are: failing septic systems (contributing bacteria,
nutrients, and pathogens), stonnwater runoff (carrying
contaminants from a variety of sources including failing
septic systems, road emissions, animal wastes, fertilizers, and
pesticides), and poorly functioning sewer systems.
Salisbury, Newburyport, Ipswich, Gloucester and Rockport
have municipal sewage treatment systems which service parts
of the communities. It is surprising, then, that only a little
more than 50 percent of Upper North Shore homes are
sewered. The remaining homes rely on on-site sewage
treatment and disposal systems (septic systems and cess-
pools), many of which pre-date the Title 5 regulations of the
State Environmental Code. The following information is
summarized from a 1995 report titled "The Status of Munici-
pal Wastewater Treatment and Energy-Producing Facilities
Discharging to Coastal Waters in Massachusetts" (Richard
Zeroka, MCZM). Please refer to this report for more
information on coastal municipal sewage treatment facilities.
Community
Population est
Total Served
(1987) -------
Current
level of
treatment
Actual
Design Average
Flow- Flow-
MGD MGD
Salisbury
6,882 >5,000 secondary* 13
advanced
Newburyport 16317 15400 secondary 3.4
Newbury 5,623 — onsite —
Rowley 4,452 — onsite —
Ipswich 11373 6,418 secondary 2.0
Essex 3,260 — onsite —
Gloucester 28,716 ? primary 12
Rockport 7,482 4,000 secondary 0.8
Region
84,105 30,918
CSOs
Effluent
discharge
Sludge
disposal
0.34
2.1
no
no
tidal creek land
(Merrimack application
River)
Primary
source of
flow
domestic
Merrimack hauled to Fall domestic,
River River commercial,
industrial
1.1
no
3.4
0.65
yes
Greenwood composting domestic,
Crk (Ipswich industrial
River)
Gloucester local domestic,
Harbor composting; commercial,
out of state industrial
Rockport land domestic,
Harbor application commercial
m-s
-------
// Coastal Resources
A. Shellfish Beds
tHtrixc
Amesbury
N2.0
Essex
N7.0
N7.2
N7.3
N7.4
N7.5
N.6
Gloucester
N7.0
N7.1
N7.6
N8.0
N9.0
N9.1
N9.10
N9.ll
N9.12
N9.13
N9.14
N9.15
N9.16
N9.17
N9.18
N9.2
N9.3
N9.4
N9.5
N9.6
N9.7
N9.8
N9.9
N10.0
N12.0
Ml 3.0
N14.0
•Status Code:
A=Approved
CA=Cooditionally Approved
CR=Condhionally Restricted
yi£J$f$S^g
Open
Status* Acres
P
CA 689
P
P
P
CA 142
CA 189
CA 202
P
CA 250
A
P
P
P
P
CA 98
P
P
P
CA 8
P
P
P
P
P
CA 20
CA
CA 370
P
CA 7
P
MC
MC
MC
;heimsh Beds and Status as <
Closed
Acres**
37
73
29
36
5
2,118
1,472
108
50
48
19
58
17
7
14
3
34
9
11
97
8,438
2,728
7,651
6,020
Ipswich
N3.0
N4.0
N4.3
N4.4
N5.0
N5.1
N5.2
N5.3
N5.4
N5.5
N5.6
N5.7
N6.0
N7.4
N7.5
N7.6
N10.0
Newbury
N2.0
N3.0
N4.0
N4.1
Newburyport
N2.0
N3.0
Rockport
Nll.O
Nll.l
Rowley
N3.0
N4.0
N4.1
N4.2
N4.3
Salisbury
Nl.O
Nl.l
N1.2
N2.0
*tf^^;^[t\^$
Open Closed
Status Acres Acres**
A 5,776
CA 1,660
CA 23
CA 235
P 214
P 51
P 4
P 13
P 30
P 22
P 25
P 28
P 4,871
P 36
CA 88
CA 359
P 272
P 253
A 8,406
CA 641
CA 159
P 1,413
A 960
MC 28,332
P 43
A 2,275
CA 920
CA 29
CA 161
CA 6
P 8,951
P 48
P 31
P 1,043
•• Acres r\»imi»«on: is for the overaU surface water area at hieh tide within the defined
P=Pbohibited
MOManagement
Closure
growing area. Outer coastal (beach-side) areas generally have clean water but are not very
productive; these areas, usually defined as extending to the 3 mile line, are very large in
comparison to the productive, more often closed estuarine areas.
Source: DMFData
m-9
-------
The Upper North Shore is famous for its soft shell clams.
While coastal pollution has significantly curtailed the
region's use of this valuable resource, shellfishing is still
equated with a high quality of life. Some open ocean areas
remain approved to shellfish harvesting; however, all
productive shellfish beds on the Upper North Shore are
currently closed or only conditionally opened. The
Merrimack estuary clam flats (Salisbury and Newburyport),
which once yielded annual harvests of over 100,000
bushels, have been essentially closed since 1925. (Shell-
fish beds are closed in response to high counts of fecal
coliform bacteria, which indicate the probable presence of
harmful pathogens. Fecal colifonns are found in human
and animal waste; they enter streams and the coastal area
through failing septic systems, poorly functioning sewer
systems, and stormwater runoff.)
B. Beaches
The Upper North Shore is blessed with many beaches. The
tables below list coastal frontage and area beaches by
community.
<£>\°£*ii **i --J5:^- \ 4Vxv4L ;• ^ ^JDibp
•*»4 *^SV - - --A V' \"v^4* KV^»S sfV.V,
Community
Salisbury
Newburyport
Newbury
Rowley
Ipswich
Essex
Gloucester
Rockport
Region
er^irtSSliorfeOas
•. 1 x- ^ v •* ••* ^ ^ -.'•''
Total miles of
coastal frontage
6.90
7.11
12.69
8.20
22.99
3.03
47.19
14.74
122.85
;iaJ Frontage by Conumu
Miles of coastal
frontage publicly owned
4.92
0.80
6.89
6.72
18.55
1.52
4.74
12.33
56.47
^-Ir^lfef^W
Percent of coastal
frontage publicly owned
71.3
11.3
54.3
82.0
80.7
50.2
10.0
83.6
46.0
m-io
-------
':* t^'kM;
Community
Salisbury
Town Beach
State Reservation
Newburyport
Plum Island Beach
Newbury
Plum Island Beach
Rowky
Plum Island Beach
Ipswich
Plum Island Beach
Plum Island State Park
Crane Beach
Great Neck Beach
Little Neck Beach
Clammers (Pavilion) Beach
;^ ty|>*lf&;M*
»4Mtth« |V;j:
Beach Operator Community
Salisbury
Department of Environmen-
tal Management (DEM)
Newburyport
US Fish & Wildlife
US Fish & Wildlife
US Fish & Wildlife
US Fish & Wildlife
DEM
Trustees of Reservations
Great Neck Association
Feofees of Little Neck
Ipswich
Gloucester
Coffins Beach
Wingaersheek Beach
Plum Cove
Niles Beach
Pavilion Beach
Cressy Beach
Magnolia Beach
Good Harbor Beach
Rockport
Long Beach
Cape Hedge Beach
Pebbly Beach
Old Garden Beach
Town Beach
Front Beach
Back Beach
'> -' : -\l: -t / \i
Beach Operator
private
Gloucester
Gloucester
Gloucester
Gloucester
Gloucester
private
Gloucester
Rockport
Rockport
Rockport
Rockport
Rockport
Rockport
Rockport
C. Other Commercial or Recreational Uses
The Upper North Shore coastal area offers many commercial
and recreational opportunities. Gloucester, with its major
fishing port and fish processing plants, is the fishing capital
of the region. Many lobster boats are sheltered in Rockport,
Gloucester, and Ipswich. Recreationists fish for anadromous,
near coastal, and deep water species. All communities
offer opportunities for pleasure boating; charter fishing, river
cruises, and whale watching tours are available in several.
Barrier beaches and their intercoastal areas provide opportu-
nities for birding, wildlife observation, and hunting. Each
community has seafood businesses and restaurants which
utilize the local fish and shellfish catches; each also has an
active tourism industry which relies heavily on the nearby
coastal attractions.
m-ii
-------
/// Community Resource Management
Surveys
This section contains answers to selected questions from
recent EOEA surveys. The answers are summarized here to
provide a sense of the steps that Upper North Shore commu-
nities are taking to protect their resources.
'£* '••••• *; '" jt; " •• ;; ^ ' t% " ; v " ••''•••. ' ••; " ? ; " * " -^
;..^r ^|^. ; |Vh^0i»|)*r!&^
Wetland and Habitat Protection
Has the community:
- issued local wetlands guidelines in addi-
tion to the Wetlands Protection Act?
- delineated coastal & inland wetlands?
Groundwater Protection
Does the community have:
• stonnwater control regulations)?
• Board of Heahh regulation^)
stricter than Title V?
- septic system inspection program?
- septic system upgrade program?
- septic system pumping program?
Surface and Coastal Water Protec-
tion
Does the community have:
- flood plain maps (FEMA)
- flood plain zoning
- boat pumpout facilities
- subdivision stormwater management reg-
ulations
General Environmental Protection
Do these boards have professional
staff?
- Planning Board
- Conservation Commission
- Board of Health
Salisbury
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Newburyport
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Newbury
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Rowley
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Ipswich
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Essei
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
-*r " ?ss
ff -. ft-
% V , !
Gloucester
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
•• V V. •.*•>
'• f v ij
..... ,.: •• •*•?
''•S
Rockport
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
m-i2
-------
IV Significant Resource Management Issues
Shellfish bed closures are of major concern to most commu-
nities in this region. All productive Upper North Shore
shellfish beds are closed either full time or following rain
events. The beds are closed by the Division of Marine
Fisheries (DMF) in response to unacceptably high levels of
fecal coliform bacteria. Important sources of the bacteria
include malfunctioning on-site septic and municipal sewerage
systems, polluted stormwater, boat wastes, and, in some
cases, domestic and wild animals wastes. Solutions to the
shellfish bed problem are well documented. However, the
implementation of these solutions is very difficult, as strong
commitment by communities and individuals is required. Of
related concern to area shellfishennen is a potential shortage
of depuration capacity for the cleansing of shellfish
harvested from conditionally restricted areas. Shellfish from
conditionally restricted areas live in waters with relatively
higher fecal coliform levels, can only be dug by "master
diggers", and must be depurated (a filtering process) prior to
sale. Some area shellfish beds could potentially be upgraded
from prohibited to conditionally restricted, but a possible
shortage of depuration facilities may create a problem. The
state's only depuration facility, run by the Division of Marine
Fisheries, is located on the northern tip of Plum Island
(Newburyport). This facility currently accepts clams only
from the Boston Harbor area.
Coastal erosion is of special concern to Salisbury. Salisbury
Beach has many oceanfront homes and businesses, and has
experienced severe erosion during recent storms. The town
is encouraging the planting of dune grass and installation of
snow fencing by beachfront residents, and built a sacrificial
dune at the southern end of the beach during the summer of
1994. The northern end of Plum Island (Newburyport and
Newbury) also is heavily developed, but has not experienced
major erosion problems in recent years.
Growth management and comprehensive planning tools
are needed in all of the Upper North Shore communities.
This need goes hand-in-hand with the need for greater
technical assistance at the community level. Most of the
communities are served by volunteer planning, health, and
conservation boards with inadequate staff support Conser-
vation Commissions and Boards of Health in particular are
limited in effectiveness because they often have only part-
time agents. This is a problem which, unfortunately, only
additional funds can remedy.
m-is
-------
V Coastal Management and Improvement
Activities
A. Massachusetts Bays Program Mini-Bay Project.
Demonstration Projects, and Bays Action Grants
Massachusetts Bays Program demonstration projects in the
region have been administered primarily through Eight
Towns and the Bay (8T&B), the region's MBP Local Gover-
nance Committee, and the Plum Island Sound Mini-Bay
Project, conducted by Massachusetts Audubon Society:
North Shore Office. Eight Towns and the Bay has used MBP
funding to initiate a wide variety of activities, including:
• Establishing community-based, volunteer Water Quality
Task Forces to encourage grass roots participation in the
Massachusetts Bays Program. 8T&B also developed a
"Workbook" to help community groups assess nonpoint
source pollution in their towns. To date, the Task Forces
have conducted a variety of water quality monitoring and
educational projects in their communities.
• Sponsoring a septic system assessment grant program for
8T&B communities. The winner of the 1995 grant - the
Essex Board of Health - performed a survey of all septic
systems in town. Ipswich, a runner-up in the grant contest,
was later awarded DEP 604(b) funds for its stormwater and
septic system pollution assessment proposal.
• Sponsoring workshops focusing on several coastal issues
(e.g., stormwater pollution, salt marsh restoration, shell-fish
and finfish aquaculture).
• Providing funding for an assortment of smaller projects
including: test well monitoring in Gloucester, development
of an Open Space Plan for Rockport; restoration of a small
freshwater pond in Essex; water quality monitoring in
Rowley, and inventorying of restricted tidal creeks in all
8T&B communities.
• Assisting 8T&B communities in applying for various state
environmental planning, assessment, and remediation
grants. To date, projects have been funded in Gloucester,
Ipswich, and Rowley.
MBP Bays Action Grants have also promoted coastal action
and awareness in the region. Grants have been awarded for
a variety of activities including: water quality monitoring in
Ipswich; an innovative stormwater technology demonstration
in Rowley; and whale paintings on the Newburyport board-
walk by school children.
B. Other Government Programs
Marinas in Newburyport and Gloucester have both recently
received state grants for boat pump-out facilities. The Town
of Rockport hopes to receive funding from the same grants
program.
The Merrimack Valley Planning Commission, in collabora-
tion with the Town of Ipswich and the City of Gloucester, is
conducting soft shell clam aquaculture demonstration
projects on non-productive tidal fiats in the Eagle Hill River
(Ipswich) and the Little River (Gloucester).
C. Citizen Group Efforts
The Upper North Shore is fortunate to have a number of
active citizen groups and nonprofit environmental organiza-
tions working in concert to restore and protect water quality
and habitat The Eight Towns and the Bay Committee is the
newest group to the area It was established in 1992 to
promote local and regional coastal water quality initiatives,
and is comprised of citizens appointed by the chief elected
officials in each of the eight member communities. Other
regional environmental organizations include: the Merrimack
River Watershed Council, the Ipswich River Watershed
Association, the Parker River Watershed Association,
Massachusetts Audubon: North Shore Office, the Essex
County Greenbelt Association, the Trustees of Reservations,
and the Bay Circuit Alliance.
ffi-14
-------
V Coastal Management and Improvement
Activities
™ti Ji-?-> "•' *i*v- ^^s^» -.- ^ir- ^ •.V-jJij.x- -.-"-S-. -" J.5 x*«- ; •."" s *-% - *
<$$p^ Sw
State/Federal
Programs and Agencies
• Massachusetts Bays Program
> Shellfish Bed Restoration Program
(MBP, Div. of Marine Fisheries,
DEP, Soil Conservation Service)
• ACEC Program (Area of Critical
Environmental Concern)
• Partners for Wildlife Program (US
Fish & Wildlife Service)
• Riverways Program (MA Dept of
Fisheries, Wildlife and Env. Law
Enforcement)
> Natural Resources Conservation
Service/Community Assistance
Unit
> Wetlands Conservancy Program
(Department of Environmental Pro-
tection)
> Wetlands Restoration and Banking
Program
Regional Government
Agencies/Programs
Eight Towns and the Bay (Upper
North Shore Local Governance
Committee)
MBP Plum Island Sound Mini-
bays Project
Contact Person and
Telephone Number
Diane Gould,
Executive Director
(617)727-9530
Deirdre Kimball,
Coordinator
(617)727-9530
Leslie Luchonok,
ACEC Prog. Mgr.
(617)727-3160
Robert Scheirer,
Priv. Lands Coord.
(603)225-1411
Maria van Dusen,
Joan Kimball
(617)727-1614
Marc McQueen
(508) 295-1481
Charles Costello
(617)292-5704
Christy Foote-Smith,
Director
(617)727-9530
LisaNicol,MVPC
(508)374-0519
Andrea Cooper
MA Audubon: NS
(508) 972-1122
Project or Program Description
Natural Estuary Program - provides planning, technical
and financial assistance for the protection of Massachu-
setts and Cape Cod Bays. Partnership of state/federal
and municipal governments.
Collaborative effort by Mass Bays Program, DMF, DEP,
and NRCS to remediate storm drain pollution of priority
shellfish beds.
ACEC status provides additional protection to critical
resource areas, and creates an ecosystem-based planning
and management framework for state and local actions.
A federal program providing financial and technical
assistance to landowners for wetlands restoration pro-
jects.
Riverways offers guidance documents and technical
assistance on local river protection efforts.
This new technical team helps communities address
nonpoint source pollution problems.
This state program is charged with mapping coastal and
inland wetlands.
A new, statewide EOEA program targeted towards
restoring degraded wetlands.
Regional committee comprised of community appoint-
ees. Purposes: information sharing, promoting local and
regional actions.
MBP-funded study of coastal pollution in Ipswich, Row-
ley, and Newbury. Includes biological & land use stud-
ies and public outreach.
continued
m-is
-------
Regional Government
Agencies/Programs
• Department of Environmental Pro-
tection
Coastal Zone Mgmt Office: North
Shore regional assistance
Division of Marine Fisheries
Essex County Mosquito Control
Project (ECMCP)
Merrimack River Initiative
Merrimack Valley Planning
Commission (MVPC)
• Metropolitan Area Planning Coun-
cil (MAPC)
Contact Person and
Telephone Number
Lawrence (HI,
Office of Watershed
Management
(617)292-5884
Elaine Hartman,
Office of Watershed
Management
Joan Beskinis,
Office of Watershed
Management
North Shore Coord.
(508)281-7932
David Chadwick,
Fisheries Biologist
Newburyport Shellfish
Plant
(508)465-3553
Walter Montgomery
Essex County Regional Services
Carolyn Jenkins
NEIWPCC
(617)658-0500x235
Alan Macintosh,
Env. Program Mgr.
(508)374-0519
Martin Pillsbury,
Water Resources
Planner
Joan Blaustein,
Land Resource Planner
(617)451-2770
Tia Costello,
Coordinator
(508)741-0201
Thomas O'Leary,
County Planner
continued
Project or Program Description
Team leader for North Coastal Basin team.
Team leader for Ipswich River Basin team.
Team leader for Parker River Basin team.
CZM develops state coastal zone policy, and monitors
coastal activities, and provides technical assistance on
broad range of coastal issues.
The Newburyport biologists test North Shore shell-
fishing areas for pathogens and PSP.
ECMCP has expertise in saltmarsh restoration work
(Open Marsh Water Management).
A federally funded, bi-state, public/private initiative
designed to foster environmental improvements within
the Merrimack River corridor.
Regional Environmental Planning
Regional Environmental Planning
(Can also assist with bikeways and pathways planning.)
Recycling, composting, household hazardous waste
collection, solid waste management, CIS.
m-16
-------
!.. -\j;\ \", -.V"" * " %*;
o^-niaas* m jSwre^ of Assistance
Regional Nonprofit Agencies
• Essex County Greenbelt Associa-
tion (ECGA)
• Ipswich River Watershed Associa-
tion (IRWA)
• Massachusetts Audubon: North
Shore Office/Mill River Nonpoint
Source Reduction Implementation
Project
• Merrimack River Watershed
Council (MRWC)
Contact Person and Telephone Number
Ed Becker, Executive Director (508) 768-7241
Kerry Mackin, Executive Director (508) 887-8589
Andrea Cooper, Robert Buchsbaum (508) 927- 1 1 22
Ralph Goodno, President (508) 681-5777
Local Efforts
• Essex Water Quality Task Force
• Gloucester sewering project, BOH
septic surveys
• Ipswich Coastal Pollution Control
Committee
• Merrimack Estuary Monitoring
Project (8T&B/MRWC)
• Rockport Water Quality Task
Force
• Rowley Water Resource
Committee
Stephan Gersh, Chairman (508) 768-7822
Dan Ottenheimer, Health Agent (508) 281-9798
Wayne Castonguay, Chairman (508) 281-9275
Marea Gabriel, MRWC (508) 681-5777
Ruth Perrault, Chairperson (508) 546-38%
Fran Sculley, Chairperson (508) 948-2141
ffl-17
-------
m-is
-------
chapter III
Salem Sound
Region
-------
Salem Sound Region
/ Description of the Region
A. Map
The Salem Sound region of the Massachusetts Bays Program
consists of Manchester-by-the-Sea, Beverly, Danvers,
Peabody, Salem, and Marblehead.
Beverly
S
Salem Sound
Danvers
iver
Manchester
^Harbor
Marblehead
Harbbr
Marblehead
t LEGEND
|V Major watersheds
Swampscott
A/ Towns
Major rivers
Nahant
Bay
0 1 2 3km
All data from MassGIS
ffl-19
-------
B. Physical Characteristics
1) Geology and Soils
Manchester-by-the-Sea predominantly consists of exposed
rocky headlands. From Chubb Point (Manchester-by-the-
Sea) to Beverly Harbor and around through Marblehead
Harbor, the beach complexion changes to coarse sand and
gravel with intermittent exposures of rocky headlands.
Much of the watershed in Manchester-by-the-Sea and
Beverly and South Salem consists of the Chatfield-Hollis-
Rock outcrop association, which generally has loamy soils
formed in glacial till with areas of exposed bedrock. Areas
in Beverly, Peabody, Salem and Marblehead which are
densely settled are classified as Urban soil (i.e., disturbed soil
that has been excavated or built upon). Danvers, West
Peabody and small areas of Beverly are classified as
Merrimac-Hinckley-Urban soil association which has loamy
and sandy soils disturbed by urban activities.
2) Description of the Coastline
The portion of Manchester-by-the-Sea which drains to Salem
Sound includes the area from Smith's Point to Chubb Point,
and is characterized by mixed rocky and sandy beach coast-
line. The eastern portion of Beverly has several large
sections of sandy beach which are erosional zones, with few
marshes. The downtown areas of Beverly, Salem and
Danvers are generally developed on the waterfront, but have
some pockets of marshes remaining in the headwaters and
estuarine zone as well as a few sandy beaches. The coast-
lines of Salem Willows and Winter Island, as well as
Marblehead and Marblehead Neck, are mixed rock outcrop-
pings interspersed with sandy beaches.
3) Watershed and Important Tributaries
/i^-.» *»•<• • •- -„ ..,?
The major tributary to Salem Sound is the Danvers River,
with its tributaries of the Bass, Porter, Crane, and Waters
Rivers. Other tributaries to Salem Sound include the Forest,
South, and North Rivers. The Sound watershed is located
almost exclusively in the bordering communities of
Manchester-by-the-Sea, Beverly, Danvers, Peabody, Salem
and Marblehead A small amount of land in Essex, Wenham,
Lynn and Swampscott also drains to Salem Sound.
C. Economic and Demographic Characteristics
Salem Sound supports year-round commercial fishing from
all of its harbors. In the summer months, recreational use of
the Sound increases dramatically. Sailing and recreational
boating are very popular, as are use of the area's numerous
beaches and parks, fishing, tourist boat excursions, and
simply walking along the water's edge. Several of the
communities with cottages along the shoreline and on islands
experience small population increases during summer
months.
l^y^s > 1 :- viX ^ , > JSaBak Sfo«ai ^- ;- v 1 - :
n.!,; x^ot^ ;
1993 Reported Shellfish Landings
'Bushel's Major Species
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
Source: DMFData
In terms of population, Danvers, Peabody, Salem and
Marblehead have experienced slight decreases since 1970.
Beverly has remained even and Manchester-by-the-Sea
shows an increase. 1970,1980, and 1992 population figures
(from U.S. Census) are as follows:
ffl-20
-------
^11^^
Community
Manchester-by-the-Sea
Beverly
Danvers
Peabody
Salem
Marblehead
TOTAL
•H = Hish: M = Moderate:
4^^*
Area
fsa. ml)
7.9
15.4
10.4
16.4
8.1
4.5
62.8
L=Low. "-" = None
lSjitent.Sk
1990 Pop.
Density
(sa. ml)
674
2,474
2,276
2,869
4,702
4,408
2,766
****&*
**&*$
!*y -
Year-Round Population
1970 1980 1990
5,151 5,424 5,410
38,348 37,655 38,378
26,151 24,100 24,484
48,080 45,976 47,387
40,556 38,220 37,567
21,295 20,126 20,423
179,581
171,501
173,649
:2>^'
Est
Summer
Pop. Inc.
M
L
^iS^ifl
1990 Avg.
Household
Income
$52,806
39,063
43,759
44,952
40,777
53,333
Source: 1990 U.S. Census Data
D. Land Use
Much of the coastline and watershed of Salem Sound is
developed with few natural areas remaining. Waterfront
development is mostly residential with some commercial
establishments, a number of which are water dependent
Most of the watershed is residential with large industrial/
commercial areas in some cities.
E. Water Quality
All areas of Salem Sound are classified as the less stringent
SB designation except for Marblehead Harbor, which has an
SA classification. Currently, no part of Salem Sound
including its harbors, tributaries, and the Sound itself
supports its water quality classificatioa Commonly noted
sources of pollution include urban runoff from storm drain
systems, industrial waste, wastewater treatment plant
discharges, and boat waste.
•"....:'; 199^ Bl^? Water Quality Ratings for Salem &mm
-------
iST*' 19^ BKFW^te^ Quality Ratings for Salem (Staafcft M^otf Illy** Bafisiiift^KA^oisl/ >-|
, -.XvXi. .v. ^ •• ^ »s v 'to. •. * •. : *f •. -. ^ •• f.. S4.s '"* .a.> \% , v, ...•i*!^ ,„
River Segment
Crane Brook
Waters River
North River
Goldthwait Brook
Forest River
Manchester Harbor
Beverly Harbor
Salem Harbor
Marblehead Harbor
Use*
Class Status** Pollutants - Sources
B
SB
SB
B
SB
SB
SB
SB
SA
* "Use Classes' are state goals for the river:
S prefix denotes coastal or marine segment
A = public water supply, fishable, swimmable
B = fishable, swimmable
C = fishable
NS unionized ammonia, pathogens - source unknown,
urban runoff / storm sewers
NS pathogens - source unknown, urban runoff/ storm
sewers
NS nutrients,organicenrichment/DO, pathogens-
industrial point sources, source unknown, urban
runoff/storm sewers
NS pathogens, nutrients, organic enrichment/DO, union-
ized ammonia - urban runoff/ storm sewers, source
unknown, industrial point sources
NS pathogens, organic enrichment/DO, nutrients, union-
ized ammonia - urban runoff/ storm sewers, source
unknown
NS pathogens - septic tanks, recreational activities,
source unknown, municipal point sources
NS pathogens - CSOs, recreational activities, source
unknown, urban runoff/ storm sewers
NS pathogens - urban runoff/ storm sewers, recreational
activities, industrial point sources
NS pathogens - CSOs, urban runoff/storm sewers, sour-
ce unknown, recreational activities
** Status Codes;
S = supports all indicated uses
S/T = supports all uses, but threatened
PS = supports some uses
NS = supports no uses
Source: DEP 305(b) Report
Each of the six Salem Sound communities is served by
municipal or regional sewage treatment facilities. These
communities historically have not contained a large number
of combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Those that did exist
have been, or are in the process of being, corrected The
following information is summarized from a 1995 report
titled "The Status of Municipal Wastewater Treatment and
Energy Producing Facilities Discharging to Coastal Waters
in Massachusetts" (Richard Zeroka, MCZM). Please refer to
this report for more information on coastal municipal sewage
treatment facilities.
ffl-22
-------
^it?
Community
Manchester-
by-the-Sea
Beverly
Danvers
Peabody
Salem
Marblehead
^^
$$ SalenJ Sound Municipal Sewage^re^tmertt Inlbrraation *j£ :
•. s s%^ vy- % ^ %\ %\vi •• \ -. ^\ x > ^ ^ \ *w *s ^.^^\ f^^v' \s s
Actual
Population est Current Design Average
Total Served level of Flow- Flow- Effluent Sludge
(1987) treatment MGD MGD CSOs discharge disposal
5,266
36,000
25,000
48,000
39,000
20,000
173,260
3,470 secondary .67 .56 no outer trucked out
Manchester of state
Harbor
primary - (SESD is currently constructing a secondary plant)
South Essex
165,000 Sewage 41 27 yes Salem Sound Peabody
District landfill
(SESD)
168,470
\%"'' % ^ :
Primary
source of
flow
domestic
domestic,
industrial,
commercial
The South Essex Sewage District facility is currently being
upgraded to a secondaiy treatment plant
The only municipality that is part of the MWRA water supply
system is Marblehead Salem and Beverly have a joint water
supply system with a series of reservoirs located in Beverly
and Wenham that receive water from small tributaries and
pump water from the Ipswich River. Peabody has its own
local water supply as does Manchester, which also relies on
a well and reservoirs in Hamilton. Danvers shares a water
supply system with Middleton with sources located in both
communities and one source located in North Reading.
ffl-23
-------
II Coastal Resources
A. Shellfish Beds
All shellfish beds in Salem Sound have been closed for
harvesting since the 1960s when direct discharge of sewage
and industrial pollution was rampant Clams and mussels are
growing in many areas of Salem Sound but cannot be
harvested at this time.
Overlying water which exceeds state criteria for bacteria due
to septic systems, sewage treatment plant outfalls, boat waste,
and stormwater runoff is currently preventing the opening of
shellfish beds for harvesting.
^ l:,sl v; s ill :k .r^*% Soaad $h«!iOsfc B«as ai^ciStaiftts as of 9?/ai#$ ; ''1:; ' '4j
Beverly
N16.0
N17.0
N19.0
Danvers
N17;0
Manchester
N15.0
N15.1
N16.0
Marblehead
N18.0
N18.1
•Status Code;
A = Approved
Open Closed
Status* Acres Acres**
P 4,098
P 489
P 5
P 250
P 11,354
P 213
P 3
P 330
P 41
Marblehead (cont)
N19.0
N20.0
N20.1
N21.0
N21.1
Peabody
N17.0
Salem
N17.0
N18.0
N18.1
N19.0
"Acres Calculation:
high tide within the
Open
Status* Acres
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
••'<,$<-.
•> *, ''' '
Closed
Acres**
2,318
477
13
10,941
45
18
590
140
424
5,994
is for the overall surface water area at
defined growing area.
Outer coastal
CA = Conditionally Approved (beach-side) areas generally have clean waters but are not
CR = Conditionally Restricted very productive; these areas, usually defined as extending to
P = Phohibited
the 3 mile line, are very large in comparison to the productive,
MC = Management Closure more often closed estuarine areas.
Source: DMFData
m-24
-------
B. Beaches
The most frequently visited beaches in the Salem Sound coast, including Mingo, Patch, Rice's, and Dane Street
region are Singing Beach in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Beaches. In addition, numerous public parks and landings
Devereux and Riverhead Beaches in Marblehead, Sandy are found along the Sound's coastline.
Beach in Danvers, and a string of beaches along the Beverly
;|^^;P ^ ;^|^4 ^ Sa|rasnxSipii« Coastal f rontage tiy Commaaity ^ < st> r, ; -J ^ % ' -\-"xV-ii;, > \ \
Community
Beverly
Danvers
Manchester-by-the-Sea
Marblehead
Peabody
Salem
Region
Total miles of
coastal frontage
10.58
0.00
11.85
16.22
0.00
11.22
49.87
Miles of coastal
frontage publicly owned
0.94
0.00
1.82
2.69
0.00
5.63
11.08
Percent of coastal
frontage publicly owned
8.9
0.0
15.4
16.6
0.0
50.0
22.2
C. Other Commercial or Recreational Uses cities and towns. The region has a heavy concentration of
boat landings and marinas, along with their attendant service
Salem Sound's always-busy waterfront supports a wide businesses. Several popular excursion boats, as well as a
variety of uses. Tourism and water-related activities play an ferry between Gloucester Harbor and Salem Sound, operate
important role in the economies of a number of the Sound's during the summer months.
m-25
-------
/// Community Resource Management Survey
This section contains answers to selected questions from
recent EOEA surveys. The answers are summarized here to
provide a sense of the steps that Salem Sound communities
are taking to protect their resources.
, > :x , ,' oj" ; J ^ ;$af«iitt Se«wiil;Co«iia
Wetland and Habitat Protection
Has die community:
- issued local wetlands guidelines in addition
to the Wetlands Protection Act?
- delineated coastal & inland wetlands?
Groundwater Protection
Does the community have:
- stormwater control regulation^)?
- Board of Health regulations) stricter than
Title V?
- septic system inspection program?
- septic system upgrade program?
- septic system pumping program?
Surface and Coastal Water Protection
Does the community have:
- flood plain maps (FEMA)
- flood plain zoning
- boat pumpout facilities
- subdivision stormwater management
regulations
General Environmental Protection
Do these boards have professional staff?
- Planning Board
- Conservation Commission
- Board of Health
% relying on septic systems
ntfftttyResott
?•• , / « ••<
Manchester
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
10-50
' "TUT '•
Beverly
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
<10
^yy*y'frtf * *&'
Danvers
Y
Y
N(5)
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
<10
\* i
*ryeyAite»
Peabody
N
N
Y
N(l)
N
N
N
Y
Y
N/A
N(2)
Y
Y
Y
<10
V •.
Salem
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
<10
v * s ;
Marbtehead
Y(3)
Y(4)
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
<10
1) BOH perc tests more restrictive.
2) No management regulations. Planning Board enforces
design standards for zero-net run-off increase and 100
year storm.
3) Characterized as "useless" by person who responded.
4) Unofficially mapped.
5) Special conditions in Order of Conditions.
m-26
-------
IV Significant Resource Management Issues
Waste Treatment Plants ~ The South Essex Sewerage
District (SESD) is currently constructing a secondary
treatment plant at the existing site and placing a multiport
diffuser on its outfall at Great Haste Island. The secondary
treatment plant is scheduled to go on-line in August 1997
(see Chapter IV for details). These efforts should result in
much unproved water quality in Salem Sound. SESD plans
to contract for sludge disposal with an out-of-state firm. EPA
has identified three CSOs which may require future attention.
The Town of Manchester-by-the-Sea's wastewater treatment
plant is currently forbidden from receiving new connections
because it is overloaded. The town has been under court
order to rebuild and upgrade its treatment plant. In May
1994, the town completed the Facility Plan for upgrading the
plant The upgraded plant is to be located on the existing 1.1
acre site and will be sized to accommodate variations in
wastewater flows and loads. The facility will be improved to
treat a maximum flow of 1.2 million gallons per day (mgd),
averaged monthly, however, the average annual flow and
existing facility design flow will remain at 0.67 mgd, thereby
remaining in compliance with the requirements of the Ocean
Sanctuaries Act (OSA) of 1972. In addition, the town has
successfully completed remedial I/I through rehabilitation
efforts.
North River - The North River flows through Salem and
Peabody, and had historically been the discharge channel for
waste from the many tanneries and other industries along the
river. The sediments are heavily contaminated with
chromium and other metals, and the site is listed on
CERCLIS, the EPA Superfund list of hazardous waste sites
which need to be remediated
Shellfishing ~ The shellfishing industry has been non-
existent in the Sound since the 1960s when the
Commonwealth closed the area to taking shellfish due to poor
water quality, unproved water quality may make it possible
to harvest shellfish on a restricted basis in the future, and the
industry could once again be a feature of Salem Sound and
the surrounding communities' economies.
Boat Waste - Salem, Beverly, Marblehead, and Manchester
Harbors contain one of the highest densities of boats per acre
in the Commonwealth. The waste created and discharged
from marine heads on these boats has also contributed to the
closing of the shellfish beds and the degradation of water
quality. Last year, funds were granted under the Clean
Vessel Act to establish pump-out faculties in all communities
and to upgrade the Danvers facility. A number of the
communities are using the funds for mobile pump-out
stations which will help address the current low frequency of
use of existing stationery facilities.
Natural Resource Protection - Much of the waterfront and
watershed of Salem Sound has been developed over the
several hundred years since the Colonial era. The few
remaining parcels of undeveloped forest, marsh, wetlands,
and islands support anadromous fish runs, coastal colonial
shorebird nesting habitat, and shellfish growing areas.
Efforts to protect these places as special areas need to be
encouraged.
Nonpoint Source Pollution — With the improvements
expected in water quality from the secondary treatment
system of the South Essex Sewerage District, stormwater
runoff will be the primary contributor of pollution to Salem
Sound and its tributaries. Municipal programs and
homeowner education need to be expanded to address the
ubiquitous and incremental damage wrought by nonpoint
source pollution.
ffl-27
-------
V Coastal Management and Improvement
Activities
A. Mass Bays Program Demonstration Projects and
Bays Action Grants
Salem Sound 2000 has received significant support from the
Massachusetts Bays Program, the Metropolitan Area Plan-
ning Council, and the New England Biolabs Foundation to
establish an office and to operate an extensive citizen water
quality monitoring program, including analysis and mapping
of pollution sources. This project initially involved almost
100 trained local volunteers in walking the entire shoreline.
Currently, volunteer monitors regularly sample water quality
at strategic locations, and data have been input to a Geo-
graphic Information System for analysis of the impacts of
land use on water quality. Most recently, volunteer Coastal
Water Quality Task Forces were established to work on a
number of local water quality improvement projects and
public education and outreach initiatives, including storm
drain stencilling and production of a Salem Sound video.
The Town of Manchester-by-the Sea received a Bays Action
Grant from the Massachusetts Bays Program to publish a list
of boat pump-outs that can be found in Salem Sound,
including their availability and cost Most recently, Man-
chester received a grant to assist with a survey of homeown-
ers with on-site septic systems. The City of Salem received
a grant to produce a brochure, to be sent to every resident,
that describes actions citizens can take to reduce their impact
on the waters of Salem Sound. The Friends of Salem Woods
received a grant to upgrade the trail and sign system in the
Salem Woods. Venturi Aeration, toe. received funds to study
a new method for treating the wastewater at a tannery in
Salem in order to improve the quality of its discharge to the
Sound. The Town of Danvers received funds to sponsor a
boat pump-out logo contest in the Middle School for the
Danversport Yacht Club pump-out, and to design and
distribute information on boat waste and pump-outs. The
Town of Marblehead received funds for a storm drain
stenciling project that is serving as model for other communi-
ties.
The Peabody-Essex Museum participates in activities of the
Massachusetts Bays Education Alliance, and is conducting
teacher training programs and helping to develop school
curricula for teachers and students to learn about watersheds
and how they drain to embayments.
The Massachusetts Bays Program also contracted with a
consulting firm to evaluate costs to Salem Sound communi-
ties of management measures to reduce pollutant loads to
sediments (Battelle, in progress). The year-long project
focused on the cost and effectiveness of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and other stormwater runoff control and
reduction strategies.
B. Other Government Programs
A new bridge over the Danvers River is being constructed,
with concerns over sediment dredging and disposal having
led to extensive sediment analysis.
With support from the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Office's Coastal Facilities Improvement Program,
public piers have been upgraded at Winter Island (Salem)
and in Beverly.
C. Citizen Group Efforts
Salem Sound 2000 is the major watershed organization in the
region, and serves as the region's MBP Local Governance
Committee. It is a coalition of the Sound's six bordering
municipalities, major businesses, and non-profit organiza-
tions which are all working together to encourage responsible
land use and pollution prevention, and to improve water
quality in Salem Sound. This is being done through the
collection and dissemination of scientific data, educational
programs, and community outreach. Salem Sound 2000
conducts an on-going citizen water quality monitoring
program and are involved in a number of educational efforts,
including teacher training. Salem Sound 2000 is also
working with cities and towns to address stormwater runoff
and other nonpoint source pollution problems. As part of its
outreach effort, Salem Sound 2000 publishes a quarterly
newsletter in collaboration with Eight Towns and the Bay, the
Upper North Shore Local Governance Committee.
Other organizations in the area with shared interests include
Massachusetts Audubon: North Shore Office, Ipswich River
Watershed Association, North River Association, Manchester
Conservation Trust, Essex County Greenbelt Association,
Friends of Salem Woods, The Trustees of Reservations,
National Park Service, and the Peabody-Essex Museum.
ffl-28
-------
., .. , . . , ., ,
is, amJ Sources of Assistance
State/Federal
Programs and Agencies
Massachusetts Bays Program
• Shellfish Bed Restoration Program
(MBP, Div. of Marine Fisheries,
DEP, Natural Resources
Conservation Service)
• ACEC Program (Area of Critical
Environmental Concern)
' Partners for Wildlife Program (US
Fish & Wildlife Service)
• Riverways Program (MA Dept of
Fisheries, Wildlife and Env. Law
Enforcement)
• Natural Resources Conservation
Service/Community Assistance
Unit
• Wetlands Conservancy Program
(Department of Environmental
Protection)
• Wetlands Restoration and Banking
Program
Regional Government
Agencies/Programs
• MBP - Salem Sound 2000 (Lower
North Shore Local Governance
Committee)
Department of Environmental
Protection
Coastal Zone Mgmt Office: North
Shore regional assistance
Contact Person and
Telephone Number
Diane Gould,
Executive Director
(617)727-9530
Deirdre Kimball,
Coordinator
(617)727-9530
Leslie Luchonok,
ACEC Prog. Mgr.
(617)727-3160
Robert Scheirer,
Priv. Lands Coord.
(603)225-1411
Maria van Dusen,
Joan Kimball
(617)727-1614
Marc McQueen
(508) 295-1481
Charles Costello
(617)292-5704
Christy Foote-Smith,
Director
(617)727-9530
Nancy Goodman,
MAPC
(617)451-2770
Lawrence Gil
Office of Watershed
Management
(617)292-5884
North Shore Coord.
(508)281-7932
Project or Program Description
Natural Estuary Program - provides planning technical
and financial assistance for the protection of
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Partnership of
state/federal and municipal governments.
Collaborative effort by Mass Bays Program, DMF, DEP,
and NRCS to remediate storm drain pollution of priority
shellfish beds.
ACEC status provides additional protection to critical
resource areas, and creates an ecosystem-based planning
and management framework for state and local actions.
A federal program providing financial and technical
assistance to landowners for wetlands restoration
projects.
Riverways offers guidance documents and technical
assistance on local river protection efforts.
This new technical team helps communities address
nonpoint source pollution problems.
This state program is charged with mapping coastal and
inland wetlands.
A new, statewide EOEA program targeted towards
restoring degraded wetlands.
Regional MBP Committee. Provides technical and
financial support to participating communities.
Team leader for North Coastal Basin team.
CZM develops state coastal zone policy, monitors
coastal activities, and provides technical assistance on
broad range of coastal issues.
continued
ffl-29
-------
Regional Government
Agencies/Programs
• Division of Marine Fisheries
Essex County Mosquito Control
Project (ECMCP)
Metropolitan Area Planning Coun-
cil (MAPC)
Essex County Regional Services
Regional Non-Profit Agencies
• Essex County Greenbelt Associa-
tion (ECGA)
Salem Sound 2000
Peabody-Essex Museum
Massachusetts AuduboniNorth
Shore Office
Contact Person and
Telephone Number
Brad Chase
Fisheries Biologist Cat
Cove Marine Lab
Salem
(508)745-3107
David Chadwick,
Fisheries Biologist
Newburyport Shellfish
Plant
(508)465-3553
Walter Montgomery
Martin Pillsbury,
Water Resources
Planner
Joan Blaustein,
Land Resource Planner
(617)451-2770
Tia Costello,
Coordinator
(508)741-0201
Thomas OLeary,
County Planner
Ed Becker,
Executive Director
(508) 768-7241
Sam Cleaves
(508)741-7900
Jane Winchell
Curator
Natural History Depart-
ment, Salem
(508)745-1876
Andrea Cooper,
Robert Buchsbaum
(508)927-1122
continued
Project or Program Description
Smelt restoration.
The Newburyport biologists test North Shore shell-
fishing areas for pathogens and PSP.
ECMCP has expertise in saltmarsh restoration work
(Open Marsh Water Management).
Regional Environmental Planning.
(also assist with bikeways and pathways planning)
Recycling, composting, household hazardous waste
collection, solid waste management, GIS.
Shoreline surveys, water quality monitoring shellfish
bed surveys, storm drain stenciling.
m-30
-------
Contact Person and
Local Efforts Telephone Number Project or Program Description
• Manchester Conservation Trust Helen Bethell Land conservation.
Box 1486
Manchester-by-the-Sea
• Friends of Salem Woods Ian Lynch Maintain trails, conduct nature walks, promote passive
203 Washington St recreational use of the woods.
#158
Salem
(508)741-3465
ffl-31
-------
m-32
-------
chapter III
Metro Boston
Region
-------
Metro Boston Region
/ Description of the Region
A. Map
The Metro Boston region of die Massachusetts Bays Program
includes the communities of Swampscott, Lynn, Nahant,
Saugus, Revere, Everett, Chelsea, Winthrop, Boston, Milton,
Quincy, and Braintree.
m Harbor
«
*& m Marblehead
t
Swampscott
Lflevere
/ -»J Nahant
Broad Sound
LEGEND
A/ Major watersheds
A/ Towns
A/ Major rivers
Boston Harbor
Cohasset
Harbor
m-33
-------
B. Physical Characteristics
2) Watersheds and Important Tributaries
1) Geology and Soils
Swampscott and Nahant beaches consist of fine to medium-
sized sand. Nahant Beach is a depositional feature known as
a tombolo, and connects rocky Little Nahant and Nahant
"Islands" to the mainland. From Point of Pines, Revere, to
Deer Island, adjacent to Winthrop, man-made structures
dominate the coastline, with occasional large expanses of
tidal flats interspersed throughout The Boston coastline is
highly developed. Old Harbor (part of Dorchester Bay) and
most of the Harbor Islands are composed primarily of
unconsolidated sands and gravels. The same holds true for
Quincy Bay, although the beach is flanked by exposed tidal
flats. Most of the coastline of Quincy, Weymouth, Hingham,
and Hull Bay is dominated by man-made structures, with
occasional limited expanses of gravel beach interspersed
throughout.
This region is fed by several large rivers, including the
Charles, Mystic, and Neponset Rivers, as well as the Saugus,
Pines, Chelsea, and Fore Rivers. The watershed of the
Charles River extends to Milford in Worchester County. The
Mystic, Neponset, and Fore River watersheds extend inland
to Reading, Foxborough, and Randolph, respectively.
C. Demographic and Economic Characteristics
Most of the Metro Boston communities have experienced
only slight population increases or decreases since 1970,
with Lynn, Everett, Chelsea, Boston, and Milton experiencing
the most notable population declines.
^Vrf
r^' *H
Area
Community (so mi)
Swampscott
Lynn
Nahant
Saugus
Revere
Everett
Chelsea
Winthrop
Boston
Milton
Quincy
Braintree
Region
A U t— TTT r.1, \l
11 plppi* *W
3.05
10.81
1.24
10.99
5.92
3.38
2.19
1.99
48.42
13.04
16.79
13.89
131.7
4
= Moderate; L=Low,
"\; , Metro BostaR Demographics ''\ ; 7
1990 Pop.
Density
(/sq mi)
4500
7522
3190
2322
7251
10500
13050
9063
11365
1978
5078
2434
7351
"-" = None
Year-Round Population
1970 1980 1990
13578 13837 13650
90294 78471 81245
4119 3947 3828
25110
43159
42485
30624
20335
641071
27190
87966
35050
106098
1
24746
42423
37195
25431
19294
562994
25860
84743
36337
955278
25549
42786
35701
28710
18127
574283
25725
84985
33836
968425
V" ; ' A s*-'.
Est 1990 Avg.
Summer Household
POD. Inc.* Income
$50,191
28553
47212
41919
30659
30796
25144
37240
29180
53130
35858
44734
Source: 1990 U.S. Census Data
m-34
-------
Community
Swampscott
Lynn
Nahant
Saugus
Revere
Everett
Chelsea
Winthrop
Boston
Quincy
Braintree
MUton
Totals
1993 Commercial Lobster Landings
Pounds Economic Value
208,531
183,944
315,980
283,760
193,337
(included w/Revere)
96,954
1,279,602
37,887
$606,825
$535,277
$919,502
$825,742
$562,610
(included w/Revere)
$282,136
$3,723,641
$110,251
(included H>/ Quincy) (included w/ Quincy)
2,599,995
$7,565,985
1992 Reported Shellfish Landings
Bushels Major Species
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
D. Land Use
Most of the waterfront and much of the surrounding
watershed for the Metro Boston region are highly developed
as urban and suburban land. Water dependent activities and
uses are prevalent along many areas of the coast Coastal
communities are fully or near fully developed while some
areas in the upper reaches of the region have large tracts of
open space remaining. Few natural areas remain directly
along the coastline, although the Metropolitan District
Commission (MDC) is working toward completing its
Emerald Necklace around the Boston area, with
improvements slated for the Neponset River and the Boston
Harbor waterfront.
m-35
-------
E. Water Quality
DEP's water quality ratings for coastal waters in the Metro
Boston area are shown in the following chart All areas are
classified as the less stringent SB designation, except for
Nahant Harbor, which has an SA classificatioa Currently,
none of the coastal waters in the area supports its water
quality classification. Commonly noted sources of pollution
include urban runoff, combined sewer overflows, and waste
water treatment plant discharges.
'•n^viy -. •..;.•. s ^ Si-..,- % •• ^ 4..% 4. ;, ............ *.. % % .• -f •; : 5 ^ s •••• * s. V •••••••• ^ ,' ••••.. '••>.', ff *•'• ^
'^r^J ' |f^tS^ZJ>^ W^r Qa*H^r %*%*&* *<# M^b Boston IUv«*s and Harbors ^ s ^ v\£
Use*
Class
River/Harbor
Nahant SA
Lynn Harbor SB
Pines River SB
Saugus River B/SB
Chelsea River SB
Mystic River SB
Charles River B
Neponset River SB
Furnace Brook B
Weymouth Fore River SB
* "Use Classes" are state goals for the river:
S prefix denotes coastal or marine segment
A = public water supply, fishable, swimmable
B = fishable, swimmable
C = fishable
Status**
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
**
Pollution Sources
Runoff, Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) outfall
Runoff, WWTP.CSO
Septic systems
Septic systems, runoff, CSOs, industrial outfall
CSO, urban runoff
CSO, urban runoff
Urban runoff, CSOs, inplace contamination
CSO, runoff
Runoff
Runoff
Status Codes:
S = supports all indicated uses
S/T = supports all uses, but threatened
PS = supports some uses
NS = supports no uses
Source: DEP 305(b) Report
IE-36
-------
All of the Metro Boston communities are serviced by central
sewage treatment facilities. The following information is
summarized from a 1995 report titled "The Status of
Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Energy Producing
Facilities Discharging to Coastal Waters in Massachusetts"
(Richard Zeroka, MCZM). Please refer to this report for
more information on coastal municipal sewage treatment
plants.
v.j, , ••* •.;,•••.•, lQ" * -
'* ^^^e.*;* *r?**"*«* *Rlvf«I«*lWli ^-.^ \
Actual
Average Sludge
Flow - Effluent disposal/
MGD CSOs discharge reuse
31 yes Broad Sound incinerated
on site
500* yes Boston Converted to
Harbor fertilizer
(Deer Island, pellets in
Nut Island) Quincy
i: ; \\ .. * |
i »
Primary
source of flow
domestic,
conun., ind.
domestic,
industrial,
commercial
The MRWA facilities are undergoing major upgrades. The
new primary treatment plant is scheduled for completion in
1995; the secondary treatment plant should be complete in
1999. A new 9-mile long outfall pipe is being constructed
to carry effluent into the deeper waters of Massachusetts Bay.
The MRWA also plans to address problems with CSOs and
excessive inflow and infiltration.
ffl-37
-------
// Coastal Resources
A. Shellfish Beds
The region has both soft shell clam and mussel beds, but the
vast majority of these are closed due to pollution. Many
communities have some areas available for commercial clam
harvesting provided the clams are taken to the depuration
plant in Newburyport for filtration. The table below shows
the status of shellfish beds by community in the Metro Boston
region.
^S^B^S1
Boston
GBH2.0
GBH3.0
GBH3.3
GBH3.4
GBH3.5
GBH3.6
GBH3.7
GBH4.0
GBH5.0
GBH5.10
GBH5.11
GBH5.2
GBH5.3
GBH5.4
GBH5.6
GBH5.8
GBH5.9
GBH6.0
MB13.0
N28.0
Braintrce
GBH1.0
GBH1.21
Cambridge
GBH4.0
Chelsea
GBH4.0
Everett
GBH4.0
Lynn
N23.0
N24.0
N26.0
Mflton
GBH3.0
Nahant
N24.0
N25.0
N26.0
Qulncy
GBH1.0
GBH1.22
GBH1.23
GBH1.24
GBH1.25
GBH1.26
GBH1.27
GBH2.0
* Status Code:
A = Approved
CA = Conditionally Approved
CR = Conditionally Restricted
yi$£1fi^»
Status*
P
P
P
P
P
MC
MC
P
P
P
P
CR
P
CR
P
P
P
P
MC
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
CR
P
CR
CR
MC
P
Sheflfish ieds arirj Status as c
Open Closed
Acres Acres'*
1,636
3,677
2
50
94
28
144
1,881
1,129
12
42
100
106
70
15
37
13
4,508
8,723
6,997
45
43
5
176
101
3^94
0
435
99
3,001
6,627
1,698
940
21
76
10
99
72
58
3,606
Quincy(coofd)
GBH2.1
GBH2.2
GBH2.3
GBH2.4
GBH2.5
GBH2.6
GBH3.0
GBH3.1
GBH3.2
GBH3.3
GBH3.4
Revere
GBH4.0
GBH5.8
N26.0
N26.1
N26.2
N26.3
N26.4
N26.5
N26.6
Sangus
N26.0
N26.1
N263
N26.4
N26.6
Somervffle
GBH4.0
Swunpscott
N21.0
N22.0
N22.1
N23.0
N23.0
Wtathrop
GBH5.0
GBH5.1
GBH5.12
GBH5.2
GBH5.5
GBH5.6
GBH5.7
GBH5.8
N25.0
N26.0
N26.2
N27.0
*tj^;&tV.\
*fn
Open Closed
Status Acres Acres**
CR 192
P
P
P
CR 127
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
CR 89
P
CR 82
CR 81
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
132
157
90
17
722
50
79
38
80
32
16
2,546
71
97
43
57
30
58
164
72
43
1
28
13
33
6,098
33
0
3^94
400
12
3
18
29
714
495
100
4^96
** Acres Calculation: i» fnr Ike nvef*\\ mff«<-> imf>r apm ft hipf* tiHg «vfthm ttff A-firwH
P = Prohibited
MC = Management
Closure
growing area. Outer coastal (beach-side) an
eas generally have clean waters but are not
very productive-, these areas, usually defined as extending to the 3 mile line, are very
large in comparison to the productive, more often closed Bshiarine areas.
Source: DMFData
m-38
-------
Many public beaches exist in the Metro Boston coastal
region. Past and present pollution problems, public percep-
tion of pollution, and inadequate access have led to many of
these beaches not being used to their fullest potential.
The Commonwealth's Joint Commission on the Future of
Boston Harbor Beaches recently completed a five-to-seven
year plan to improve access to and enjoyment of Boston
area beaches from Winthrop to Quincy. In support of this
effort, the Commonwealth has appropriated $30,000,000 for
capital improvements, to be matched by a $500,000 chal-
lenge grant from the City of Boston. Initiated in 1995, the
improvements will range from enhancing greenspaces to
restoring bath houses and improving traffic circulation.
The following two tables show the Metro Boston region's
coastal frontage and beaches by community.
$ > / 1 ^ * V->-^ » ' - 1 Metn> Boston Coastal Frontage by Coraratttuiy
^' sws iS * 8. 5 4? ;• w ^* \ - % •• < s •• w * "• •• ^~
Community
Swampscott
Lynn
Nahant
Saugus
Revere
Everett
Chelsea
Winthrop
Boston
Milton
Quincy
Braintree
Total
Total miles of
coastal frontage
3.80
4.38
11.49
0.36
4.92
—
0.42
9.77
59.77
—
25.95
—
120.86
Miles of coastal
frontage publicly owned
0.33
1.18
5.03
—
2.84
—
—
3.19
21.76
—
4.58
—
38.91
. ?.S**S ".!•: '^5'' ^ !"% "
Percent of coastal
frontage publicly owned
8.7
26.9
43.8
0.0
57.7
N/A
0.0
32.6
36.4
N/A
17.7
N/A
32.2
m-39
-------
Swampscott
Phillips Beach
Whales Beach
Fisherman's Beach
Kings Beach
Lynn
Kings Beach
Lynn Beach
Nahant
Nahant Beach
Little Nahant Beach
Stony Beach
Forty Steps Beach
Joseph's Beach
Pond Beach
Dorothy Cove
West Cliff
Black Rock Beach
Revere
Revere Beach
Crescent Beach
Short Beach
Winthrop
Short Beach
Winthrop Beach
Yirrell Beach
Donovan's Beach
Boston
(Island Beaches)
Lovells Island Beach
Gallops Island Beach
Georges Island Beach
Paddocks Island Beach
(Mainland Beaches)
E. Boston-
Constitution/Orient Heights
S.Boston-
Pleasure Bay
Kelley's Landing
L&M Streets Beaches
Carson Beach
Dorchester-
Savin Hill Beach
Malibu Beach
Tenean Beach
Quincy
Nickerson Beach
Wollaston Beach
Mound Street Beach
Town River Bay Beach
Adams Shore Beach
Braintree
Smiths Beach
C. Other Commercial or Recreational Uses
Commercial fishing boats operate from almost every coastal
community in the region, landing almost every type of
commercially available finfish, shellfish, and crustaceans.
Recreational boats bring visitors to various Harbor Islands
for day trips and overnight visits. Whale-watching fleets also
operate from the region. The area also provides wonderful
opportunities for observing birds and harbor seals. In
addition, the coastal waters of the Metro Boston Region are
a busy commercial hub for the transport of cargo, including
fuel, foods, and consumer and industrial goods.
Numerous anadromous fish runs in the region provide habitat
for smelt, herring, alewife, and shad. Important fish runs
include Black Creek and Town River in Quincy, the
Weymouth Fore River, the Charles River, the Mystic River,
the Saugus River, and the Neponset River.
m-40
-------
/// Community Resource Management Survey
This section contains answers to selected questions from
recent EOEA surveys. The answers are summarized here to
provide a sense of the steps that Metro Boston communities
are taking to protect their resources.
IIS|liji*i*
Wetland and Habitat Protection
Has the community:
- issued local wetlands guidelines in
addition to the Wetlands Protection
Act?
- delineated coastal & inland wet-
lands?
Groundwater Protection
Does the community have:
- stormwater control regulations)?
- Board of Health regulation^) stricter
thanTMeV?
- septic system inspection program?
- septic system upgrade program?
- septic system pumping program?
Surface and Coastal Water
Protection
Does the community have:
- flood plain maps (FEMA)
- flood plain zoning
- boat pumpout facilities
- subdivision stormwater management
regulations
General Environmental
Protection
Do these boards have pro-
fessional staff?
- Planning Board
- Conservation Committee
- Board of Health
A = Not Applicable
sewered
troHBiasi
Swampscott
Y
Y
N
A
A
A
A
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
<*»1B
Lynn
Y
Y
A
A
A
A
Y
Y
Y
?
Y
N
N
$$CttW
Nahant
Y
Y
?
Y
A
Y
N
Y
Y
N
7
N
N
Y'/2
eelH
Saugua
Y
Y
Y
A
A
?
A
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Revere
Y
Y
Y
A
A
A
A
Y
Y
N
?
Y
Y
Y
*W*fa
Everett
Y
Y
A
A
A
A
Y
?
Y
?
Y
Y
Y
Chtbca
Y
Y
A
A
A
A
Y
?
N
N
Y
Y
Y
fAtttf
Boston
N
Y
Y
A
A
A
A
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
«&*'!
Quincy
Y
Y
Y
A
A
A
A
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
\ ^ "•:;
Milton
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y'/2
Y'/2
Y
Bnlntree
Y
Y
Y
A
N
Y
A
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
."", Y3 ".
3 - '
Wlnthrop
Y
Y
A
A
A
A
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Note: "'/^refers to a one-half time employee
m-4i
-------
IV Significant Resource Management Issues
The most pressing concerns in the region are the pollutant
discharges from the Deer Island sewage treatment plant,
CSOs during precipitation events, and stormwater runoff.
The MWRA currently is constructing a secondary treatment
plant and new effluent outfall (see Chapter IV for details),
and has an active program to reduce or treat discharges from
CSOs. When completed, these efforts will yield a much
cleaner near-shore environment and help to foster a re-
connection to coastal waters for many Metro Boston area
residents. However, even after CSO controls are
implemented, stormwater runoff will continue to be a
problem. Other concerns include contaminated sediments in
both the inner Boston Harbor and the shipping channel from
historical releases of industrial and human wastes. Planned
dredging of the area is scheduled to occur in several years,
and may cause problems related to resuspension and disposal
of the contaminated sediments (see Chapter IV for details).
The National Park Service (NFS) recently released a special
study on the resources of the Boston Harbor Islands. This
study examined the natural, cultural, and recreational values
of the islands, and concluded that the islands meet NFS
criteria for inclusion in the National Park System. The study
presents a number of management options which include
varying degrees of NFS involvement and responsibility.
Designation of the Boston Harbor Islands as a National Park
must come from Congress, and several members of the
Massachusetts delegation are working toward that end.
In addition, significant issues are raised by the proposed
Saugus River Flood Control Project (see Chapter IV for
details), and the problems associated with Pilayella littoralis,
a noxious alga which washes up on the beaches of Swamp-
scott, Lynn, Nahant, Revere, and Winthrop, causing foul
odors as it decomposes.
m-42
-------
V Coastal Management and Improvement
Activities
A. Massachusetts Bays Program Mini-Bay Project.
Demonstration Projects, and Bays Action Grants
The Fore River in Braintree- Weymouth-Quincy was selected
by the Massachusetts Bays Program as a Mini-Bay site. With
funding from the MBP, the three communities are for the first
time evaluating their shared resource and developing a
management plan. The Mini-Bay project is seeking to
determine the level of water and sediment contamination
from past and present sources. Through this project, a
remediation plan, citizen education project, and the Fore
River Watershed Association have been created.
Demonstration projects funded in the Metro Boston area
include the Lewis Lake project, for which the Town of
Winthrop received funding to study the lake, automate the
tide gate, educate abutting property owners about water
pollution, and monitor late cleanup. The Friends of the
Boston Harbor Islands received MBP funding to re-establish
native vegetation on the Harbor Islands by building a nursery
and stocking the vegetation. The City of Quincy received
funding to repair a tidegate that controls the influx of seawa-
ter into the stormwater system. Northeastern University's
Marine Sciences Center received funding to research the life
cycle and influences afPilayeUa tittoralis, a noxious alga that
fouls the shoreline and waters of Broad Sound and Nahant
Bay.
Bays Action Grants have been awarded for many projects
including: Boston: production of a video about Boston's
working port; a Thompson Island clean-up; creation of an
environmental group in the Malibu Beach area; boat owner
education about marine sanitary waste and its proper dis-
posal, conducted by the Boston Harbor Association and
Constitution Marina; storm drain stenciling by the Boston
Water and Sewer Commission; and publication of tour guides
for Boston's Neponset Marsh, Wood Island Bay Marsh, and
Belle Isle Marsh. Ouincv: curriculum development for
wastewater technology, sponsorship of six 8th grade students
in an Outward Bound Environmental Leadership course;
environmental education project related to the acquisition of
two acres of salt marsh and restoration of a third acre by the
city, and development of a private afterschool environmental
education program. Other funded projects include an
environmental education initiative in Lynn, a multimedia
presentation on the Rumney Marshes Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC) in Revere, and purchase of
five water quality testing kits by the Mystic River Watershed
Association.
B. Government Programs
The major water quality improvement project in the region is
the secondary treatment plant and new outfall pipe being
constructed by the MWRA. The plan developed to eliminate
and disinfect CSOs owned by the MWRA and the communi-
ties of Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, and Chelsea will
provide additional water quality benefits. A number of
interim steps taken relative to these have already yielded
significant improvements in local water quality. In addition,
the Army Corps of Engineers is currently studying the
feasibility of placing a tidegate across the Saugus River. The
Commonwealth is constructing a third harbor tunnel and
depressing the Central Artery, and the shipping channel
through Boston Harbor is scheduled for dredging (refer to
Chapter IV for more details).
The Metro Boston region has two estuarine ACECs: the
Rumney Marshes ACEC and the Neponset River Estuary
ACEC. The Rumney Marshes ACEC is approximately 2,800
acres in size, and is located in Boston, Lynn, Revere, Saugus,
and Winthrop. The 1,260-acre Neponset River Estuary is
located in Boston, Milton, and Quincy. An ACEC Resource
Management Plan for the Neponset River Estuary ACEC is
currently underway as part of the Executive Office of Envi-
ronmental Affairs' commitment to working with municipali-
ties, environmental organizations, and residents for the long-
term stewardship of ACECs. Portions of three freshwater
ACECs are also in the region: the Cranberry Brook Water-
shed, the Fowl Meadow-Ponkapoag Bog, and the Golden
Hills ACECs.
C. Citizen Group Efforts
Watershed associations exist for the Saugus, Mystic, Ne-
ponset, Charles, and Weymouth Fore Rivers. The Friends of
Boston Harbor Islands, as well as several small beach
protection groups, also are active in the region. The Massa-
chusetts Audubon Society recently initiated an environmental
education program for students and residents of the City of
Lynn. The community representatives on the Metro Boston
Local Governance Committee have worked closely with
MBP staff on a variety of water quality improvement pro-
jects.
ffl-43
-------
v>
J^i*,' f&>(
State/Federal
Programs and Agencies
• Massachusetts Bays Program
• Shellfish Bed Restoration Program
(MBP, Div. of Marine Fisheries,
DEP, Natural Resources
Conservation Service)
• ACEC Program (Area of Critical
Environmental Concern)
• Partners for Wildlife Program (US
Fish & Wildlife Service)
• Riverways Program (MA Dept of
Fisheries, Wildlife and Env. Law
Enforcement)
> Natural Resources Conservation
Service/Community Assistance
Unit
• Wetlands Conservancy Program
(Department of Environmental
Protection)
> Wetlands Restoration and Banking
Program
Regional Government
Agencies/Programs
MBP - Metro Boston Local
Governance Committee
Contact Person and
Telephone Number
Diane Gould,
Executive Director
(617)727-9530
Deirdre Kimball,
Coordinator
(617)727-9530
Leslie Luchonok,
ACEC Prog. Mgr.
(617)727-3160
Robert Scheirer,
Priv. Lands Coord
(603)225-1411
Maria van Dusen,
Joan Kimball
(617)727-1614
Marc McQueen
(508) 295-1481
Charles Costello
(617)292-5704
Christy Foote-Smith,
Director
(617)727-9530
Project or Program Description
Natural Estuary Program - provides planning, technical,
and financial assistance for the protection of
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Partnership of state,
federal, and municipal governments.
Collaborative effort by Mass Bays Program, DMF, DEP,
and NRCS to remediate storm drain pollution of priority
shellfish beds.
ACEC status provides additional protection to critical
resource areas, and creates an ecosystem-based planning
and management framework for state and local actions.
A federal program providing financial and technical
assistance to landowners for wetlands restoration
projects.
Riverways offers guidance documents and technical
assistance on local river protection efforts.
This new technical team helps communities address
nonpoint source pollution problems.
This state program is charged with mapping coastal and
inland wetlands.
A statewide EOEA program working to restore
degraded wetlands.
Bill Clark, Nancy Good- Regional MBP Committee - provides technical and
man, MAPC financial support to participating communities.
(617)451-2770
Coastal Zone Mgmt Office: Metro Elizabeth Grob,
Boston regional assistance Metro Boston Coord.
(617)727-9530
CZM develops state coastal zone policy, monitors
coastal activities, and provides technical assistance on
broad range of coastal issues.
continued
m-44
-------
i ' ^ Birktory WMttra Boston Coastal $fro$«cis, ttatgin^ AO& Sources tf AN&fcUttft -v'
> ?.' ^ .-; T v.^.?....Xi •:....?..'.../....? ?.....?. ".\.s.v..T ....': '7:.'...." .•; 'i \..-! '. ' s '
Regional Government
Agencies/Programs
• Division of Marine Fisheries
Contact Person and
Telephone Number
Brad Chase,
Regional Fisheries
Biologist/Cat Cove
Marine Lab
Salem
(508)745-3107x111
David Chadwick,
Sr. Fisheries Biologist
Newburyport Shellfish
Plant
(508)465-3553
Metropolitan Area Planning Coun- Martin Pillsbury,
cil(MAPC)
• Norfolk County Mosquito Control
Project
Regional Non-Profrt Agencies
Charles River Watershed
Association
Neponset River Watershed
Association
Boston Harbor Association
Boston Natural Areas Fund
Water Resources
Planner
(617)451-2770
Joan Blaustein,
Land Resource Planner
(617)451-2770
Carol Kowalski,
Inner Core Coord.
(617)451-2770
Endicott S. Norwood
762-3681
Robert Zimmerman,
Executive Director
(617) 527-2799
Fax:(617)332-7465
Ian Cooke,
Executive Director
(617) 575-0354
Vivian Li,
Executive Director
(617)482-1722
Valerie Bums
Director
(617) 542-7696
Project or Program Description
Finfish habitat monitoring and restoration, Boston to
Gloucester, also, smelt restoration program.
The DMF North Shore biologists test coastal waters
from Hull to the North Shore for pathogens and PSP.
Regional environmental planning and technical
assistance.
(also assist with bikeways and pathways planning)
Sub-regional group representing 23 communities on
planning and policy matters.
NCMCP has expertise in saltmarsh restoration work
(Open Marsh Water Management).
CRWA works to protect and enhance the health, beauty,
and enjoyment of the Charles River and its tributaries.
Works to protect, enhance, and restore the resources of
the Neponset basin.
Founded in 1973 to promote a clean, alive, and
accessible Boston Harbor.
Works to protect, improve, and enhance open space in
the City of Boston.
.continued,.
m-45
-------
< * |: Bir«*tOi7:0f M^i4' ^^6^bw^|y«ji*cSs? Programs, and Sources a^sis^iV'; V \
Regional Non-Profit Agencies
Environmental Diversity Forum
Mystic River Watershed
Association
Save the Harbor/Save the Bay
Contact Person and
Telephone Number
Russ Lopez,
Executive Director
(617)523-2611
Ed Toomey,
President
(617)489-3120
Jodi Sugannan,
Policy Director
(617)451-2860
Project or Program Description
EDF is a coalition of individuals, organizations,
environmental activists, neighborhood leaders, and
government professionals that brings new attention to
the environmental problems that affect communities of
color.
Works to protect water quality and quantity of adjacent
riverine lands and habitat
Works to foster a positive vision of Boston Harbor and
Massachusetts Bay, and to build a broad-based
constituency to promote the restoration and protection of
these valuable resources.
m-46
-------
chapter III
South Shore
Region
-------
South Shore Region
/ Description of the Region
A. Map
The South Shore region of the Massachusetts Bays Program
includes the communities of Plymouth, Kingston, Duxbury,
Marshfield, Norwell, Pembroke, Hanover, Scituate,
Cohasset, Hull, Hingham, and Weymouth.
Cohasset
Jfarbor
'l]Stravfberry
\ Point
Scituate
LEGEND
A/ Major watersheds
A/ Towns
Major rivers
m-47
-------
B. Physical Characteristics
directly impact the coastal resources are as follows:
1) Geology and Soils
From the south end of Point Allerton traveling south along
Nantasket Beach, the shoreline consists of sand and gravel
beaches. The coastline of South Hull and Cohasset, however,
is predominately rocky headlands with small pocket beaches
interspersed between.
From Scituate to the Marshfield/Duxbury boundary, the
shoreline is highly developed, with beaches of mixed sand
and gravel. Further south lies Duxbury Beach, a barrier
beach, connecting several deposited land forms called
drumlins (Gurnet Point and Saquich Head) to the mainland.
The back beach environment of Duxbury Beach (Duxbury
Bay and Kingston Bay) consists of marshes interspersed with
extensive tidal flats.
Extensive tidal flats also are found in Plymouth Harbor,
which is sheltered by Plymouth Beach, a long sandy barrier
spit. To the south, the coastal terrain is characterized by
numerous glacially-formed small hills and valleys called
knob-and-kettle terrain. The beach grain size decreases in a
southerly direction from gravel at Rocky Point to fine-
medium sand at Sagamore Beach.
2) Watersheds and Important Tributaries
The South Shore has many rivers and streams that make a
very complex group of watersheds. Key watersheds that
Weymouth Back River - A major segment of this river is an
ACEC. The river has a large shellfish resource, a
herring/smelt run, and headwaters in a pond that the town
uses for drinking water.
Weir River - This is a tidal estuary that is bordered by
Cohasset, Hingham, and Hull. The upper part of the river is
an ACEC.
Gulf River - This is a tributary to Cohasset Harbor.
North River - This river has 23 miles of shoreline that is
being impacted by 15 towns. It is an important river for
shellfish, gamefish, and herring.
South River - This river begins in Duxbury and winds
through Marshfield. It has many acres of important shellfish
beds.
Other significant waters in the area include: Green Harbor
River, Duxbury Bay, Pine Point River, Bluefish River, Back
River, Kingston Bay, Jones River, Plymouth Bay, Town
Brook, Eel River, and Ellisville Harbor.
C. Demographic and Economic Characteristics
The following tables highlight some of the region's key
population and fisheries information.
13 K!
Communit
Plymouth
Kingston
Duxbury
Marshfield
Norwell
Pembroke
Hanover
Scituate
Cohasset
Hull
Hingham
Weymouth
Region
•H = Hiefc K
<"X •• -. i1- ^
Area
y (sa. ml)
96.5
20.4
23.76
28.46
20.88
21.85
15.61
17.18
9.89
2.97
22.47
17.01
296.98
i = Moderate: L= Low. "-"
,^;- South Shore Demographics ' - - *_ , -\
1990 Pop.
Density
(Isa. ml)
472.6
488.9
583.8
755.5
444
667.2
763.6
975.9
714.6
488.7
880.9
3180.2
788
= None
Year-Round Population ]
1970 1980 1990
18606 35913 45608
5999 7362 9045
7636 11807 13895
15223 20916 21531
7796
11193
10107
16973
6954
9961
18845
54610
183903
9182
13487
11358
17317
7174
9714
20239
55601
220070
9279
14544
11912
16786
7075
10466
19821
54060
234022
1st Summe
POD. Inc.*
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
^ * \ »: "
1990 Avg.
r Household
Income
$39,886
40872
63878
48986
60462
46932
54759
52044
62933
37683
60274
41586
Source: 1990 U.S. Census Data
m-48
-------
Lobster and SlieUfish Landi!
^ft^llpr wwwjptm&i itfsk. fysp fl
^It^/^MM
1993 Commercial Lobster Landings 1993 Reported Shellfish Landings
Community
Weymouth
Hingham
Hull
Cohasset
Scituate
Marshfield
Duxbury
Kingston
Plymouth
Region
Pounds
30,228
510,193
294,661
465,017
582,560
686,611
65,082
18,239
783,5%
3,436,187
Economic Value
$87,%3
$1,484,661
$857,463
$1,353,199
$1,695,249
$1,998,038
$189,388
$53,075
$2,280,264
$9,999,304
Bushels Major Species
N/A
N/A
77 Sea Clam
N/A
N/A
N/A
46,906 Mussel
N/A
6,106 Mussel
D. Land Use
South Shore communities are predominantly rural-residen-
tial, with small community centers dotting the main streets.
The region has one major state highway (Route 3) and two
major shopping malls. Between 1951 and 1984, when
detailed land use inventories were compiled by the state, land
development (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, and
transportation uses) increased by 112 percent Residential
growth alone consumed over 15,000 acres of open land, most
of which (12,000 acres) was forest
Transportation and commercial uses recorded the highest
percent increased of 423% and 305%, respectively. The
latest (1985) published land use figures for the region are as
follows: 47% forested land, 38% developed land, 8%
wetland, 4.5% water and open undeveloped land, and 3%
agricultural land.
E. Water Quality
Recent water quality data for selected South Shore rivers and
harbors are given in the following table.
ffl-49
-------
^ v;&f»4:;*^J^
River Segment
The Gulf
Bound Brook
North River (Curtis Crossing Dam to 3A)
North River (3A to mouth)
Herring River
Indian Head River
French Stream
South River (South Res., Duxbury to Main
Street, Marshfield)
South River (Main Street, Marshfield to North
River)
Green Harbor River
Jones River (Silver Lake to Wapping Pond,
Kingston)
Jones River (Wapping Pond to Elm Street,
Kingston)
Jones River (Elm Street to mouth, Kingston)
Cohasset Harbor
Scituate Harbor
Green Harbor
Duxbury Bay
Plymouth Harbor
Plymouth Bay
Furnace Brook
Weymouth Fore River
Town Brook
Monatiquot River
Farm River
Cochato Rover
Trout Brook
Weymouth Back River
Mill River
Old Swamp River
Weir River
Crooked Meadow River
Town River Bay
* "Use Classes" are state goals for the river
S prefix = coastal or marine segment
A = public water supply, fishable, swimmable
B = fishable, swimmable
C = fishable
Use
Class* Status* Pollutants - Sources
*
SB
B
SA
SA
SA
B
B
B
SA
B
B
B
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
S
SB
S
B
S
B
S/T
B
SA
B
SB
NS
S
NS
PS
PS
PS
PS
S
NS
PS
S
NS
NS
PS
NS
S
NS
NS
NS
NS
S
NS
S
NS
S
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
PS
pathogens septic tanks, non-urban runoff
organic enrichment/DO, pathogens - septic tanks, non-
urban runoff, septage disposal, natural
pathogens - septic tanks, non-urban runoff
pathogens - septic tanks, recreational activities, non-urban
runoff, marinas
nutrients, organic enrichment/DO - municipal point sources,
natural
organic enrichment/DO, nutrients, pathogens - natural,
municipal point sources, non-urban runoff
unionized ammonia, pathogens, organic enrichment/DO -
non-urban runoff, septic tanks, natural
pathogens - septic tanks
pathogens - non-urban runoff
pathogens - septic tanks, municipal point sources, non-urban
runoff
pathogens • source unknown
pathogens - septic tanks
pathogens - municipal point sources, urban runoff/storm
sewers
pathogens - source unknown
organic enrichment - urban runoff
pathogens - urban runoff, storm sewers
pathogens, organic enrichment - septic tanks, urban runoff
pathogens, organic enrichment - septic tanks, urban runoff
oil and grease, priority organics - waste storage, leaks, spills
organic enrichment, pathogens, DO - urban runoff, septic
systems
noxious aquatic plants, pathogens, nutrients - septic tanks,
urban runoff
pathogens, organic enrichment/DO - urban runoff, septic
systems
nutrients, pathogens
organic enrichment, nutrients - urban runoff, septic tanks
organic enrichment/DO, pathogens - urban runoff
" Status Codes:
S = supports all indicated uses
S/T = supports all uses, but threatened
PS = supports some uses
NS = supports no uses
ffl-50
-------
Seven of twelve South Shore communities have munici-
pal sewage treatment plants. Sewage from the remaining
communities is treated by on-site methods. The follow-
ing information is summarized from 1995 report titled
"The Status of Municipal Wastewater Treatment and
Energy Producing Facilities Discharging to Coastal
Waters in Massachusetts" (Richard Zeroka, MCZM).
Please refer to mis report for more information on coastal
municipal sewage treatment facilities.
^|;:
Community
Weymouth
Hingham
Hull
Cohasset
Scituate
Marshfield
Duxbury
Norwell
Hanover
Pembroke
Kingston
Plymouth
i^f!;
Population est Current Design
Total Served level of Flow-
(1987) treatment MGD
55,000
21,000
10,450
7,070
18,000
21 ,530
13,895
9,270
11,910
14,544
9,000
45,608
237,277
55,000 primary 500
part (MWRA)
10,450 secondary 3.07
600 secondary .072
4,690 secondary 1.0
8,000 secondary 2.1
1000 secondary —
(Marshfield)
— onsite —
— onsite —
— onsite —
— onsite —
14,500 secondary 1.75
94,240+
&wajp Treatment jA^mAuf * : ' 's? %
^ •• * ^ S* - * 55 S
Actual
Average
Flow • Effluent
MGD CSOs discharge
500 no Boston
Harbor
(Deer, Nut
Islands)
1.5 no Atlantic
Ocean
.091 no James Brook
.80 no First Herring Brk
(North R.)
1.2 no Mass. Bay
— — —
— — —
— — —
1.9 no Plymouth
Harbor
Sludge
disposal
Converted
to fertilizer
pellets in Quincy
Trucked to
Rhode Island
Trucked to
Brockton
local
landfill
local
landfill
—
—
—
Manomet dump
'•.•• 7% :
Primary
source
of flow
domestic,
commercial,
industrial
domestic,
commercial
domestic,
commercial
domestic,
commercial
domestic
—
—
—
domestic,
commercial,
industrial
ffl-51
-------
// Coastal Resources
A. Shellfish Beds
''': ^*'..^ " .f .* ^ -$
Cohasset
MB9.0
MB10.0
MB10.1
MB10.2
MB10.4
MB11.0
Duxbury
CCB42.0
CCB42.1
CCB43.1
CCB43.2
CCB45.0
CCB45.1
CCB45.2
CCB46.1
CCB46.2
CCB463
CCB46.4
CCB46.5
CCB49.0
MB1.0
MB2.0
Hlngham
GBH1.0
GBH1.11
GBH1.14
GBH1.1S
GBH1.17
GBH1.19
GBH1.28
GBH1.5
GBH1.6
GBH1.7
GBH1.8
GBH1.9
Hun
GBH1.0
GBH1.17
: "S&irtl^oreSlifi^ \ ^ / %V '
Status*
MC
A
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
A
A
P
P
A
CA
P
P
P
A
A
A
P
CR
P
P
P
P
P
CR
P
CR
CR
CR
P
P
Open
Acres
106
606
453
3,917
27
33
3 1
398
11,751
2,154
1,737
52
83
1
79
325
52
Closed
Acres**
6,828
90
16
12
157
3
74
33
1
22
9
9
32
34
19
33
2,160
Kingston (confd)
CCB42.2
CCB43.1
CCB43.2
CCB44.0
Marshfield
CCB47
MB1.0
MB2.0
MB2.1
MB2.2
MB3.0
MB4.0
MB5.1
MB6.0
Norwell
MB5.1
Plymouth
CCB29.3
CCB38.0
CCB39.0
CCB39.1
CCB39.2
CCB40.0
CCB41.0
CCB41.1
CCB42.0
CCB42.1
CCB42.2
CCB45.0
MB1.0
Sdtnate
MB2.0
MB4.0
MB5.1
MB6.0
MB7.0
MB8.0
0
Status*
P
P
A
P
A
A
A
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
A
A
A
P
P
P
A
P
A
P
P
A
A
A
A
P
P
P
A
| M-
Open
Acres
666
7
0
7,360
3,046
348
1
17,230
22,331
721
668
1,797
0
10351
13,541
A
•"j. •<•;:
Closed
Acres**
40
58
66
38
268
50
178
271
75
1,090
251
8
736
2^03
57
303
193
206
294
GBH1.2
OBH1J
GBH1.4
GBH1.5
GBH1.6
GBH1.7
GBH2.0
GBH6.0
GBH6.1
MB9.0
MB12.0
MB13.0
Kingston
CCB42.0
•Status Code:
A=Approved
CA=Conditionally Approved
CR=Conditionally Restricted
CR
CR
P
CR
P
CR
P
P
P
MC
P
MC
A
P=Pbohibited
MC=Management
Closure
120
100
23
77
35
0
898
921
84
0
6,201
4,089
194
** Acres C
growing area
productive;
comparison
MB10.1
MB10.3
Weymonth
GBH1.0
GBH1.10
GBH1.11
GBH1.13
GBH1.14
GBH1.15
GBH1.16
GBH1.18
GBH1.20
P
CA
P
CR
CR
CR
P
P
P
P
CR
84
0
74
26
134
18
1.953
81
22
26
57
GBH1.21 P 124
GBH1.9 CR 3
i
alculation: is for the overall surface water area at high tide within the denned
L Outer coastal (beach-side) areas generally have clean water but are not very
these areas, usually defined as extending to the 3 mile line, are very large in
to the productive, more often closed estuarine areas.
Source: DMFData
m-52
-------
B. Beaches
The South Shore region is blessed with many miles of scenic
shore frontage, as well as a great number and variety of
beaches which offer outstanding opportunities for sunbathing,
swimming, fishing, and strolling. The following two tables
show the region's coastal .frontage and beaches by
community
^vi« v ^ » ^tf%;^^C.^S0«i;it$iM)*»-.Coas4al fjtoa&ge by vCo«i»»«»ity:
•. vi -A "• v1 "• s "-v \^vsv'*si%i v •. ^ % v. ""•'•••••,"•"•"•.• •• O
Community
Cohasset
Duxbury
Hingham
Hull
Kingston
Marshfield
Plymouth
Scituate
Weymouth
Region
Total miles of
coastal frontage
6.1
21.9
12.2
22.6
1.9
8.8
33.4
19.7
8.4
135.1
Miles of coastal
frontage publicly owned
0.2
0.5
7.2
5.9
0.3
1.6
2.9
1.7
3.6
23.8
\S ; J i "^> , 5" v-X ^ ' -' "**>
Percent of coastal
frontage publicly owned
3.3
2.3
59.0
26.1
15.8
18.2
8.7
8.6
42.9
17.6
m-53
-------
Cohasset
Black Rock
Pleasant Beach
Sandy Beach
Bassing Beach
Doxbury
Duxbury Beach
Bay Road Beach
Eagles Nest Beach
Harding Hill Beach
South Duxbury Beach
Hingham
Hingham Harbor
Crow Point
Foley Beach
Hull
Nantasket
Crescent Beach
Black Rock Beach
Kenbertna
Kingston
Kingston Shores
Greys Beach
Rocky Nook Park
Marshfield
Rexhame Beach
Fieldston Beach (Sunrise Beach)
Ocean Bluff Beach
Brant Rock Beach
Bluefish Cove
Green Harbor Beach
Plymouth
Saquish Beach
Long Beach
Warren Cove
Rocky Point
Priscilla Beach
White Horse Beach
Manomet Beach
Fisherman's Beach
Churchill Landing
Surfside Beach
Bayside Beach
Harlow's Landing
EUisville Harbor
Cedarville Landing
Nelson Beach
Stephens Field Beach
Scttuate
No. Scituate Beach
Minot Beach
Peggotty Beach
Humarock Beach
Third Chff Beach
Mann Hill Beach
Hatherly Beach
Egypt Beach
Fourth Cliff Beach
Sand Hills Beach
Weymouth
Wessagusset
C. Other Commercial or Recreational Uses
The South Shore region is a haven for recreational boating.
Nearby every town has at least one marina and town mooring
field All the coastal communities support commercial fleets
of lobster, charter, and nearshore fishery boats. Several
towns, because of their proximity to Stellwagen Bank, also
have major tuna and whale watching fleets, which bring
substantial revenues into the communities.
Shellfish, although in plentiful supply, are not readily harvest-
able (except in Duxbury), due mainly to polluted road runoff
and other nonpoint sources of pollution.
m-54
-------
/// Resource Management
This section contains answers to selected questions from
recent EOEA surveys. The answers are summarized here to
provide an overview of the steps South Shore communities
are taking to protect their important national resources.
P**j;4t^?f!:*
Wetland & Habitat Protection
Has the community:
- issued local guidelines in
addition to the Wetlands
Protection Act?
- delineated coastal & inland
wetlands?
Groundwater Protection
Does the community have:
- stormwater control regu-
lations^)?
- Board of Health regulation(s)
stricter than Title V?
- septic system inspection pro-
gram?
- septic system upgrade program?
- septic system pumping
program?
Surface and Coastal Water
Protection
Does the community have:
- flood plain maps (FEMA)?
- flood plain zoning?
- boat pumpout facilities?
- subdivision storrnwater mana-
gement regulations?
General Environmental
Protection
Do these boards have
professional staff?
- Planning Board
- Conservation Committee
-' Board of Health
•."• -. ->
Weyraouth
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
m^Eesiwi
Htogham Hull
Y
Y
N N
Y
N
Y
N
Y Y
Y Y
Y N
Y
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
^ " m*
Cohanet
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
mage*
Sdtuate
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N.
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
ottttS
Hanover
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
wma
NormU
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Pembroke
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
:CfS „-
ManhfteU
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
- '
;:*X< s
-
Duxbury Klngrtoa Plymouth
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y1/!
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Note: "^"refers to a one-half time employee.
m-55
-------
IV Coastal Management and Improvement
Activities
A. Massachusetts Bays Program Mini-Bay Project.
Demonstration Projects, and Bays Action Grants;
The Weymouth Fore River Mini-Bay Project is an
example of three communities with a common goal of
improved water quality. For the first time, the communities
of Braintree, Quincy, and Weymouth are working together to
determine levels of water and sediment contamination from
years of industrial usage. Armed with scientific data, a plan
is being developed and implemented to improve water quality
and raise the public's consciousness of this unique river.
The North and South River Watershed Association has
an MBP Demonstration Grant to remediate storm drains
affecting water quality in the North River.
The Bhiefish River Demonstration Project, undertaken by
the Town of Duxbury and the Bayswide Committee, is a
habitat restoration project aimed at opening shellfish beds by
identifying and correcting nonpoint source pollution
problems using alternative technologies.
The Regional Water Quality Lab Service Project,
sponsored by the South Shore Local Governance Committee,
is a MBP-funded demonstration project that allows each
South Shore community access to a DMF-approved lab. The
grant provides the necessary equipment for citizen
monitoring groups to conduct upstream sampling to locate
potential nonpoint source pollution problems.
Bays Action Grant Award Winners:
Weymouth Waterfront Committee
Hull Conservation
Hanover Chamber of Commerce
Plymouth Marine Mammal Research Center
Hull Public School
Friends of the Weir River Estuary
Atlantic Middle School's Environmental Scholars Project
Hull Environmental High School
Furnace Brook School, Marshfield
B. Government Programs
Coastal Zone
Management Office
South Shore Regional
Assistance
Plymouth County
Mosquito Control
Project
Partners for Wildlife/
David Janik,
So. Shore Coordinator
(508) 946-8990
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (603) 225-1411
Natural Resources Marc MacQueen
Conservation Service/ (508) 295-1481
Mass Community
Assistance Program
C. Citizen Group Efforts
Due to its multitude of embayments, the South Shore has
many different citizen groups working on water quality
problems. These include the following:
North and South Rivers Watershed Association
Trustees of Duxbury Beach Association
The Gulf Association (Cohasset)
Back River Committee (Hingham and Weymouth)
Bare Cove Park Committee (Hingham)
Bayswide Committee (Plymouth, Kingston, Duxbury)
Jones River Watershed Association
Hull Environmental Services Corp.
D. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEO
Currently, there are four ACECs located in the South Shore
Region:
Weymouth Back River (Hingham and Weymouth)
Weir River (Cohasset, Hingham, and Hull)
Ellisville Harbor (Plymouth)
Herring River Watershed (Plymouth and Bourne)
E. Anadromous Fish Runs
The South Shore Region has many anadromous fish runs.
These include:
Weymouth
Fore River
Back River
Hull-Cohasset
Weir River
Cohasset
Gulf River
Scituate
Herring Creek
Herring River
F. Coastal Projects
Marshfield
North River
South River
Duxbury
Island Creek
Kingston
Jones River
Plymouth
Town Brook, Billington Sea,
Eel River, Russell Millpond
Robert Schierer
Coastal Projects are broken into three major categories —
monitoring, remediation, and education, with the focus on
improved water quality and eventual opening of shellfish
beds. All information gathered by these groups is directly
coordinated with DMF and their listed town departments.
m-56
-------
Bluefish River Demonstration Project -- Bayswide
Committee; Town of Duxbury Con Corn, BOH, DPW,
Shellfish Department, and Building Department; and
Kingston Library.
North and South River Watershed Association - Storm-
water Remediation Project; Marshfield DPW, Con Com, and
BOH
North and South River Watershed Association - Clam
seeding project for students, Marshfield Harbormasters
Department, Scituate Shellfish Department
Weymouth Back River Committee - Puritan Road Tidal
Creek, Weymouth Planning Department, DPW, Con Com,
Waterfront Committee, Storm Treat Systems, Inc., and
NRCS.
Jones River Watershed Association - Storm drain
remediation, in conjunction with the Town of Kingston
Highway Department and Conservation Commission.
Bare Cove Park Committee - Riverbank stabilization and
stormwater control, Hingham Con Com and BOH, and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Back River Committee - Citizen monitoring and the
development of the ACEC management plan for the Back
River.
Weir River Estuary Park - Shoreline survey and
cataloguing of marine fauna, Hull Environmental Corp.,
Shellfish Department, BOH, and WWTP; and Cohasset
WWTP.
Partners with Wildlife (USFWS) - A salt marsh
restoration project in the towns of Hingham and Scituate, in
conjunction with the Plymouth County Mosquito Control
Project.
Town of Marshfield - Salt marsh restoration, Town Pier
Road.
Anadromous Fisheries Restoration Projects - Back River
herring run (Weymouth), Gulf River alewife run (Cohasset),
and the Jones River (Kingston).
m-57
-------
V* * ^ I?5;" •• /v\<"^ »*s"J ;•. ^ %_SV s % ^, ^ X •• *5 ; si % % •> ^ ' s % S " * * !! ' Ji%V •. ^,'
|. •• vt I* ''Dietary of Sooth SWrfc Coastal Jtaf fcifc. Programs, and Sources ef A$$istai*&|/ clh ;
State/Federal
Programs and Agencies
• Massachusetts Bays Program
Contact Person and
Telephone Number
Diane Gould,
Executive Director
(617)727-9530
Shellfish Bed Restoration Program Deirdre Kimball,
(MBP, Div. of Marine Fisheries, Coordinator
DEP, Natural Resources (617)727-9530
Conservation Service)
ACEC Program (Area of Critical
Environmental Concern)
Partners for Wildlife Program (US
Fish & Wildlife Service)
Leslie Luchonok,
ACEC Prog. Mgr.
(617)727-3160
Robert Scheirer,
Priv. Lands Coord.
(603)225-1411
Riverways Program (MA Dept of Maria van Dusen,
Fisheries, Wildlife and Env. Law Joan Kimball
Enforcement) (617)727-1614
Natural Resources Conservation
Service/Community Assistance
Unit
Wetlands Conservancy Program
(Department of Environmental
Protection)
Marc McQueen
(508)295-1481
Charles Costello
(617)292-5704
• Wetlands Restoration and Banking Christy Foote-Smith,
Program Director
(617)727-9530
Regional Government
Agencies/Programs
MBP-South Shore Local
Governance Committee
Department of Environmental
Protection
Coastal Zone Mgmt. Office: South
Coastal regional assistance
Bill Clark MAPC
(617)451-2770
Sara Bacon
Office of Watershed
Management
(617)292-5654
Dave Janik,
South Coastal Coord.
(617)946-8990
Project or Program Description
Natural Estuary Program - provides planning, technical,
and financial assistance for the protection of
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Partnership of state,
federal, and municipal governments.
Collaborative effort by Mass Bays Program, DMF, DEP,
and NRCS to remediate storm drain pollution of priority
shellfish beds.
ACEC status provides additional protection to critical
resource areas, and creates an ecosystem-based planning
and management framework for state and local actions.
A federal program providing financial and technical
assistance to landowners for wetlands restoration
projects.
Riverways offers guidance documents and technical
assistance on local river protection efforts.
This new technical team helps communities address
nonpoint source pollution problems.
This state program is charged with mapping coastal and
inland wetlands.
A statewide EOEA program working to restore
degraded wetlands.
Regional MBP Committee - provides technical and
financial support to participating communities.
Team leader for South Coastal Basin team.
CZM develops state coastal zone policy, monitors
coastal activities, and provides technical assistance on
broad range of coastal issues.
continued
m-58
-------
w^Ca:^ and S0ii
Regional Government
Agencies/Programs
• Division of Marine Fisheries
Metropolitan Area Planning Coun-
cil(MAPC)
Norfolk County Mosquito Control
Project
Old Colony Planning Council
Plymouth County Mosquito
Control Project
• South Shore Regional Refuse
Planning Board
Citizen Monitoring Efforts
No. & So. River Watershed
Association
Contact Person and
Telephone Number
Ken Reback,
Regional Fisheries
Biologist
Sandwich, MA
(508)888-1155
Frank Germano,
Sr. Shellfish Biologist
Sandwich, MA
(508) 888-4043
Martin Pillsbury,
Water Resources
Planner
(617)451-2770
Joan Blaustein,
Land Resource Planner
(617)451-2770
Sally Vecchio,
Regional Planner
So. Shore Coalition-
coordinator
Dave Lawson
Endicott St., Norwood
(617)762-3681
Project or Program Description
Finfish habitat monitoring and restoration.
Jim Watson,
Comprehensive Planner, assistance.
Bruce Hughes,
Economic Devt
Specialist
(508) 583-1833
The South Shore biologists test shellfish areas for
pathogens and PSP.
Regional environmental planning and technical
assistance.
(also assist with bikeways and pathways planning)
South Shore Coalition sub-regional group representing
10 municipalities on planning and policy matters.
NCMCP has expertise in saltmarsh restoration work
(Open Marsh Water Management).
Regional environmental planning and technical
Ray Zucor
Kingston
(617)585-5450
Carol Swete,
Solid Waste Planner
Debbie Lenahan
(617)659-8168
PCMPC has expertise in saltmarsh restoration work.
Recycling, composting, household hazardous waste
collection, solid waste management, GIS.
continued
m-59
-------
,""-"V""-"' -"",','-^'•" i.- - ,""•""•"• "'•; 4 %;i '•": , < ••••<••••;- •••••7,- ,,,^-> -™\\
^?7»f South Shore Coastal Pro|ects, Programs, and Sources of Assi^taiiW'' :,l,; 2
Contact Person and
Citizen Monitoring Efforts Telephone Number Project or Program Description
• Jones River Watershed Deborah McKie
Association (617) 585-0702
• Back River Committee George Dolan Joint community effort between town of Hingham and
(617) 749-4079 Weymouth
• Gulf Association John Hartshorne
(617)383-0317
ffl-60
-------
chapter III
Cape Cod Region
-------
Cape Cod Region
/ Description of the Region
A. Map
The Cape Cod region of the Massachusetts Bays Program
includes the communities of Provincetown, Truro, Wellfleet,
Eastham, Orleans, Brewster, Dennis, Yarmouth, Barnstable,
Sandwich, and Bourne.
LEGEND
Major watersheds
N Towns
Cape Cod Canal
Barnstable
Harbor,
Bourne V Sandwk*
'erviUeBay
Harbor
Cotiut Bay 0
Popponnesset
Bay
0 5 10 kilometers
All data from MassGIS
m-61
-------
B. Physical Characteristics
1) Geology and Soils
Cape Cod is a distinctive landform of the Massachusetts
coastline, jutting out into the Gulf of Maine and forming the
southern boundary of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.
Cape Cod is a narrow piece of the coast, no wider than 10
miles and extending eastward approximately 25 miles and
then northward 35 miles to Race Point. It is a pile of uncon-
solidated materials. sands, gravel, silts and clays - left as the
last glacier receded around 12,000 years ago. The northern
edge of the Cape is the glacial moraine, and provides the
Cape with topographic relief, forming hills and valleys. The
highest elevation on Cape Cod is approximately 400 feet
above mean sea level.
2) Description of the Coastline
The Cape's coastline is composed primarily of sand, and is
moving both in the vertical and horizontal directions. The
coastline is being affected by sea level rise, as well as by the
eroaonal forces of the wind and water. Parts of the coastline,
for example Sandy Neck in Barnstable and the backside of
Provincetown, support large sand dunes, some over 30 feet
high. Other parts of the coastline, in particular the shorelines
of Truro and Wellfleet, are sandy glacial banks, with eleva-
tions of 50-80 feet in some areas.
3) Watershed and Important Tributaries
Cape Cod is supported by a sole source aquifer, with 5
distinct lenses of water - bearing sands and gravels. The
Cape's groundwater is reflected at the surface in the approxi-
mately 353 freshwater ponds, 209 of which are considered by
the state to be "great ponds"-10 acres or larger. In addition,
Cape Cod supports more than 100 coastal ponds, estuaries,
and embavments. There are numerous brooks and streams,
and there are some larger streams called rivers - the Pamet
River in Truro, the Herring River in Wellfleet, the Mashpee
and Quashnet Rivers in Mashpee and Falmouth, and the Red
Brook River in Bourne.
C. Economic and Demographic Characteristics
A special study of the Cape Cod economy valued the eco-
nomic base at $2 billion in 1985: 27% derived from
retirement-based income, 26% tourist-based income, 22%
from seasonal residents, and 10% and 15% from manufactur-
ing and miscellaneous sources, respectively. According to
the 1990 Census, 83% of employed Cape Cod residents aged
16 and over had one of six occupations: sales (15.1%);
professional specialty (15%); administrative support/clerical
(14%); service (13.4%); executive/administrative/ manage-
rial (13.1%), and precision production/craft/repair (12.4%).
All of the Cape Cod towns experience at least a doubling of
their population in the summer months. These are seasonal
residents, who own property on the Cape, with principal
residences elsewhere. Tourists are not accounted for in the
"summer" population estimates.
Ir^S
Community
Provincetown
Truro
Wellfleet
Eastham
Orleans
Brewster
Dennis
Yarmouth
Barnstable
Sandwich
Bourne
•H = Hisfc M =
4?^^v;
Area
(so. mi.)
9.7
21.1
19.8
14.0
14.1
23.0
20.6
24.3
60.1
43.0
40.9
290.6
Moderate: L=Low.
fcp^O
1990 Pop.
Density
(7sg mi)
367
75
126
319
414
367
673
871
681
360
392
461
"-" = None
UptCwU
"""• ^ sX 5 ?"\5 %
;:vrrv
Year-Round Population
1970
2,911
1,234
1,743
2,043
3,055
1,790
6,454
12,033
19,842
5,239
12,636
68,980
1980
3,536
1,486
2,209
3,472
5^06
5,226
12,360
18,449
30,898
8,727
13,874
105,543
1990
3,561
1,573
2,493
4,462
5,838
8,440
13,864
21,174
40,949
15,489
16,064
133,907
"• %'% 'f f "£ '•'.'..
Est
Summer
Pop. Inc.
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
I* "• -.
1990 Avg.
Household
Income
20,487
28,333
24,149
31,339
29,518
34,935
27,900
27,222
33,411
43,500
34,159
Source: 1990 U.S. Census Data
m-62
-------
It is fair to say that 75% of the Cape's economic base is
dependent upon high quality coastal resources - clean water,
good swimming beaches, and the ability to go fishing and
engage in boating activities. What draws people to Cape Cod
is its environment and its coastal amenities. The 1990
Census figures indicate that approximately 4% of the Cape's
total payroll is in the agriculture and fisheries category, with
an average annual employment of 1,000 individuals.
~: ^1*V^ 'r*^
"T-^ A V* %- *
Community
Provincetown
Truro
Wellfleet
Eastham
Orleans
Brewster
Dennis
Yarmouth
Bamstable
Sandwich
Bourne
Region
1 irj;;* ^JcW5m^^%Mit«iiii
1992 Lobster Landings
Pounds Economic Value
171,629 $499,440
25,808 $75,101
33,844 $98,486
124,098 $361,125
(included w/ Eastham) fincluded w/ Eastham)
103,462 $301,074
(induced w/ Brewster) (included w/ Brewster)
592,209 $1,723,328
(included w/ Yarmouth) (included w/ Yarmouth)
1,018,268 $2,963,159
45,027 $131,028
2,114,345 $6,152,743
*»*t*:$
v!M:»:iiV';
1993 Reported Shellfish Landings
Bushels
488
52
12,998
5,558
5,457
N/A
825
937
32,134
N/A
7,070
Major Species
Sea Clam
Sea Clam
Quahog
Sea Clam
Mussel
N/A
Softshell Clam
Softshell Clam
Sea Clam
N/A
Quahog
Source: Division of Marine Fisheries, 1994; data incomplete
Official statistics on coastal fishing underestimate the value
of the industry. This is due in part to the fact that neither
individual towns nor the state and federal fishery agencies
maintain reliable statistics regarding Massachusetts fishing
activities. Reported landings of fish and shellfish for Cape
Cod in 1992 were 26.5 million pounds, with an ex-vessel
value of approximately $20.7 million. Not accounted for in
these statistics is a growing shellfish aquaculture industry,
primarily for quahogs and oysters. In 1992, the aquaculture
harvest was estimated to be worm $5.8 million to the growers
alone. These harvest values are based on the price paid to
the fishermen and does not account for the total value of the
fishery to the local economy, such as product transportation,
monies spent on fuel and supplies, and vessel and gear
repairs.
D. Land Use
Cape Cod has become more developed over the last 20 years,
as the population, both year-round and seasonal, has in-
creased. From 1971 to 1990, the amount of acres used to
support residential development has increased from approxi-
mately 42,000 acres to 71,400 acres. Forest land has
decreased to 113,000 acres in 1990 from 149,000 acres in
1971. Between 1984 and 1990, residential development
consumed 11,000 more acres, and forest land decreased an
additional 15,500 acres.
Agricultural activity on Cape Cod (based upon 1987 statis-
tics) has experienced an overall decline on Cape Cod.
However, there are some activities that have expanded: the
acreage devoted to cranberry cultivation has increased to just
under 1,000 acres, with a 20% increase in harvest Nursery
and greenhouse farms expanded to 42, with a doubling in
acreage devoted to nurseries, and an increase to 206,000
square feet of greenhouse capacity.
E. Water Quality
All of the Cape's coastal waters in Cape Cod Bay are classi-
fied as SA waters by the Department of Environmental
Protection. There are local pollution problems within many
of the towns' coastal waters, believed to be due primarily to
septic systems and, in some locations, boat waste discharge.
The only exception is the Cape Cod Canal, which is classified
as SB. As pointed out in the section on shellfish beds, there
is very little acreage closed to sheUfishing along the Bay's
shore. Since the Cape's groundwater flows to the coast,
maintaining its quality is important to maintaining coastal
water quality. Nitrogen from wastewater is of concern, as is
the pollution from the Massachusetts Military Reservation
(MMR). Eleven pollution plumes have been delineated on
the base, seven solvent plumes and four fuel plumes. In
addition, there are four other sites contaminated with fuel.
Ten of the 11 MMR plumes are moving south-southwest
m-63
-------
towards Nantucket Sound; the eleventh is moving west to
Buzzards Bay.
the need for denitrifying or other enhanced treatment technol-
ogies.
Six of the eleven Cape Cod region communities have
municipal sewage or septage treatment facilities. The towns
of Bamstable and Provincetown are in the wastewater
facilities planning process, and both towns are exploring a
variety of wastewater treatment options. This involves
evaluating the use of a combination of individual on-site
technologies, as well as clustered systems, and determining
The chart below summarizes information from a 1995 report
titled "The Status of Municipal Wastewater Treatment and
Energy Producing Facilities Discharging to Coastal Waters
in Massachusetts" (Richard Zeroka, MCZM). Please refer to
this report for more information on coastal municipal sewage
treatment facilities.
:>, - \ SS-x
xo J* #*$r <
% ^ "frvw "• %
% 's ss ^ \
Community
Provincetown
Tmro
WeUfleet
Eastham
Orleans
Brewster
Dennis
Yarmouth
Bamstable
Sandwich
Bourne
Region
^* %&^° " -"* ''o^-5'" <•,, -"• -•• ''" -"' v 'i**" " <«'-,"» " ;<-?i"^£v, »%
^;£?;;iS^C^pttJ^^ ^-V , '*%
Population est
Total Served
(1987)
4,000
1,570
2,490
4,462
5,838
8,440
13,864
21,174
41,000
15,490
16,060
134^88
Actual
Current Design Average
level of Flow- Flow- Effluent Sludge
treatment MGD MGD CSOs Discharge disposal
Primary
source of
flow
— Currently, planning a comprehensive analysis of town's sewage disposal needs and possible
solutions
— Truro and Wellfleet are currently planning a septage/wastewater treatment facility
— to replace existing septage pits; Wellfleet will possibly sewer downtown.
4,500
6,200
6,800
13,500
19,000
25,000
200
75,200
treatment
facility for
pumped on-
site septage
treatment
facility for
pumped on-
site septage
.045 below no sand composting
filter beds
.12 .031 no sand composting
filter beds
secondary 4.2
-------
// Coastal Resources
A. Shellfish Beds
Cape Cod Bay experiences good water quality, as evidenced
by the shellfish bed classifications maintained by the Massa-
chusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. Of the 160,744 acres
of potential shellfishing area on the Bay side of the Cape,
only 132,623 acres were open to harvest as of September 30,
1993. Two shorelines, along the west shore of WeUfleet and
the north shore of Bamstable, comprising 25,552 acres, are
subject to a management closure, as the Division of Marine
Fisheries has not yet completed sanitary surveys for these
areas. Areas closed to shellfishing encompass 1,354 acres
along the Dennis shoreline and the inner harbor of
Provincetown, an area subject to road drainage problems as
well as improperly functioning septic systems.
^tfj^;^¥
BarostaUe
CCB29.0
CCB30.0
CCB30.1
CCB31.0
CCB31.1
CCB31.2
CCB31.20
CCB32.0
CCB33.0
OCB34.0
Bourne
CCB35.0
CCB38.0
Brewster
CCB20.0
OCB21.0
CCB22.0
CCB24.0
Dennis
CCB23.0
CCB23.2
CCB24.0
CCB25.0
CCB27.0
Eastham
CCB9.0
CCB10.0
CCB11.0
CCB15.0
CCB16.0
CCB18.0
Orleans
CCB9.0
CCB17.0
CCB18.0
CCB19.0
CCB21.0
Provincetown
CCB1.0
CCB2.1
•State Code:
A = Approved
CA = Conditionally Approved
CR = Conditionally Restricted
-------
B. Public Beaches
Attendance figures for public parks on the north side of the
Cape are an indicator of the attractiveness of the Cape's
natural resources. In 1992, Nickerson State Park in
Brewster hosted 185,000 visitors, Scusset State Beach in
Sandwich 391,000 visitors, and Shawme-Crowell State
Park in Sandwich 52,700 visitors. Every town with
frontage on Cape Cod Bay has at least one town beach.
Access to these for nonresidents is generally regulated by
sticker fees and availability of parking. In addition to town
beaches, the Cape Cod National Seashore manages Bayside
beaches in Wellfleet.
fA? 4". ; ;^Lj',JrJ
Miles of coastal Percent of coastal
frontage publicly owned frontage publicly owned
Provincetown 24.06 15.07
Truro 20.43 12.26
Wellfleet 35.53 20.22
Eastham 29.88 7.80
Orleans 31.86 14.03
Brewster 5.80 4.24
Dennis 13.98 6.62
Yarmouth 16.61 1.38
Bamstable 60.89 9.77
Sandwich 11.36 0.89
Bourne 49.23 5.95
Region 299.63 98.23
The Massachusetts Public Access Board funded the construction of boat ramps in
Dennis, and Bamstable.
62.6
60.0
56.9
26.1
44.0
73.1
47.4
8.3
16.0
7i8
12.1
32.8
the Towns of Truro, Wellfleet, Eastham,
C. Other Commercial or Recreational Uses
Cape Cod Bay and Stellwagen Bank are important fishing
grounds for the Cape's commercial and recreational fishing
fleet. The Bay is fished commercially for flounders, sea
clams, quahogs, and by party and charter boats for bluefish
and striped bass. Stellwagen Bank is important for the
groundfish fishery, as well as a seasonal fishery for bluefin
tuna. Rock Harbor in Orleans is home port to the largest
charterboat fleet on the Cape, and possibly in Massachusetts,
with 25 vessels. Commercial fish and shellfish landings
reported for Cape Cod in 1992 were a little over 26.5 million
pounds, with a value of approximately $20.7 millioa Using
an economic multiplier of 4.5, the fishery was worth close to
S93 million to the state's economy, much of that remaining on
the Cape.
The north shores of the Cape and Cape Cod Bay are popular
recreational boating areas. The Army Corps of Engineers
estimates that at least 6,500 pleasure craft use the Bay in the
summer months. The Cape Cod Canal is utilized by pleasure
and commercial craft to travel from southern New England
waters into the Gulf of Maine. However, the Canal's major
traffic is commercial shipping. In 1992, 5.3
billion gallons of petroleum products alone were shipped
through the Canal.
Provincetown, Wellfleet, Orleans, Dennis, and Bamstable
have important recreational and commercial harbors that
require maintenance dredging. The Bayside waters of
Provincetown, Wellfleet, Truro and Brewster are also
importantfor shellfish aquaculture. The Cape towns have the
highest number of shellfish grants of any region of the state,
and Wellfleet leads with a total of 43 grants, totaling almost
130 acres. The next highest number is in Provincetown, with
36 grants totaling 45 acres (1992 statistics).
Stellwagen Bank and eastern Cape Cod Bay are important
feeding and nursery grounds for various species of whales,
including the endangered right and humpback whales. A
significant whalewatching industry has developed in
Provincetown and Bamstable Harbor. In 1992, the Bam-
stable whalewatch boat carried 34,731 passengers.
Statewide, it is estimated that 1.5 million passengers
participate in whalewatching each year, generating $23
million in revenue. Most of this activity is based on Cape
Cod
m-66
-------
/// Community Resource Management Survey
This section contains answers to selected questions from
EOEA surveys. The answers are summarized here to provide
a sense of the steps that Cape Cod communities are taking to
protect their resources.
lliliiss
Wetland and Habitat Pro-
tection
Has the community:
• issued local wetlands guide-
lines in addition to the
Wetlands Protection Act?
. delineated coastal & inland
wetlands?
Groundwater Protection
Does the community have:
- stonnwater control
regulation^)?
- Board of Health
regulation^) stricter than
Title V?
- septic system inspection
program?
- septic system upgrade
program?
- septic system pumping
program?
Surface and Coastal Water
Protection
Does the community have:
• flood plain maps (FEMA)
- flood plain zoning
- boat pumpout facilities
- subdivision stonnwater
tTO**v*ffcrocnt regulations
General Environmental
Protection
Do these boards have pro-
fessional staff?
- Planning Board
- Conservation Commission
- Board of Health
•ACEConly
s^V"f?kfii
Provtncetown
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
v^" "A
Truro
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
litaNM
Wdlfleet
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
"• s% O
Euthi
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y*
N
N
Y
Y
Y
^V
fattf*ge»»e
im Orleans
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
rUSurv,
Branter
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Dumb
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
^JV JK* HW^ •£
Yarmouth
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
";-; •." *;"
Barmtabte
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
5 i
Sandwich
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
]^!Jj
Bourne
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
m-67
-------
IV Significant Resource Management Issues
Waste disposal issues top the list of concerns for the Cape's
Bayside towns. While various nutrient studies have been
conducted on the Cape's south side, there has not been a
comprehensive look at whether nitrogen from septic systems
is a significant source of nutrients to coastal waters on the
north side of the Cape. Data from Provincetown indicate that
failing septic systems are a source of contamination to the
harbor, and data from the WelMeet MiniBay project indicate
that there may be two problem areas in the inner harbor area.
Nitrogen does enter the groundwater from septic systems,
and groundwater flows to the edges of the Cape.
A major concern for the Cape Cod Bay communities is the
potential long-term impact on the water quality of Cape Cod
Bay and town shorelines from the MWRA wastewater
treatment facility. There is also concern over the cumulative
impact of this facility and other community wastewater
discharges into the Bay. Another concern for the Bayside
communities is the potential for oil spills from fuel lightering
operations off the east entrance of the Cape Cod Canal, as
well as from barge and tanker traffic through the Canal.
(For a description of the practice of "lightering," please refer
to the "Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project"
discussion in chapter IV.)
Coastal erosion also is a concern for many communities along
the Cape Cod Bay shoreline, but in particular for Sandwich,
Dennis, Brewster, and Truro. Sandwich and Dennis have
numerous structures along their shorelines, and over the past
10 years have experienced significant property damage from
coastal storms. Brewster has fewer structures, but also has
experienced substantial shoreline erosion in the past four
years. The Brewster Conservation Commission is concerned
about a possible increase in requests for armouring of the
shoreline. Over the past 20 years, many seasonal residences
in Cape Cod towns have been converted to year-round
occupancy, heightening concern about storm damage and
potential pollution from septic systems.
All of the Cape communities are dealing with the
consequences of growth and the continuing popularity of the
Cape as a summer vacation location. Many feel that the Cape
has reached or exceeded its capacity to support the numbers
of people who live and visit there.
The Cape Cod Commission, a regional land use planning and
regulatory agency was established by state legislation in 1990
to deal with growth management, economic development,
and resource protection throughout the Cape. The
Commission has the authority to review and assess the
benefits and detriments of relatively large development
projects, and may approve, disapprove, or approve with
conditions projects within its jurisdiction.
The Commission has adopted a Regional Policy Plan to guide
development and related decision-making, and all of the
Bayside communities are engaged in the preparation of local
comprehensive plans (LCPs) consistent with the regional
plan. Through their LCPs, the towns examine trends in
population growth and changes in land use, natural resources,
transportation, and water management, and develop visions
for the future. Regional staff from the Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management Office and the Massachusetts Bays
Program provide technical assistance to the towns, as well as
to the Commission, on coastal and marine resource
management issues.
The Bamstable County Extension office is helping the Lower
Cape Community Development Corporation to administer a
substantial grant from the Executive Office of Communities
and Development The purpose of this grant is to foster the
renovation of cranberry bogs and provide incentives to
increase aquaculture activity in Cape Cod waters, thereby
increasing the number of natural resource-based jobs on the
Cape.
m-68
-------
V Coastal Management and Improvement
Activities
A. Local Stormwater Remediation Projects
Most Cape Cod communities have completed shellfish
sanitary surveys conducted by the Division of Marine
Fisheries. These surveys identify sources of pollution to
shellfish areas. Many of the towns have developed aggres-
sive programs to remediate these problems, and some, for
example Bamstable, Yarmouth, and Orleans, have prioritized
their drainage systems for remediation, based upon the
shellfish/other pubic resource areas affected. Many towns
have been working on drainage projects without special
appropriations for projects, but as part of their public works
department budgets. Examples of town expenditures on
these projects include:
Wellfleet - Since 1986, Wellfleet has spent more than
$24,000, principally on the installation of leaching catch
basins. The town has a bylaw that prohibits stormwater
discharges into local waters.
Orleans - Since 1989, Orleans has spent approximately
$115,000 on engineering and design work for 4 sites in town.
In 1992, the town bonded $370,000 to implement this work.
The work, which included the installation of infiltration
leaching chambers and gross particle separators, was
completed in 1993.
Yarmouth - In 1991, Yarmouth voters approved $200,000
for stormwater remediation, primarily along the Parker's
River, supplementing $30,000 the Selectmen had allocated
to the town's water quality committee to use for stormwater
projects. Much of the work Yarmouth has done has been low
technology fixes; for example, replacing existing catch basins
with leaching catch basins and installing new catch basins
where there previously were none, in order to divert surface
runoff away from the estuary.
Dennis - Substantial work has been conducted in the Swan
Pond and Swan Pond River area, much of it with regular
town funds, not specialty appropriated for drainage purposes.
A few years ago, the town voted to spend about $100,000 to
complete these drainage projects. To date, the town has
spent $4,000 of this appropriation on a small infiltration
system, and has been awarded a DEP 319 grant of $55,000
for drainage work on Upper County Road
Bamstable - In 1992-93, Bamstable invested over $195,000
in two stormwater mitigation projects: one in Cotuit Bay and
another in Bamstable Harbor. The Cotuit Bay project cost
approximately $90,000 and involved the construction of
leaching trenches and the installation of leaching chambers to
treat stormwater discharging into a productive shellfish area
The site in Bamstable Harbor is a town boat ramp, where the
town installed a system to separate sediment from storm-
water, and treat the stormwater prior to discharge. The road
leading to this site carries a high volume of water and
sediment, as it is a steep hill to the water. This project cost
was estimated at $105,000, $50,000 of which is construction
costs.
B. Massachusetts Bays Program Grant Activity on
Cape Cod
Wellfleet - In 1991, the Town of Wellfleet, the Bamstable
County Department of Health and the Environment, the
Bamstable County Cooperative Extension, and the Cape Cod
Commission were awarded a five year grant, funded at
$50,000 a year, to gather information on the environmental
conditions in Wellfleet Harbor, to conduct socio-economic
analyses of the value of fishing activity in the Harbor, and to
determine the value people place on water-related activities
and good water quality in the Harbor. In addition, the project
will support evaluations of various shellfish management
techniques. This information will be used to develop a
management plan for the Harbor, which will address landuse
issues in the watershed as well as coastal and marine re-
sources.
Eastham - In 1992, the Orleans, Brewster, and Eastham
Groundwater Protection District was awarded a $9,800 grant
for the installation and monitoring of a on-site peat
wastewater system at Chapel-In-The-Pines. The grant also
supported the conduct of a workshop on the peat system for
septic system installers. This project was implemented in
cooperation with the Nauset Fellowship, the Bamstable
County Department of Health and the Environment, and the
Cape Cod Commission.
Yarmouth - In 1991, the Yarmouth Department of Natural
Resources was awarded a $879 grant for an environmental
study of Mill Pond, conducted in cooperation with the
Dennis-Yarmouth Regional High School Science Depart-
ment
Bamstable - In 1991, the town was awarded $15,000 to
monitor the effectiveness of the stormwater infiltration system
installed at the parking lot and boat ramp on Bamstable
Harbor (referenced above).
In 1991, the Centerville Elementary School was awarded
$370 for an environmental awareness program.
Sandwich - In 1991, Cape Outdoor Discovery was awarded
$250 to support a water quality testing program in Scoton
Creek.
m-69
-------
C. Harbor Management Planning
The Towns of Provincetown, Truro, Wellfleet, Dennis, and
Sandwich are engaged in harbor planning efforts, funded in
part with grants from the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Program.
Provincetown - A major issue in the town's harbor plan is
public access, as well as the management of moorings within
the harbor.
Truro - Truro has a small harbor, the mouth of the Pamet
River, which is scheduled for dredging this fall. An issue of
particular concern to the town is the availability and
management of moorings.
Wellfleet - Wellfleet is concerned about maintaining a viable
town marina and harbor area, as well as protecting the
harbor's water quality for the aquaculture business.
Wellfleet's harbor generates substantial income for the town;
at the end of 1993, Wellfleet had more than $500,000 in its
marina enterprise fund. Wellfleet is in the process of
evaluating its options for disposal of dredged materials for
the harbor dredging project Wellfleet also has been
successfully designated by EPA as the Commonwealth's fifth
No Discharge Area (NDA). The designation of an area as an
NDA is an option available for communities to address and
control boat sewage discharges, and ultimately, to protect the
marine environment.
Dennis - The town is interested in making optimal use of
their harbor space, as well as protecting the areas of salt
marsh within the basin.
Barnstable - The town is working on dredging and dredged
material disposal issues associated with Barnstable Harbor.
In the process of developing its local comprehensive plan,
Barnstable is evaluating land uses around the harbor.
Sandwich - Sandwich is evaluating existing and future land
uses adjacent to the harbor, in an effort to maximize the
harbor's use and the public's access to this resource. There
is a significant commercial fishing fleet that operates from the
boat basin, as well as a number of recreational boats.
Sandwich owns vacant land adjacent to the harbor which they
would like to develop for water dependent use.
D. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
There are three state-designated Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACECs) located on Cape Cod
within the Massachusetts Bays watershed. These three
ACECs total approximately 24,000 acres and include: the
Inner Cape Cod Bay ACEC (2,550 acres), located in
Brewster, Eastham, and Orleans; the Sandy Neck/Barnstable
Harbor ACEC (8,850 acres), in Barnstable and Sandwich;
and the Wellfleet Harbor ACEC (12,350 acres), in Eastham,
Truro, and Wellfleet An ACEC designation provides
additional resource protection regarding state regulations,
programs, and actions; creates a framework for ecosystem
planning and management; and affords an opportunity for
increased state-municipal cooperation and collaboration. An
ACEC Resource Management Plan is currently being
prepared for the Pleasant Bay ACEC, a joint effort of four
towns, state and regional agencies, environmental
organizations, and residents.
;t:;; IHrectory ^f Cape €o
-------
%- --v ^ <* -^^ -- - - - •• ... - -- •," - 5 -. - ,
Directory of Cape Csd Coastal Projects, Programs and Sources of Assistance;"
>...*?..;; ..'A...*.^.'...'v' .' '' ^'.J ...v^y •»' •. * ~~- .. t...*...\...> ..
Contact Person and
Telephone Number
• Cape Cod Coastal Resources Com- Pat Hughes
mittee Cape Cod Commission
(508) 362-3828
Government Programs - Regional
• Identification of Nitrogen-sensitive EdEichner
coastal waters Cape Cod Commission
(508) 362-3828
Wetlands Restoration Projects,
associated with regional
transportation.
Cape Cod Pathways
Operation of County Dredge
Natural Resources Economic
Development Program
Underground Fuel Tank Program
Hazardous Materials Program
Landfill Monitoring Program
Assistance to Boards of Health
Don Liptack
Natural Resources and
Conservation Service
(508) 362-9332
Kathy Sferra
Cape Cod Commission
(508)362-3828
John Doane
Bamstable County
Commissioner
(508)362-2511
Bill Clarke
Bamstable County
Extension
(508)362-2511x585
Charlotte Steifel
Bamstable County
Health Department
(508)362-2511
Marina Brock
Bamstable County
Health Department
(508)362-2511x336
Sean O'Brien
Bamstable County
Health Department
(508)362-2511x383
George Heufelder
Bamstable County
Health Department
(508)362-2511x383
continued
Project or Program Description
Regional committee comprised of town appointees.
Purpose is to advise county government on coastal
issues, share information, and foster regional solutions
to coastal problems. Serves as a MBP Local
Governance Committee.
Identify nitrogen sensitive embayments, develop
management strategies for controlling nitrogen.
Produce manuals for others to use. Funded with 319
monies.
Use of ISTEA monies to restore wetland areas and
improve road drainage along roads and railroads.
Development of walking trail across Cape Cod Unking
existing open space and historic and cultural sites.
DEM funds provide dredge equipment for Cape Cod
dredging projects, to be operated and maintained by
Bamstable County.
Two year grant to encourage the restoration of
abandoned cranberry bogs, and to increase aquaculture
activity in the eight lower Cape Cod towns.
Regional program to inventory and test all commercial
and residential underground fuel tanks.
Regional program to assist towns in inventorying
hazardous materials and users. Outreach program to
businesses on right-to-know laws and proper handling
Collection and analysis of groundwater around town
landfills.
Provide technical assistance to boards of health and fill
in for health agents in Cape Cod towns, as needed.
m-71
-------
\r s^ -^-T^ee^aj of Cape Cod Caakal l^ojeets»F«^rains,aiid Sources ^f^ssis^aee,^5,'-;'
Evaluation of Waquoit Bay
Watershed
Wellhead Protection Assistance
Watershed Management Assistance
Fisheries Development Planning
Government Programs -
State
• ACEC Program (Area of Critical
Environmental Concern)
CZM Regional Assistance
• DEM - Nickerson State Park
Management Plan
• DEM-WBNERR Alternative Tech-
nologies Demonstration Project
• DFWELE-MCZM
Clean Vessel Act
Government Programs -
Federal
• NRCS - Natural Resource Planning
• ACOE - marsh restoration project
Contact Person and
Telephone Number
Tom Cambareri
Cape Cod Commission
(508) 362-3828
GabrielleBelfit
Cape Cod Commission
(508) 362-3828
Tom Cambareri
Cape Cod Commission
(508) 362-3828
Michael Collins
Cape Cod Economic
Development Council
(508) 790-4980
Leslie Luchonok
ACEC Prog. Mgr.
(617) 727-3160
Cape Cod Regional
Coordinator
(508) 362-3828
Steve Nichol
(508) 896-3491
Christine Gault
(508)457-0495
Cape Cod Regional
Coordinator
Don Liptack
(508) 362-9332
DickHeidebrecht
(617)647-8513
Project or Program Description
Determination of groundwater flow affecting Waquoit
Bay, and volume of groundwater discharging into the
Bay.
Delineation of zones of contribution and appropriate
wellhead protection actions.
Analysis of land use and protective measures in the
towns within the Monomoy Lens of the Cape Cod
Aquifer. Recommendations developed for consistent
protection of area among the four towns.
Grant to develop and implement strategic plan for
fisheries development, aquaculture, and other water
based industries on Cape Cod.
ACEC status provides additional protection to critical
resource areas, and creates an ecosystem-based
planning and management framework for state and local
actions.
Assist Cape Cod towns on coastal management issues
including harbor planning, and assisting Cape Cod
towns with boat pump-out programs.
Development and implementation of Master Plaa
EPA funded program to install and test alternative on-
site wastewater technologies in the Waquoit Bay
recharge area.
Funding for boat pump-out facilities for 12 Cape Cod
towns.
Work cooperatively with towns and other government
agencies on natural resource planning and stonnwater
control.
Restoration of a 250 acres marsh site in Sagamore in
cooperation with Mass. Exec. Office of Environmental
Affairs.
continued
m-72
-------
Contact Person and
Telephone Number
ACOE-beach nourishment project Cathy LeBlanc
(617)647-8564
NFS - Cape Cod National Seashore Mark Taber
Management Plan (508) 349-3785 x206
USFWS - Additions to national
wildlife refuge system
Gulf of Maine Program - Marine
Debris Program
Mary Varteresian
(413)253-8450
Pam RubinofT
MCZM
(508) 362-3828
Non-Profrt Agency Efforts Susan Nickerson
• Association for the Preservation of (508) 255-4142
Cape Cod
Center for Coastal Studies
Cape Cod Compact of
Conservation Trusts
Citizen Monitoring Efforts
• Fahnouth Pond Watchers
Coalition for Buzzards Bay
Friends of Meetinghouse Pond
Russell DeConti
(508)487-3622
Mark Robinson
(508)362-9131
Tracy Crago
WHOI
(508)457-2000x2398
Eileen Gunn
(508)759-1140
Joe McCarthy
(508) 255-4648
Project or Program Description
Evaluation of nourishment of private/commercial
beachfront in Truro.
Development of general management plan for the
seashore.
Evaluation of establishment of refuge adjacent to
WBNERR.
Developing pilot marine debris reduction program in
Provincetown, in cooperation with WHOI Sea Grant
and MCZM
Action 2000 Agenda for Cape Cod's future;
Oversight of MA Military Reservation Pollution
Identification and Remediation Program.
Fishing Net Recycling Project; Water Quality
Monitoring of Provincetown Harbor.
Workshops of wetlands protection strategies; included
all assistance to land trusts and property owners on land
conservation programs.
m-73
-------
m-74
-------
p,
rejects of Regional Scope and Impact
-------
Introduction
Although for convenience sake we sometimes think of coastal
embayments as distinct or isolated systems, it is important to
remember that currents and tides, nutrient cycles, energy
flows, and food webs link the ecological health of each
embayment within the Bays area to the larger marine ecosys-
tem. What happens in one part of the Bays ecosystem may
affect, for good or ill, other parts of the ecosystem.
A number of large projects are currently being planned or
constructed in the Massachusetts Bays region that are
expected to have a greater-than-local impact on the water
quality, coastal habitat, and living marine resources of the
Bays ecosystem. These projects of regional significance (so-
called "megaprojects") include:
• Boston Harbor Project Upgrading Sewage Treatment in
the Metro Boston Area
• Central Artery/Tunnel Project
• Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project
• Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
• South Essex Sewerage District Project
• Saugus River Flood Control Project
• Plymouth Sewage Treatment Project
Any comprehensive plan to conserve and manage the Bays'
resources would be flawed if it did not examine these
megaprojects in some detail. The MBP believes that such
expensive and complicated projects should be held to the
highest standards of public review. The inclusion of these
projects in the CCMP is intended to identify and illuminate
issues of environmental concern and to recommend actions
that will help ensure the long-term sustainability of the
region's marine resources.
Each of the following megaproject discussions is divided into
seven sections: Background, Project Description, Expected
Benefits, Progress to Date, Work to be Completed, Issues of
Concern, and Recommended Actions. With respect to the
latter, the Massachusetts Bays Program has attempted to
develop and build consensus on those actions which should
be taken to ensure that each of the projects proceeds in a
manner which maximiyes benefits for the people of the
region while posing the least risk to the marine ecosystem.
IV-1
-------
IV-2
-------
BOSTON HARBOR PROJECT:
UPGRADING SEWAGE TREATMENT IN THE METRO BOSTON AREA
Background
It would be difficult to overstate the significance of Boston
Harbor to the city that grew up along its shores. The harbor
has served as a channel for commerce and trade, supported
fishing and maritime industries, and provided recreational
opportunities for millions of people. Unfortunately, many of
these values have been impaired by the legacy of using the
harbor as a dumping ground for wastewater generated in the
Boston metropolitan region.
Boston's earliest settlers discharged their sewage directly into
the harbor, but because of their relatively small numbers, this
waste did not significantly degrade water quality. As the
population of the city and surrounding areas expanded,
however, it became evident that the harbor was simply not
large enough to dilute the sewage of a large urban population
and that some improvements in the sewage disposal system
had to be made.
The earliest system improvements were designed to simply
push sewage further offshore. For instance, a brick sewer
line constructed in the 1870s transported raw sewage under
Dorchester Bay to Moon Island, where it was stored tempo-
rarily and then released on the outgoing tide. Unfortunately,
these early system improvements did not achieve significant
water quality benefits, since much of the sewage simply
washed back into the harbor on incoming tides.
In 1952, the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) first
began to treat the region's sewage before discharging it into
Boston Harbor. A primary treatment plant opened that year
on Nut Island in Quincy to treat about one third of the
region's wastewater. Sixteen years later, in 1968, a larger
plant opened on Deer Island to treat most of the remaining
flow. By killing disease-causing bacteria and viruses, these
primary treatment plants significantly reduced the human
health risk of the effluent discharged into Boston Harbor.
They also removed some of the solids from the wastewater
flow.
But primary treatment could not remove all of the solids,
oxygen-consuming organic matter, or toxic contaminants
from the effluent, and as a result, these pollutants continued
to enter the harbor. In addition, wastewater sludge was still
discharged on outgoing tides. To make matters worse,
significant amounts of partially treated and untreated sewage
were released into the harbor or its tributaries through
combined sewer overflows (CSOs) when the volume of
wastewater exceeded the capacity of the treatment plants,
during periods of wet weather.
In 1972, only four years after treatment facilities were opened
at Deer Island, Congress passed the Clean Water Act, which
set national standards for water quality in coastal and inland
waters. The MDC.finding itself consistently underfunded by
the state legislature, sought an exemption from these federal
standards. Meanwhile, water quality continued to deteriorate.
By the mid-1980s, Boston Harbor had gained notoriety as
one of the nation's most polluted harbors.
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), an
independent authority, was created in 1984 to take responsi-
bility for the water and sewer systems formerly operated by
the MDC. In 1985, in response to a series of lawsuits, a
federal court found the MDC and its successor, the MWRA,
liable for numerous Clean Water Act violations. A detailed
compliance schedule for meeting the requirements of the
Clean Water Act was established which mandated the
construction of a secondary treatment plant to treat the
wastewater discharged into Boston Harbor. Unlike primary
treatment, which relies solely on physical processes to treat
wastewater, secondary treatment uses a combination of
physical and biological processes that together are much
more efficient at removing most contaminants.
Project Description
The MWRA is moving into compliance with the Clean Water
Act by constructing new primary and secondary treatment
plants on Deer Island and a new outfall to discharge treated
effluent into Massachusetts Bay. Significant interceptor
construction and CSO facilities planning also are underway.
The MWRA's efforts are, by any measure, an enormous
undertaking. An average of 361 million gallons per day of
wastewater passes through the MWRA sewer system—about
the combined flow of the Charles, Mystic, and Neponset
Rivers. And the Boston Harbor Project's estimated cost of
$3.3 billion makes it one of the biggest public works projects
ever undertaken in New England. (Note: the $3.3 billion
includes only the "Boston Harbor Project" proper, not CSO
control or collection system improvements.) The Boston
Harbor Project and related capital improvements to the sewer
system include:
• Collection and delivery system improvements: Before
wastewater can be treated, it must be collected and
delivered to the treatment plants at Deer and Nut Is-
lands. When the MWRA assumed control of Metropoli-
tan Boston's sewer system, it inherited a collection of
aging pipes and pumps. Deterioration from age and lack
IV-3
-------
of maintenance led to numerous backups and over-
flows. The problem of limited flow capacity was
exacerbated by the infiltration of groundwater and
inflow from illegally connected sump pumps, improp-
erly connected catch basins, and defective tidegates.
Infiltration and inflow (I/I) may constitute as much as
60 percent of average flow in some parts of the system.
The MWRA is in the process of rebuilding the collec-
tion and pumping system at its most vulnerable points,
and is implementing a new flow management strategy
to improve overall system efficiency.
Combined sewer overflow fCSO) reduction and treat-
ment: A few communities in the MWRA region have
combined sewer systems that cany both wastewater and
stormwater. When the carrying capacity of these
systems is overwhelmed during periods of wet weather,
excess flow may be diverted from approximately 80
CSO outfall pipes directly into Boston Harbor or its
tributaries. As part of its recently completed Combined
Sewer Overflow/System Master Plan, the MWRA is
working to optimize the present system and complete a
CSO Facilities Plan to implement an integrated, cost-
effective approach to reducing CSO impacts.
New headworks: The treatment plant on Nut Island will
eventually be replaced by a headworks to screen
wastewater from the southern portion of the collection
system. To transport screened sewage from this
headworks to the treatment plant at Deer Island, the
MWRA is constructing an inter-island tunnel beneath
Boston Harbor.
New treatment facilities: Among the most important
elements of the MWRA's wastewater efforts are the
improvements planned for the treatment plants them-
selves. The new Deer Island plant already has entirely
new primary treatment facilities and will eventually have
entirely new secondary treatment facilities. Secondary
treatment is expected to significantly improve effluent
quality, as shown by the following table which compares
the relative effectiveness of primary and secondary
treatment for selected pollutants:
Primary Treatment vs. Secondary Treatment
Pollutant
Total Suspended Solids
Toxic Contaminants
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD)
Nitrogen
(% Removed)
Secondary
85
32-95*
85
10-15
60
10-46
35
5
Range varies based on contaminant type and
secondary treatment process used.
Source: Alber, M, J. Hallam, and MS. Connor,
1993. The State of Boston Harbor 1992. MWRA
Environmental Quality Department Technical Report
No. 93-6, March 1993.
Outfall tunnel: A 9.5-mile outfall tunnel will eventually
carry treated effluent to the deeper waters of Massachu-
setts Bay. At the end of the outfall, effluent will pass
through 55 vertical riser pipes into ocean water more
than 100 feet deep. Within 200 feet of the diffusing
system, the MWRA expects average dilution to be about
150 parts seawater to one part effluent The model
developed by the scientific community predicts that
within three to five miles of the diSuser, dilution is
expected to be about 400 to 1 (Blumberg et al, 1993).
Source reduction: Through its Toxic Reduction and
Control Department (TRAC), the MWRA is working to
limit the pollutant loadings that enter the wastewater
stream. TRAC issues sewer permits to a variety of
commercial and industrial sewer users, monitors their
discharges, and enforces discharge regulations. Recog-
nizing that household wastes are another significant
source of wastewater contamination, the MWRA has
also launched a public outreach effort to educate citizens
about the proper use and disposal of hazardous house-
hold products.
IV-4
-------
Expected Benefits
The Boston Harbor Project and the other wastewater system
improvements are expected to make the harbor healthier than
it has been in more than a century. Computer models predict
that with the new outfall, effluent will be more diluted
throughout Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, especially in
near-shore waters (Blumberg et al, 1993). The EPA's
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for
the outfall predicts that once secondary treatment exists,
Massachusetts Bay will meet most water quality goals set by
the state, but not all, due to ambient conditions (e.g., PCBs).
CSO and other collection system improvements are also
expected to result in significant water quality improvements
to Boston Harbor and its tributaries.
Progress to Date
Since starting the Boston Harbor Project, the MWRA has
met several major construction deadlines. By the fall of
1995, nearly all of the design and three quarters of the
construction had been completed at a cost $700 million
below the FY 1988 estimate. Progress to date on this and
other wastewater efforts includes:
• Improvements to the collection and delivery system:
Much of the collection system has already been in-
spected and repaired. In 1990, the MWRA completed
upgrades of its existing headworks facilities and the old
Deer Island Power and Pump station. Since then,
significant repair and replacement of three other pump
stations have also taken place. One indication of overall
system improvement is the decrease in "choking time" at
the Deer Island headworks which dropped from more
than 5,000 hours in FY 1987 to less than 1,000 hours
peryearinFY 1991 throughFY 1994. Newpumpsat
the new Deer Island Treatment Plant are expected to
sustain and enhance the improvements made by these
interim upgrades.
Combined sewer overflows: Working with the Boston
Water and Sewer Commission and the other combined
sewer communities, the MWRA has successfully
increased the amount of combined flow that reaches its
treatment plants. Dry weather CSOs have been non-
existent for the past several years, and wet weather
CSOs have been significantly reduced since the mid-
1980s. The MWRA has also constructed or upgraded
six major CSO treatment facilities which provide
screening and chemical disinfection to much of the
excess flow. Approximately 60% of the overflow is now
screened and disinfected before being discharged.
In 1994, the MWRA completed a conceptual long-term
CSO plan that uses a watershed approach to evaluate the
relative contribution of CSOs compared with other
sources. Implementation of the plan, which is currently
in the State environmental review process, will: 1)
eliminate CSO discharges to Dorchester Bay, the
Neponset River, and Constitution Beach, 2) reduce
untreated overflows in each of 10 other receiving waters
to an average of one to four times per year (versus the
current discharge of up to 80 times per year in some
areas), and 3) upgrade existing CSO facilities at Cottage
Farm, Prison Point, and East Somerville, as well as
construct additional CSO treatment faculties to increase
control of bacteria and floating pollution to Boston
Harbor and its tributaries.
Interim improvements to primary facilities: In addition
to installing new disinfection systems which are more
reliable and which use an agent which is safer to store
and handle, the MWRA has installed new scum removal
systems at the Deer Island and Nut Island treatment
plants to remove grease and floatable trash from the top
of sedimentation tanks. These scum removal systems
are responsible for a noticeable improvement to the
aesthetics of Boston Harbor. The new Deer Island
Treatment Plant includes scum removal facilities that
will maintain the level of performance reached by these
interim improvements.
Sludge processing facilities: Perhaps the single greatest
improvement to date involves the solids which settle out
in sedimentation tanks. Previously, this "sludge" was
dumped back into the harbor after digestion—some 40
tons of sludge were discharged on the outgoing tide
every day. In December 1991, the MWRA opened its
new sludge-to-fertilizer plant at the former Fore River
Shipyard. Sludge which used to be discharged to the
harbor is now barged to the pelletizing plant, where it is
converted into high-grade fertilizer. Since sludge
dumping was ended, concentrations of sewage-related
bacteria in the harbor have dropped dramatically,
especially in the vicinity of the old sludge outfall.
Nut Island headworks and inter-island tunnel: Con-
struction of the new Nut Island headworks began in the
summer of 1992 and is scheduled for completion in
1996. Construction of the inter-island tunnel began in
December 1992. Although extremely poor rock condi-
tions and other problems have slowed progress, in
November 1995 the contractor completed excavation
and began preparations for lining the tunnel.
New primary and secondary treatment plants: The
MWRA has made substantial progress toward the
completion of the new primary and secondary treatment
plants. In January 1995, the MWRA successfully
introduced wastewater into the first half of the new
primary plant The second half of the new primary plant
was placed in operation later in the year.
IV-5
-------
Construction is also underway on the first two batteries
of secondary treatment The first major contract for
construction of the secondary treatment plants began in
November 1992 and the second in August 1993.
In August 1991, the MWRA began constructing eight
new sludge digesters on Deer Island Four were placed
into operation in the summer of 1995. These egg-
shaped storage tanks process sludge from the new
treatment facilities, cutting its volume in half and
reducing odor-and disease-causing bacteria Construc-
tion of the remaining four digesters was completed in
November 1995.
Outfall tunnel: Excavation began in June 1992. That
same summer, crews installed 55 vertical riser pipes that
will eventually connect to the last section of the outfall
tunnel. Although progress has been stalled several times
due to mechanical difficulties and tunneling conditions,
more than 8 miles of tunnel had been excavated by
November 1995. Construction of the tunnel is currently
several years behind the MWRA's original schedule.
Toxic reduction and control: Over the past several
years, the MWRA has continually refined its toxic
reduction and control program. Since 1984, there has
been a 75% decrease in the total amount of metals in the
MWRA effluent
Work to be Completed
• Boston Harbor Project: Despite the progress made to
date, completing the Boston Harbor Project continues to
present significant challenges. The new treatment
facilities at the Deer Island plant are scheduled to go on
line in phases, beginning with the introduction of
wastewater into the first half of the new primary treat-
ment plant in January 1995. If no major changes are
made to the project, secondary treatment facilities are
scheduled to be completed by December 1999. The
construction timetable is summarized in the chart below.
• Wastewater Management: Other continuing challenges
include maintaining the new system assets, extending the
useful life of older facilities as much as possible, and
completing the construction of large and aggressive
CSO and sewage interceptor improvement projects.
Projected Construction Schedule
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
New primary facilities at Deer Island:
A&B | C&D
Inter-island tunnel between Deer and
Nut Islands
Outfall tunnel to Massachusetts Bay
New secondary facilities at Deer Island
completed batteries: A | B |
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
IV-6
-------
Issues of Concern
The Boston Harbor Project raises a number of issues with
which die Massachusetts Bays Program is concerned These
include:
• Outfall tunnel: Perhaps the most controversial compo-
nent of the Boston Harbor Project is the 9.5-mile outfall
runnel which will disperse treated wastewater into
Massachusetts Bay. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) approved the location of the outfall after
federal and state agencies made detailed assessments of
the project's potential environmental impact as required
by the National Environmental Policy Act and the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
The MWRA's decision to proceed with the outfall was
based on the best available scientific data. However,
there has been concern that relocation of nutrient loading
to the vicinity of the outfall terminus may trigger eutro-
phication or algal blooms in Massachusetts Bay. Aside
from being aesthetically unpleasant, algal blooms could
potentially cause severe hypoxia (oxygen depletion from
organic decay) and thereby adversely impact the marine
ecosystem of Massachusetts Bay. The potential impacts
could be heightened if effluent was discharged through
the outfall before full secondary treatment had come on
line. A separate concern related to nutrient loading is a
group of algae known as dinoflagellates, some species of
which produce the toxins responsible for paralytic
shellfish poisoning (PSP).
Moreover, there has been concern that the outfall will
negatively impact the resources of Stellwagen Basin and
Stellwagen Bank, a sandy underwater plateau located
about 16.5 miles from the outfall terminus. The
nutrient-rich waters of the Bank, which was recently
designated as a National Marine Sanctuary, are a feeding
ground for several species of marine mammals, includ-
ing the endangered humpback, right, fin, and sei whales.
Because the deep water in Stellwagen Basin does not
circulate freely, it is especially sensitive to the potential
for depressed dissolved oxygen. Reduced dissolved
oxygen may adversely impact the prey of marine mam-
mals, which in turn could negatively affect the marine
mammals present
The MWRA has acknowledged that "processes associ-
ated with eutrophication and species changes are com-
plex and, to a degree, unpredictable," and EPA's
Supplemental EIS predicts a modest increase in algal
production near the outfall. But it appears that most of
the pollutants released from the existing outfalls at the
entrances to Boston Harbor already make their way to
Massachusetts Bay on outgoing tides. The Authority
maintains that no Baywide eutrophication or hypoxia
will occur, and that the new outfall will have minimal or
no impact on the resources of Stellwagen Basin or
Stellwagen Bank. Federal agencies, including EPA and
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), have
reached the same conclusion, stating the outfall pipe "is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered or threatened species." However, they
recognize the uncertainty surrounding the ecosystem's
response to the cumulative impacts of this discharge and
all other pollutant sources to the Bays.
In response to concerns about the effects of the new
outfall on Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, an Outfall
Monitoring Task Force (OMTF) was established to
report to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on the
outfall's environmental impact The OMTF consists of
academic scientists, officials from state and federal
agencies, and representatives from environmental
interest groups. The MWRA began monitoring in
February 1992 with several baseline studies to deter-
mine conditions in the Bay before the new outfall begins
discharging effluent Sampling has been concentrated in
the area immediately surrounding the outfall, but extends
into remote areas of the Bays as well. The OMTF will
examine and interpret monitoring data and suggest
remedial action should it determine that the outfall is
causing an adverse impact on Massachusetts Bay. In
addition, the MWRA, EPA, and the NMFS recently
entered into an Agreement to conduct various activities
to monitor and study effects of the outfall discharge on
the marine environment The MWRA also released for
comment a Draft Contingency Plan (March 1995),
which describes ongoing action to ensure protection of
the ecosystem and triggers for conducting additional
studies and taking future action as needed
Rate increases: The benefits of the Boston Harbor
Project have not come cheaply. Most of the project is
being financed with 30-year revenue bonds. Although
the federal government has committed $632 million
dollars to the project, and the Commonwealth recently
established a Rate Relief Fund to help offset debt service
costs, MWRA ratepayers will likely shoulder almost 65
percent of the project cost Annual water and sewer
bills, which averaged $410 per household in 1991, are
expected to rise throughout and beyond the remainder of
the decade. Every homeowner, business owner, or
renter who flushes a toilet in the 43 MWRA sewer
communities will feel the burden, especially those on
low or fixed incomes. Although the MWRA has kept
average rate increases lower than first expected, public
support for additional water quality improvements in
Boston Harbor and elsewhere may depend on keeping
project costs to a minimum and finding additional state
and federal revenues to finance the project The MWRA
is currently working with a broad coalition seeking
additional federal and state revenue for the Boston
Harbor Project
IV-7
-------
• Project revisions: Any project as extensive as the
Boston Harbor Project must be subject to revision as
better data become available. The most significant
revision recently considered concerns the capacity of the
secondary treatment facilities. A study completed by the
MWRA indicated that due to revised estimates of flows
and loads based on actual data, the size of the planned
secondary treatment facilities could be reduced while
still meeting all Clean Water Act requirements. Based
on this information, the Federal Court recently approved
the elimination of Battery D of secondary treatment
Recommended Actions
The Massachusetts Bays Program has attempted to identify
areas of environmental concern and to build consensus on
those actions which should be taken to ensure that the
project proceeds in a manner that both maximizes benefits
for the people of the region and poses the least risk to the
marine ecosystem. The following recommendations have
been developed by the staff of the Massachusetts Bays
Program, with input from officials from the implementing
agencies and interested members of the public.
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA)
should:
• plan its operating budget to ensure sufficient funds are
available for operation and maintenance of the new
treatment facilities. (This budget parameter is a require-
ment for the receipt of federal funding.);
• continue aggressive enforcement of industrial permits;
• continue efforts to reduce household hazardous waste
and to educate the public about proper use of the sewer
system;
• eliminate CSOs where deemed appropriate by a public
review process;
• continue maintaining the sewer system;
• monitor the health of the ecological community by
assessing species abundance and diversity of the ben-
thos in Stellwagen Basin, in Cape Cod Bay, and near the
outfall; and
• implement contingency planning, with public input,
based on meaningful and verifiable triggers.
Communities and citizen organizations have taken an
active role in reviewing and commenting on the March
1995 Draft Contingency Plan. The Coastal Advocacy
Network and others have recommended that, should
unforeseen circumstances seriously threaten the health
of the Bays, the contingency planning process should
give consideration to all contingency options, including
advanced levels of treatment (e.g., effluent filtration,
organic polymer addition, etc.) and inshore diversion
of effluent. Several communities have expressed the
concern that contingency planning should protect the
health of Boston Harbor, as it continues to recover
from the effects of past effluent discharges. The
Massachusetts Bays Program recommends that the
MWRA should:
• consider all contingency planning options, and, consis-
tent with the goals of this CCMP, the MWRA should
strive to protect all of our shared coastal resources, from
the North Shore to Boston Harbor to Cape Cod Bay, and
• continue to make all monitoring data available to
interested parties in a mutually-agreed upon and timely
fashion.
The 43 MWRA customer communities should:
• minimize infiltration and inflow,
• implement strong stormwater management measures
aimed at achieving the water quality standards in Boston
Harbor and its tributaries; and
• maintain their portions of the sewer system.
The Outfall Monitoring Task Force should:
• Adopt meaningful change values for several environ-
mental indicators, including, but not necessarily limited
to:
1. percent change in liver lesions of winter flounder,
2. exceedences of water quality standards;
3. exceedences of FDA limits for seafood safety, and
4. changes in dissolved oxygen for Stellwagen Basin.
• Recommend meaningful changes for
1. biological productivity, and
2. structure of the bentbic community, particularly as
it relates to contaminant levels in marine sediments.
• Ensure that MWRA monitoring efforts are coordinated
with the state's planned monitoring program and the
nationwide marine monitoring programs.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should:
• in collaboration with DEP, ensure MWRA compliance
IV-8
-------
with its discharge permit when the permit is finalized
and becomes effective; and
• continue to collaborate with MWRA and NMFS on the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement
the conservation recommendations in the NOAA
Biological Opinion.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) should:
• immediately implement the Recovery Plans for the
North Atlantic Right Whale and Humpback Whale.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) should:
• continue to upgrade modeling techniques and pursue
acoustical methods for the monitoring of outfall-gener-
ated plumes.
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should:
• in collaboration with EPA, ensure MWRA compliance
with its discharge permit when the permit is finalized
and becomes effective.
IV-9
-------
IV-10
-------
CENTRAL ARTERY / TUNNEL (CA/T) PROJECT
Introduction
Almost everyone who lives or works in Boston is familiar
with the elevated highway slicing through the heart of the
city. This section of Interstate 93—better known as the
Central Artery-serves approximately 190,000 vehicles every
day. Few people like to drive on this road, and with good
reason-the Artery's safe design capacity is only 75,000
vehicles per day. Traffic jams are the norm and the accident
rate is about twice the national average for urban interstates.
The Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) Project is designed to
increase the capacity and safety of the highway system,
improve access to Logan Airport and the South Boston
seaport, and reduce congestion on roads in downtown
Boston. By most accounts, the project is much needed and
long overdue. The Massachusetts Highway Department first
projected the need for a third harbor tunnel in 1957, and a
1974 study confirmed the technical feasibility of depressing
the artery. The ambitious project now underway will finally
achieve those visions, hi doing so, it will transform Boston,
not only by altering traffic patterns in and around the city, but
by creating about 20 acres of new open space in the Central
Artery area when the existing artery is dismantled.
Project Description
The $7.9 billion CA/T project consists of four major compo-
nents:
• a widened, mostly underground 1-93 (Central Artery)
from Charlestown to just south of the Massachusetts
Avenue interchange. The new artery will have 8 traffic
lanes plus intermittent auxiliary lanes;
• an 1-90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) extension via a
Seaport Access Highway and Harbor Tunnel to Logan
Airport in East Boston, with a connection to Route 1A
The new harbor tunnel extends from the Subaru terminal
in South Boston to Bird Island Flats in East Boston (The
new harbor tunnel was opened December 15,1995 and
dedicated as the "Ted Williams Tunnel".);
• an extended frontage road system parallel to 1-93, both
northbound and southbound, from Causeway Street to
just past Southampton Street; and
• a South Boston Bypass Road to connect 1-93 to the
Seaport Access Highway and the Commonwealth Flats
area of South Boston. (The South Boston Bypass Road
opened December 15,1995.).
Roughly half the project will be constructed within the
existing I-93/Central Artery right of way, and the rest on a
new right-of-way through industrial areas of South Boston
and Logan Airport
Expected Benefits
The CA/T Project will expand the capacity and improve the
geometry of the existing highway system. When it is com-
pleted, the new Artery will be able to accommodate 247,000
vehicles per day. The project will have other benefits aside
from improving traffic flow through Boston, however.
Despite a small, temporary decline in downtown sales while
the artery is under construction, the project is expected to
generate economic benefits for Boston and the region.
Reorganizing the many underground utilities will greatly
benefit future maintenance.
The project may also have a number of environmental
benefits, including:
• improvements in air quality resulting from fewer traffic
snarls;
• increased parkland and open space in downtown Boston,
East Boston, along the Charles River, and on Spectacle
Island;
• a cap to prevent leaching from the existing landfill on
Spectacle Island; and
• restoration of 14 acres of coastal wetland at Rumney
Marsh.
Progress to Date
As of February 1996, the CA/T Project had awarded approxi-
mately $3.3 billion in design and construction contracts.
Progress on the major components of the project is as
follows:
• Central Artery: early in 1993, project crews began
relocating the jumble of utility lines within the area of
the new underground artery. Site preparation is ex-
pected to be finished in 1996.
• Ted Williams Tunnel: constructing the 540-foot-wide
tunnel trench required the removal of over 200,000
cubic yards of rock from beneath the harbor floor, and
clamshell dredging to remove more than one million
cubic yards of marine sediment and clay. The tunnel
IV-11
-------
itself is made up of a series of steel and concrete tubes
which were constructed off-site, towed into Boston
Harbor by barge, and lowered into the trench. Approxi-
mately nine months after the first section of tube was
placed in February 1993, all 12 tube sections had been
installed and connected. The tunnel was completed and
opened for interim use by authorized vehicles in Decem-
ber 1995.
Surface roads: The South Boston Haul Road, which
opened to commercial traffic in September 1993,
represents the first mile of completed roadway on the
CA/T Project The South Boston Bypass Road, which
connects the Haul Road to the Southeast Expressway,
was opened in December 1995.
Spectacle Island: Material from the CA/T Project will
be used to cover an existing landfill on Spectacle Island.
More than two million of the 2.7 million cubic yards of
material earmarked for the island have already been
delivered
Work to be Completed
A carefully phased and coordinated construction program has
been developed to maintain surface traffic through the city
and to minimize disruptions to Boston residents and busi-
nesses. Construction on the Project's major components is
expected to proceed as follows:
• Central Artery: Construction of the new under-ground
expressway along Atlantic Avenue began in September
1995. By 2003, the tunnels are expected to be opera-
tional both northbound and southbound. The final
components of 1-93, including removal of the old
elevated Artery and construction of the Charles River
Crossing, are expected to be operational by 2004.
• Spectacle Island: After the existing landfill is capped,
Spectacle Island will be regraded and revegetated for
use as a park as envisioned in the Boston Harbor Islands
State Park Master Plaa
• Permitting process: Permits from agencies which
regulate activity in or near the water have been of
special concern to the Massachusetts Bays Program. To
date, the CA/T Project has successfully handled a very
large and complex permitting process without encoun-
tering significant obstacles.
Issues of Concern
The Massachusetts Bays Program is concerned with the
project's potential impact on water quality in Boston Harbor
and its main tributaries, as well as its potential impact on
fragile coastal areas, including the islands of Boston Harbor.
Aquatic habitat: Existing environmental regulations
strongly discourage placing fill in coastal waters.
Although early design modifications reduced intrusion
into coastal waters, current design specifications still
require fill to cover several acres of benthic habitat
Eight acres of aquatic habitat around Spectacle Island
have already been filled to facilitate the landfill closure
plan. Another five acres will be filled in Fort Point
Channel. A November 1995 project design change will
reduce the amount of proposed fill in the Millers River.
Compensatory mitigation for aquatic habitat losses is
currently in the planning as well as preliminary con-
struction phases.
Disposal of excavated and dredged materials: After
more than 5 years of construction, the CA/T Project has
excavated roughly 25 percent of the approximately 14
million cubic yards of total material it is expected to dig
up or dredge. Suitable material will be used for Project
backfill, as needed In addition, the CA/T Project has
coordinated with DEP to develop a program for benefi-
cially reusing clay at publicly-owned landfills. This
program seeks to ensure environmentally sound man-
agement of the clay and till. One million cubic yards of
dredged sediment have already been placed at the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) and at
Governor's Island Additional dredged material from
Fort Point Channel and the Charles River Crossing will
be disposed of at the MBDS and Spectacle Island in the
future.
City conservation officials have expressed concern over
the adequacy of erosion control measures at Spectacle
Island, and have reported incidents of erosion of fill
material at Spectacle Island during severe weather
conditions. In order to prevent further erosion of fill,
CA/T Project officials have stated that effective best
management practices have been instituted around the
perimeter of Spectacle Island
Stormwater system design: The amount of stormwater
discharged in the project area will not change substan-
tially, but the project is expected to change drainage
patterns and the rate of storm flow at several locations.
IV-12
-------
Although all stormwater systems have not yet been
designed, runoff from construction areas will be directed
to existing or new storm sewers, all of which must meet
current state regulations for stormwater discharge. In
areas where new storm sewers are constructed, com-
bined sewer overflows (CSOs) are expected to decrease.
Sedimentation: In 1991, the CA/T Project obtained the
first-in-the-nation NPDES permit for construction site
dewatering and stormwater runoff. Consistent with the
permit requirements, contract specifications include
strict performance standards to be met by contractors via
the use of best management practices.
Public access to waterfront areas: Most phases of the
construction project have been planned to ensure that
public access to the waterfront is not seriously impeded
The banks of the lower Charles and Millers Rivers will
be disturbed by construction activities during later
stages of the project These bank areas currently pro-
vide only limited access west of the existing 1-93
corridor as they are not yet developed as public open
space. When construction is completed, the current
design is expected to expand parkland in the river basin,
allowing pedestrian and bicycle connections from the
esplanade to the harbor.
Aesthetic concerns: The CA/T Project will include some
temporary facilities near the waterfront, including a
casting basin at the edge of Fort Point Channel, and a
large number of temporary bridges, ramps, barricades,
and fences throughout the project area. These temporary
aesthetic concerns are minimized since the project area
is an already highly developed industrial zone.
Permanent features of the project, especially the Charles
River Crossing, will reduce impacts on aquatic re-
sources and navigation, and will reduce visual impacts
in comparison to earlier alternative designs officially
considered in the environmental process. This design
was approved by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs
in March 1994 and by the Federal Highway Administra-
tion in June 1994. The crossing will be built on the
banks of the Charles River, near the point where it
flows into Boston Harbor. The crossing will include a
mainline (1-93) long-span cablestayed bridge with 10
travel lanes carrying traffic between downtown Boston
and Routes 1 and 1-93 norm of the river. Connections to
and from Leverett Circle/Storrow Drive will be on a
second 4-lane bridge similar in profile to the mainline
bridge, and by land-based tunnels south of the river
passing below the North Station railroad tracks.
Recommended Actions
The MBP has not developed recommendations specific to
the Central Artery/Tunnel Project at this time. However, the
MBP will continue to track the nature and progress of the
project, and will issue future recommendations as deter-
mined appropriate.
IV-13
-------
IV-14
-------
BOSTON HARBOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Background
In 1634, only four years after settlers from the Massachusetts
Bay Company first arrived in Boston, Englishman William
Wood described Boston Harbor as "fittest for such as can
Trade into England, for such commodities as the Country
wants, being the chief place for shipping and Merchandise."
Encouraged by Wood's description, trading ships soon began
to frequent the harbor, and since that time, Boston has
become one of the busiest commercial ports in the United
States.
Of course, Boston Harbor was more than deep enough to
accommodate the sailing ships with which William Wood
was familiar. The large-draft ships and tankers which run
through the harbor today, however, need deep access chan-
nels to navigate safely. Shipping companies have long
known that large vessels minimize the cost of transporting
bulk cargo. It is not surprising, then, that the average vessel
in the worldwide commercial shipping fleet has steadily
become larger in length, beam, and draft. In the last 160
years, Boston Harbor has been dredged repeatedly to
accommodate the growing commercial fleet Occasional
improvement dredgmgs to increase channel depths have been
supplemented with more frequent maintenance dredgings, the
last of which occurred in 1983.
The container ships and tankers which are the mainstay of
today's international shipping industry need 40-foot access
channels to navigate safely and efficiently. While Boston
Harbor's principal entrance and main access channels are 40
feet deep, its three major tributaries, along which most port
terminals are located, are only 35 feet deep. These channels
and many of their berths are currently too shallow to accom-
modate commercial traffic except during high tides, resulting
in tidal delays and limits on vessel size and loading.
Even slight delays can substantially increase the operating
costs of a shipping company and jeopardize its long-term
profitability. This is especially true in the northern Atlantic,
where commercial shipping is a highly competitive enter-
prise. In order to avoid delays, shipping companies some-
times engage in "lightering," or transferring their cargo to a
barge. This may raise a ship enough to navigate a shallow
channel or dock at a shallow berth. Although lightering is
time-consuming and expensive, it is of necessity an increas-
ingly common practice in Boston Harbor.
Increased operating costs associated with tidal delays and
lightering have already discouraged some shipping lines from
calling on the Port of Boston, and may prevent the port from
attracting new business in the future. Since the 1960s,
Congress has recognized that Boston Harbor needs deeper
channels to maintain its position as a prominent international
port A study completed in 1988 established the feasibility of
the proposed Navigation Improvement Project, which was
authorized in the Federal Water Resources Development Act
of 1990.
Project Description
The Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project would
deepen several major tributaries of Boston Harbor:
• Reserved Channel: most of the existing 35-foot channel
would be deepened to 40 feet, including a portion of the
main ship channel to provide a deep-water turning area.
• Mystic River: a major portion of the existing 35-foot
channel would be deepened to 40 feet, except for areas
along the south side and at the upstream limit where 40-
foot depths are not required
• Chelsea River: the existing 35-foot channel would be
deepened to 38 feet after the relocation and alteration of
utility crossings beneath the channel.
• Inner Confluence Area: the 35-foot confluence of the
Mystic and Chelsea Rivers along the East Boston
waterfront would be deepened to provide a safe 40-foot
approach to both the Mystic River and Chelsea River.
• Berth dredging: berths that will economically benefit
from channel dredging would be deepened at non-
federal expense.
Project cost and cost sharing are both dependent on the two
stages required to complete the project: dredging of channel
maintenance material and improvement dredging.
Maintenance Dredping- The existing tributary channels to be
deepened by the project have been maintained to the autho-
rized 35-foot depth. The cost of dredging maintenance
material during project construction will be funded as
maintenance dredging at 100% federal cost Maintenance
material is primarily silt (about 896,800 cubic yards [cy])
which has accumulated since the channels were last deep-
ened, and is contaminated with organic compounds, heavy
metals, and other toxic compounds. Maintenance material
must be removed prior to the improvement dredging. It is
estimated that disposal of maintenance material in-channel
(Mystic River, Chelsea River, and Inner Confluence) will
COSt $32 million
IV-15
-------
Improvement Dredging: The cost of the Navigation Improve-
ment Project (deepen from -35 ft mean low water [MLW] to
project depth) will be shared The federal share of the
project is $18,695,000, which includes 65% of the cost of
channel deepening and the U.S. Coast Guard cost for naviga-
tion aids. The non-federal share is $11,820,000, which
includes 35% of the cost of channel deepening and 100% of
the cost to deepen berth areas and relocate or protect utilities.
The total cost for the improvement project is $30,515,000.
Materials to be removed consist of silts in the project berths
(54,500 cy), undisturbed parent material from the channels
(1,550,700 cy), undisturbed parent material from the project
berths (71,600 cy), and rock from the channels (88,100 cy).
Expected Benefits
Ships cany approximately 95 percent of America's foreign
commerce. International trade is the fastest growing segment
of the American economy, and is expected to expand even
more rapidly as a result of recent trade agreements.
As one of the country's oldest and most experienced ports,
Boston is an important gateway for international commerce.
More man 25 million tons of cargo, worth some seven billion
dollars, pass through the Port of Boston each year. More
than 6,000 people are directly employed by the cargo
industry in Boston, and another 3,000 have jobs which
indirectly support this activity. In 1992, shipments through
Boston generated nearly $1.86 billion in economic benefits
for the region.
By reducing the cost of transporting bulk commodities
through the Port of Boston and reducing tidal delays for
larger vessels, the Navigation Improvement Project will
increase the efficiency and competitiveness of Boston Harbor
and bring economic benefits to the entire region. By allowing
the passage of larger, more efficient vessels over a longer
period of the tidal cycle, and by reducing barge traffic from
nearby ports, the project should alleviate congestion in the
harbor. The project also should reduce the risk of accidents
and hazardous materials spills.
Progress to Date
Preconstruction engineering and project design began in
September 1990. Ship simulation model studies were used
to determine optimum channel dimensions and locations, and
subsurface material surveys were completed by November
1992. Massport and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
filed a Final EIR/EIS in June 1995. A 60-day comment
period followed, and a Massachusetts Environmental Policy
Act (MEPA) Certificate was issued in September 1995.
Work to be Completed
Massport and (he ACOE are initiating the permit application
process. Construction, which would take approximately 18
months to complete, could begin as early as 1997.
It is expected that the ACOE will issue one dredging contract
for both the channels and the berths. This will likely require
special arrangements between the ACOE and Massport,
since berth dredging is a non-federal responsibility.
Massport is the project's non-federal sponsor. Massport's
responsibilities are generally outlined in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 and will be more particularly
described in the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA). The
ACOE and Massport will work together to assure that all
permit requirements are met, whether it be through the
ACOE contract or separately.
Altogether, the project will dispose of 1.1 million cubic yards
of contaminated sediments in cells to be constructed below
the federal navigation channels in the Mystic River, Chelsea
River, and Inner Confluence area The silt will be capped
with three feet of clean material and armored with rock in
areas of significant propeller wash, hi the course of conduct-
ing characterization studies on the marine sediment in the
proposed project area, the ACOE determined that the 1.1
million cubic yards of surface silt in the project area is not
suitable for unconfined ocean disposal. The remaining
material which meets federal criteria will be disposed of at
the Massachusetts Bays Disposal Site (MBDS).
Issues of Concern
• Disposal of contaminated sediments: surface sediments
dredged from the floor of Boston Harbor are not suitable
for unconfined or confined ocean disposal. The ACOE
and Massport have conducted a detailed analysis of
alternative disposal sites. Using criteria based on techni-
cal feasibility, environmental impact, and cost, the project
team initially selected 351 possible disposal sites. More
rigorous screening criteria were used to narrow the
number of sites to 21, then to 6 "preferred practicable"
sites, and finally to a combination of in-channel locations.
The preferred disposal site identified in the EIR/EIS for
the silty maintenance material is in-channel disposal. The
silty material would be buried deeper than the authorized
depth in the Mystic River, Chelsea River, and Inner
Confluence, and then capped with coarse grained material.
The clean parent material (Boston blue clay, and rock and
gravel) will be disposed of at the MBDS.
' Note: for a broader discussion of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS), refer to the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site megaprpject
discussion in Chapter IV.
IV-16
-------
Impact on water quality: extensive dredging may disrupt
water quality in the harbor by increasing turbidity in the
project area and by triggering the release of contaminants
which have accumulated in marine sediments. Proper use
of dredging equipment, including sealed dredging buck-
ets, can minimize water quality impairments during the
dredging process. However, current water quality model-
ling has not shown an unacceptable increase in turbidity
during dredging and disposal. Monitoring of the project
while in progress will be imperative to ensure that mini-
mal water quality violations occur.
Impact on marine biota and habitat: benthic organisms
and demersal fish in the project area would be killed
during dredging and blasting, although recolonizan'on
would be expected approximately one year after construc-
tionhasended. If sediments are disposed of at an aquatic
site, resident organisms including finfish and marine
mammals would be temporarily displaced from the
disposal area due to increases in noise and turbidity.
Benthic organisms in the disposal area would be buried.
Disposal events would be frequent enough to prevent
recolonization until the end of the 18-month dredging
process.
In-channel disposal with capping reduces the risk of
significant environmental harm. Regular monitoring and
response by appropriate agencies would reduce this risk
further.
Source control: because marine sediments will continue
to accumulate in Boston Harbor, periodic maintenance
dredging will be necessary to keep navigation channels
clear. The proposed Navigation Improvement Project
area is expected to generate 1.8 million cubic yards of silt
over for the next SO years. The maintenance dredging of
the main ship channel and President Roads anchorage area
(not part of the currently proposed Navigation Improve-
ment Project), is expected to generate 4.4 million cubic
yards of material over the next SO years. The quality of
these sediments will depend in large measure on pollution
loadings to the Boston Harbor during that time. Control-
ling pollution at the source is the best way to prevent
further degradation of the harbor's sediment An effective
source control program will also lower the cost of mainte-
nance dredging in the future.
Maintenance Dredging and Disposal: although source
control is extremely important, it is unlikely that the silty
sediments which refill Boston's deepened shipping
channels will be suitable for open ocean disposal in just
ten to fifteen years when the first maintenance dredging
will become necessary. Currently, limited viable,
environmentally-safe options exist for disposal of this
maintenance silt Alternative technologies for treating
contaminated sediments which were not appropriate for
the improvement project may be appropriate for mainte-
nance dredging if planning begins now.
Recommended Actions
The Massachusetts Bays Program has attempted to identify
areas of environmental concern and build consensus on
those actions •which should be taken to ensure that the
project proceeds in a manner which maximizes benefits for
the people of the region and which poses the least risk to the
marine ecosystem. The following recommendations have
been developed by the staff of the Massachusetts Bays
Program, with input from officials from the implementing
agencies and interested members of the public.
The Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) should:
• ensure adequate monitoring of the cap after completion of
construction; and
• ensure that appropriate environmental performance
standards are incorporated into construction contracts.
Massport, ACOE, EPA, NMFS, and the Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA)
should:
• begin planning now for disposal of contaminated mainte-
nance material, and explore range of applicable alternative
technologies; and
• ensure adequate independent monitoring of all dredge and
disposal work during construction.
IV-17
-------
IV-18
-------
MASSACHUSETTS BAY DISPOSAL SITE (MBDS)*
Background
Current state and federal policies recognize both the need to
maintain navigation channels and the need to protect coastal
water quality through proper control of dredge and fill
operations. It has been estimated that over the next century,
more than 23 million cubic yards of sediment will be gener-
ated from various dredging projects along the coast of
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. The U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that available
upland disposal sites are not sufficient to meet these disposal
needs. Since finding suitable disposal areas is essential to the
long-term viability of the nation's ports, EPA and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) reaffirmed the need to
designate an ocean disposal site.
Unlike the other "megaprojects" examined in this chapter of
the CCMP, the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS)
"project" did not involve any construction. The objective of
this purely regulatory project was to identify an ocean
disposal site which would minimize potential impacts to the
environment The decision to formally designate the MBDS
was important because the site may now be considered as a
disposal site for uncontaminated dredged material from other
megaprojects examined in this chapter.
Project Description
The Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) is an open
water disposal area, roughly 21 nautical miles from Boston
and 15 nautical miles from Gloucester. The site is located in
waters ranging from 275-300 feet deep, and has a diameter
of two nautical miles. Since the 1940s, the area has been
used for the disposal of dredged sediments. Federal regula-
tions promulgated in 1977 restricted some ocean dumping
practices which were adversely impacting the marine
environment, but allowed sediment disposal to continue at
more than 100 interim disposal sites, including the MBDS.
Between 1982 and 1992, the ACOE disposed or permitted
the disposal of approximately 3 million cubic yards of
dredged material at the site.
In January 1988, EPA proposed to officially designate a
dredged material disposal site in Massachusetts Bay. After
investigating several potential sites within an economically
and operationally feasible distance from the shore, EPA
concluded that the MBDS area best met its established site
selection criteria. However, the EPA decided to relocate the
site slightly to the south and west of its former location. The
modified site boundary is a circle, two nautical miles in
diameter, centered at 70°35.0' west longitude and 42°25.1'
north latitude. This location was favored because it:
• preserves the relatively pristine condition of the eastern
portion of the former MBDS;
• increases the distance between the disposal site and the
National Marine Sanctuary at Stellwagen Bank;
• provides an opportunity to cover previously disposed
contaminated sediments; and
• avoids an area of the pre-existing Industrial Waste Site that
contains a high concentration of drums.
In August 1993, EPA issued a "Final Rule" which formally
designated the MBDS as a disposal site for uncontaminated
dredged sediments. Disposal was specifically limited to
material which meets the requirements of the Marine Protec-
tion, Research, and Sanctuaries Act and its accompanying
regulations. These requirements consider impacts to the
marine environment, aquatic life, and human health. The
Final Rule also prohibited disposal-and-capping of materials
too contaminated for unconfined ocean disposal at the MBDS
until its efficacy can be effectively demonstrated and it is
authorized by law.
EPA's designation of the MBDS was not an authorization for
the disposal of any particular dredged material at the site.
Final site designation simply allows the MBDS to be
considered as a disposal option when land-based alternatives
are not practicable. Since only the actual disposal of dredged
material, as authorized by EPA and the ACOE, directly
affects Massachusetts Bay, the designation, by itself, will
have no impact on the water quality or marine ecology of the
Bays.
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office (CZM)
will formally review any activity at the MBDS or modifica-
tion of site restrictions which may be proposed in the future
for consistency with its own policies. Projects also will be
reviewed by NOAA, under the Sanctuary Consultation
provision of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (to insure
that the activity will not adversely affect the resources or
* Note: for a broader discussion of the dredging issue, refer to the Dredging and Dredged Materials Disposal Action Plan in
Chapter V.
IV-19
-------
qualities of the Sanctuary) as well as under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (for protected species issues).
Expected Benefits
Designation of the MBDS provides a disposal alternative for
uncontaminated dredged material.
Issues of Concern
• Disposal alternatives for contaminated sediments:
because harbors and ports act as catch basins for indus-
trial pollutants, much of the material dredged in port
improvement projects will be contaminated. These
contaminated sediments are not suitable for unconfined
ocean disposal, and may not be suitable for confinement
At the present time, there is no disposal site in the
Massachusetts Bays region which can accept large
volumes of contaminated sediment Upland disposal
sites are prohibitively expensive and have limited
capacity. Ocean dumping regulations restrict contami-
nated sediments from aquatic disposal sites.
The lack of suitable disposal alternatives has been and
may continue to be a significant obstacle to all port
dredging projects in the Massachusetts Bays region.
If and when the feasibility of capping in deep water has
been demonstrated, the MBDS may become a possible
disposal site for sediments which are otherwise unsuit-
able for ocean disposal. However, until the legality and
efficacy of this disposal technique has been effectively
demonstrated, EPA will not allow contaminated sedi-
ments to be disposed at the site. By objecting to ocean
disposal of contaminated sediments generated in a
number of recent projects, EPA has reaffirmed its
commitment to keep contaminated sediments out of the
MBDS.
• Impact on water quality: the best scientific data avail-
able to date indicate that the MBDS is depositional and
that past use of the MBDS has not impaired water quality
in or around the site. Future disposal of clean material is
not expected to degrade water quality significantly,
although it will result in unavoidable, localized impacts
during and immediately following disposal activities.
Impact on marine biota: possible localized effects
associated with use of the MBDS include local mounding
of dredged material and the smothering of benthic
organisms. However, the ability of these organisms to
recolonize in similar sediments probably renders this
impact short-term and insignificant Noticeable effects
associated with disposal operations are expected to
diminish rapidly as distance from the site increases. EPA
does not expect use of the site to have any negative
impact on commercial or recreational fishing in the
vicinity, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) have both concluded that disposal of clean
material will not endanger any protected species that may
occur in the area, including those which feed in or
migrate through the Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary (SBNMS).
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary: the
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is located
approximately 200 meters from the northeastern perime-
ter of the MBDS. The regulations of the National
Marine Sanctuary prohibit the disposal of dredged
material both within the Sanctuary and outside the
Sanctuary if the outside-disposed material is likely to
enter the Sanctuary and harm a Sanctuary resource or
quality. Given the proximity of the Sanctuary to the
disposal she, it is therefore critical that barges disposing
of dredged material at the MBDS dump the material as
close as possible to the permitted disposal location.
Recent research conducted by the U.S. Geological
Survey and SBNMS has indicated that past disposal
activities have been less than precise, and these agencies
are working with the U.S. Coast Guard to insure that
subsequent disposal operations are monitored more
carefully by enforcement personnel
Industrial Waste Site: for many years, chemicals, low-
level radioactive waste, munitions, vessels, and construc-
tion debris were disposed at an Industrial Waste Site
(IWS) partially overlapping the MBDS.
It is possible that contaminants from the IWS may be
degrading water or sediment quality in the MBDS area.
Because there are many possible sources of contamina-
tion at the MBDS, including the IWS, cause and effect
relationships can be difficult to determine. However, in
order to develop a sound site management plan, federal
agencies will need to distinguish contamination from the
IWS and other sources from contamination that may be
caused by disposal activities at the MBDS.
IV-20
-------
During 1991 and 1992, information searches and field
surveys were conducted by various federal and state
agencies to determine the potential threat posed by past
dumping of hazardous materials at the IWS. The EPA is
currently synthesizing this information and will prepare
an interagency report to provide a comprehensive
assessment of the Industrial Waste Site's impact on the
marine environment and recommend further action.
Site management and monitoring: all disposal activities
at the MBDS must conform with the Ocean Dumping
Criteria set forth in 40 CFR Part 227. The ACOE issues
permits for individual disposal actions at the MBDS.
Site monitoring is the joint responsibility of both EPA
and ACOE. These agencies have conducted consider-
able monitoring at the MBDS over the last two decades,
including surveys to determine the composition, distribu-
tion, and movement of disposed sediments, food chain
interactions in and around the site, and bioaccumulation
of contaminants in benthic organisms.
Concern has been expressed about the adequacy of
monitoring at the MBDS. The specific components of a
long-term monitoring program for the MBDS have not
yet be en determined. The EPA is currently developing
long-term management plans for all of its open water
disposal sites, including the MBDS. The MBDS plan,
which will include a monitoring component, will be in
place by January 1997.
Recommended Actions
The Massachusetts Bays Program has attempted to identify'
areas of environmental concern and build consensus on
those actions which should be taken to ensure that the
project proceeds in a manner which maximizes benefits for
the people of the region and which poses the least risk to the
marine ecosystem. The following recommendations have
been developed by the staff of the Massachusetts Bays
Program, with input from officials from the implementing
agencies and interested members of the public.
EPA, ACOE, and CZM, in consultation with other appropri-
ate federal and state agencies, should:
• lead an interagency study group to define parameters for
a demonstration study which could determine whether
containment of contaminated sediments (e.g., capping) is
a viable disposal option for the MBDS.
EPA and NOAA should:
• complete the interagency comprehensive assessment
report on the IWS, giving particular attention to the site's
potential impact on water quality and marine habitat in
the MBDS area.
IV-21
-------
IV-22
-------
SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT PROJECT
Background
Salem Sound, in the northern section of Massachusetts Bay,
is scheduled to benefit from a project that is in many ways
similar to the MWRA's Boston Harbor Project Like Boston
Harbor, Salem Sound has long been used as a receptacle for
the residential and industrial wastewater generated in nearby
communities. This wastewater is discharged by the South
Essex Sewerage District (SESD), a wastewater management
authority which serves the nearby communities of Salem, Be-
verly, Marblehead, Danvers, and Peabody. After passage of
the Clean Water Act in 1972, SESD constructed a primary
plant to treat the wastewater generated by these communities,
while at the same time it applied for a waiver from the
requirement that it build secondary treatment facilities. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initially issued
a tentative approval of the waiver, but in its final decision,
denied the waiver request The District appealed EPA's
decision throughout the 1980's, until EPA sued to bring the
District into compliance.
Project Description
Under the terms of a 1991 court settlement, SESD agreed to
build a new secondary treatment plant to meet the water
quality criteria of the Clean Water Act The new plant will
be constructed alongside the District's existing primary
treatment facilities at Cat Cove, which currently treats about
29 million gallons of wastewater a day. The project will also
include some upgrades at the existing primary treatment
facilities and a new difiuser system to discharge treated
effluent
Expected Benefits
Water quality improvements should enhance recreational and
commercial uses of Salem Sound, as well as improve the
health of the marine ecosystem. Existing primary treatment
faculties remove approximately 60 percent of the total
suspended solids (TSS) and 25-35 percent of the biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD). New secondary treatment facih'ties
are expected to remove approximately 90 percent of the TSS
and 90 percent of the BOD.
Progress to Date
In January 1994, SESD formally proposed a plan recom-
mending how the cost of the project should be divided among
its five constituent communities. Soon after, the District
advertised various components of the cleanup project for
bidding. Project bids were submitted to the SESD in April
1994. Construction began in July 1994, and is currently
slated for completion in 1997.
Issues of Concern
• Rate increases: the entire capital plan associated with
this project is expected to approach $260 million. The
outside assistance which SESD has received to date
includes a $29 million loan from the federally-assisted
state revolving loan program and $135,000 through a
new state grant program initiated expressly to help
communities ease high water and sewer rates. However,
water and sewer users in the five SESD communities
will still bear most of the project's cost. Most ratepayers
can reasonably expect their bills to triple over 1990
levels by the time the project is completed. The Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts, Essex County, and the
Town of Middleton-all three of which purchase some
services from the SESD-also will pay a small percent-
age of the overall project cost
• Monitoring: the SESD will need to implement a com-
prehensive marine monitoring program to determine the
effects of secondary effluent in Salem Sound. This
program will be most effective if it is integrated with
existing monitoring programs, including those efforts
currently supported by the Massachusetts Bays Program.
Recommended Actions
The Massachusetts Bays Program has attempted to identify
areas of environmental concern and build consensus on
those actions which should be taken to ensure that the
project proceeds in a manner which maximizes benefits for
the people of the region and which poses the least risk to the
marine ecosystem. The following recommendations have
been developed by the staff of the Massachusetts Bays
Program, with input from officials from the implementing
agencies and interested members of the public.
All stakeholders in this project, including the South Essex
Sewerage District (SESD), the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and contributing municipalities
should:
• promote source reduction as a means of reducing con-
taminant loadings into Salem Sound;
• promote water conservation; and
• continue to seek state and federal funds to ease rate
increases.
IV-23
-------
IV-24
-------
SAUGUS RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
Background
Coastal estuaries are among the most productive environ-
ments on earth, but they are also among the most susceptible
to damage from human development The 1,660-acreSaugus
and Pines River Estuary is no exception. This estuary-one
of the largest on the northern coast of Massachusetts-
contains a rich diversity of habitat, including high and low
marsh, pannes, ponds, tidal creeks, and mud flats. Its more
than 1,000 acres of vegetated wetland provide habitat for
hundreds of species offish and wildlife. The floodplain in and
around this estuary, however, is highly developed. More than
40,000 people live or work there. Residential, industrial and
commercial real estate in the floodplain is worth approxi-
mately $3 billion; with building contents and infrastructure
included, total property value in the floodplain probably
ranges between $5 to 10 billion.
Like most low-lying estuaries, the Saugus and Pines River
Estuary is occasionally inundated by tidal surges during
severe storms. In an undeveloped estuary, these tidal
flushings are of little concern. In the Saugus and Pines River
Estuary, however, coastal flooding can cause extensive
property damage. Over the past twenty years, surges associ-
ated with six different storms have caused substantial damage
to property in the estuary's floodplain. The worst of these
storms, the Blizzard of 1978, damaged more than 3,000
homes and businesses and forced the evacuation of some
4,000 people. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
estimates that today a storm of the same magnitude would
cause approximately $130 million of property damage. The
worst storm imaginable (the "Standard Project Northeaster"
or SPN) would flood as many as 5,000 buildings and cause
an estimated $500 million in property damage.
Project Description
To protect property in and around the Saugus and Pines
River Estuary, the ACOE worked with local governments
and the public to develop a project which would reduce
coastal storm damage. The proposed Saugus River Flood-
gate Project would include more than three miles of dikes,
walls and sand dunes along the coast Its principal feature is
a series of floodgates across the mouth of the Saugus River-
one 100-foot-wide navigation gate and eight 50-foot-wide
flushing gates. These floodgates would remain open at most
times, but during severe storms they would be closed to
prevent tidal surges from spilling into the floodplain. The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts would acquire the approxi-
mately 1,660 acres of estuarine land, to be used for flood
storage and runoff Future development would be prohibited
in this area.
Studies of the $115 million project were sponsored by the
Metropolitan District Commission and the municipalities of
Lynn, Maiden, Revere, and Saugus. In 1992, the federal
government authorized funds to cover 64 percent of the
project's cost, leaving the local sponsor to contribute the
balance-about $41 million. Operation and maintenance of
the project's structural components and implementation of an
estuary msmagemeftt plan would require an additional annual
allocation of $270,000 from the state.
Expected Benefits
The Saugus River Floodgate Project would protect residen-
tial, industrial, and commercial property in the 4,000-acre
floodplain which overlaps four separate municipalities.
Although the project would primarily reduce private property
damage within that area, it would also protect important
regional utility systems and transportation routes which serve
Boston's North Shore, including the Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority's Blue Line and Routes 1 and 1 A.
The project would also reduce the costs of emergency
evacuation and related services.
Progress to Date
Although the ACOE completed a combined EIS/EIR in
1989, the Saugus River Floodgate Project has not passed
beyond the design phase. When asked in 1993 to commit to
the project, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environ-
mental Affairs (EOEA) postponed its decision until further
study of other non-structural flood protection measures -
supplementing the ACOE's earlier studies - could be accom-
plished These would include:
• maintenance and repair of existing dikes, seawalls, and
tidal gates;
• retrofitting or elevating the most floodprone structures;
• dike construction;
• wetland acquisition;
• dune restoration;
• a floodplain management plan;
• infrastructure retrofit; and
• an early flood warning system.
IV-25
-------
Studies to determine the cost-effectiveness of this approach
have been completed and reviewed by the ACOE. EOEAis
not expected to make a decision on the Saugus River Flood
Control Project until it has completed its analysis of the
ACOE's technical findings regarding the state's plan and the
impacts of current federal budgetary policies.
Issues of Concern
• Cost effectiveness: EOEA expected a nonstructural flood
protection program to be considerably more cost-effec-
tive than the ACOE's proposed action. Although the
ACOE's studies indicated that only 7 percent of buildings
in the floodplain were candidates for protection under an
economically feasible nonstructural program, its analysis
looked solely at elevating structures in the 100-year flood
plain. The ACOE found EOEA's estimates overly
optimistic in light of construction experience.
• Public safety: EOEA has acknowledged that a nonstruc-
tural approach would not provide the same level of
protection as the floodgate project Since existing storm
forecast systems cannot provide much advance warning
of flood events in the Saugus and Pines River Estuary, a
non-structural flood control strategy would include
public infrastructure retrofit, and improved warning and
evacuation systems in order to ensure public safety
during severe storms.
• Environmental impact, the Saugus and Pines River
Estuary is by no means pristine. The entire estuary has
been steadily degraded by urban pressures, including
local storm runoff, oil and gas spills, chemicals, debris,
and sewage overflow from flooded systems. An artificial
embankment limits tidal flushing in approximately 400
acres of salt marsh. Another 40 acres of drained
wetlands have been overtaken by Phragmites, a type of
reed which has displaced the native flora Despite these
problems, however, the estuary contains significant
natural resources. Recognizing the need to protect and
maintain these resources, the state designated part of the
estuary an "Area of Critical Environmental Concern."
According to the ACOE's assessment, the project would
have very little effect on tidal flushing under "gate-open"
and present sea level conditions. As a result of engineer-
ing modifications intended to maintain near ambient
flushing conditions, environmental impacts under the
gate-open condition would be minimal. Significant
effects are expected to be limited to the direct displace-
ment of about 3 acres of intertidal habitat within the
footprint of the structure that would be replaced at the I-
95 embankment
The ACOE has estimated that the floodgates would
typically be closed an average of 2-3 times per year for
1 -2 hours per closure under existing sea level conditions
once the entire tidal wetland has been submerged. Under
extreme storm conditions (the 10-year storm or greater),
the gates would be closed before the entire marsh was
flooded in order to provide storage for interior runoff.
Because these closures would be so infrequent, they
would have a negligible effect on the marsh and estuary.
Indeed, the presence of the floodgates would allow for
breaching of the abandoned 1-95 embankment to restore
tidal flushing to the expansive area of salt marsh behind
the embankment
With a one-foot rise in sea level (projected to occur
within 100 years at the historic rate of sea level rise), the
frequency of floodgate closures is projected to increase
to 35-45 per year, with a typical closure duration of 2-3
hours. Such closures would occur during extreme
astronomic tides as well as storm conditions. The
combined EIR/EIS concluded that changes to the marsh
would occur with sea level rise - as measured against
the "without-project" condition — but was inconclusive
with respect to marsh accretion. The ACOE will con-
tinue to evaluate the potential ecological effects associ-
ated with a rise in sea level and more frequent gate
closures if the project as authorized continues to be
considered for implementation.
• Floodplain development: By lowering construction and
insurance costs, the proposed floodgate project might
accelerate development in the floodplain. Increased
development is undesirable not only because it would put
additional pressure on the estuarine ecosystem, but
because all property in the floodplain would be highly
vulnerable to failure of the system, should such system
failure occur.
• Precedent: Massachusetts advocates through policy and
regulations a nonstructural approach to flood protection.
The Saugus River Floodgate Project appears to be
inconsistent with the Commonwealth's approach to
coastal flooding.
The project would also require variances to several state
environmental regulations, such as that which prohibits
placing fill in Outstanding Resource Waters. State agencies
reviewing these variance requests are expected to be wary of
establishing any precedents that weaken the state's environ-
mental regulations. The project has not yet received any of
the environmental permits required by the state and cannot
proceed to construction until these permits have been
granted.
IV-26
-------
Recommended Actions
The Massachusetts Bays Program supports efforts to
develop a flood control plan which takes advantage of
recent advances in nonstructural flood mitigation practices
and which incorporates the flood protection guidelines of
the Department of Environmental Management (DEM).
The Massachusetts Bays Program has attempted to identify
areas of environmental concern and to build consensus on
those actions which should be taken to ensure that the
project proceeds in a manner that both maximizes benefits
for the people of the region and poses the least risk to the
marine ecosystem. If a nonstructural flood protection
program is unable to provide adequate defense against
storm damage, the Massachusetts Bays Program will
support continued work to dovetail the structural expertise
of the ACOE with the Commonwealth's policy on flood
damage mitigation. While the project is reviewed in greater
detail, the following recommendations should be imple-
mented as appropriate.
Cpastal communities should:
• strictly enforce municipal ordinances, including zoning
ordinances and the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection
Act, which regulate development in flood-prone areas.
Coastal communities and DEM should:
• strengthen existing flood protection regulations as
appropriate.
EOEA should:
• support efforts to preserve flood storage in the Saugus
and Pines River Estuary and investigate a possible
alliance with current efforts to restore wetlands;
• discourage development in flood hazard areas and pursue
a nonstructural program of flood damage mitigation
whenever feasible; and
• provide technical resources and enforcement assistance
to communities seeking to tighten enforcement of munic-
ipal flood protection ordinances.
IV-27
-------
IV-28
-------
PLYMOUTH SEWAGE TREATMENT PROJECT
Background
Centralized treatment facilities are the traditional means of
managing wastewater. Unfortunately, as centralized sewer
systems age and populations grow, wastewater flows can
overwhelm a treatment plant's designed capacity. The
disposal of effluent and residuals can then cause a wide array
of environmental problems, and can be the source of permit-
ting problems and civil penalties for municipal authorities.
To avoid these problems, communities may undertake long-
term wastewater facilities planning. In the Massachusetts
Bays region, the scientific and regulatory complexities
associated with long-term wastewater facilities planning are
particularly apparent in the Town of Plymouth. In addition,
several other Massachusetts Bays communities (e.g., Glou-
cester, Bamstable) are undertaking planning efforts similar
in scope to Plymouth's. Accordingly, Plymouth is presented
here as an example of the complexities of these approaches.
Portions of Plymouth are currently served by a secondary
treatment plant which was designed to handle an average
flow of 1.75 million gallons per day (mgd). The plant uses
an activated sludge process to remove most contaminants
from the wastewater, and the treated effluent is discharged
into Plymouth Harbor. When the plant became operational
in 1970, Plymouth had a population of only 18,600 residents,
and average flow was well below the plant's design capacity.
However, like many coastal communities, Plymouth experi-
enced explosive growth in the next twenty years. As the
town's population expanded, so did the volume of wastewater
reaching the treatment plant Increased flows quickly
reduced the plant's efficiency, and by 1977, the Massachu-
setts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) began
to identify violations of the plant's discharge permit
Today, more than 47,000 people live in Plymouth. Although
the treatment plant still services only a small portion of the
town-an area of approximately 2,000 acres in a town with a
total of almost 63,000 acres—the strain on the existing
facilities has mounted steadily. Daily flows to the plant have
at times exceeded 2.3 million gallons. Because the plant was
not designed to handle such large flows, its effluent has
occasionally exceeded standards set forth in the discharge
permit
In 1987, after ten years of violations, the DEP sued Plymouth
to finally force compliance with the permit In an effort to
reduce flows and enhance plant performance, the town
completed a major interceptor project in November 1991.
Although the interceptor successfully reduced infiltration and
inflow, organic loadings to the plant remained relatively
constant and the effluent occasionally violated discharge
standards. Three months later, to avoid lengthy court
proceedings and possible civil penalties, Plymouth entered a
Consent Decree which established a timetable for initiating
and completing additional treatment capacity.
Project Description
Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the Town of Prym-
outh has been required to conduct a multi-phased Wastewater
Treatment Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Report
(FP/EIR) to evaluate feasible management strategies. This
report must assess the Town's need for additional treatment
capacity and determine the type of faculties that will best
meet that need.
Preliminary facilities planning conducted in 1984 had
recommended that the Town extend its sewers to portions of
West Plymouth and Manomet West Plymouth includes an
industrial park where the Town expects future economic
growth. However, the industrial park overlies an aquifer that
supplies about 35 percent of the town's public water supply.
Because municipal by-laws limit the amount of wastewater
that can be discharged in the aquifer's zone of recharge,
economic growth could not occur in this area without
sewering. Manomet is a densely populated residential area
on the coast It is characterized by high groundwater and
small property lots with outdated, onsite disposal systems
(such as cesspools). Although these onsite systems are
thought to contribute to water quality problems in public
swimming areas, very small lot sizes in a dense portion of
Manomet make system upgrades to comply with the basic
requirements of Title 5 impossible. West Plymouth's
industrial park and the dense central area of Manomet are
therefore regarded as priority areas needing better wastewater
treatment and disposal solutions.
The new treatment facilities are being designed to handle
Plymouth's wastewater through the year 2018. Flows at that
time are expected to total 3.0 mgd, although a water conser-
vation program could reduce that amount
The process of planning facilities to treat this wastewater
poses a number of complex technical issues, which must be
resolved in an evolving regulatory context Before any
construction can begin, the Town must:
• project its future wastewater flows and decide how far to
extend its sewer system;
• decide what type of treatment facilities will most effi-
ciently meet its wastewater needs;
• evaluate potential sites for these facilities;
IV-29
-------
• decide how to best manage the residuals produced as a
by-product of the treatment process; and
• determine how to dispose of the treated effluent
Overall capital costs for facilities construction will likely
range between $33 million and $40 million. Operating and
maintenance costs will require another $1.3 to $1.7 million
per year.
Expected Benefits
The benefits of this project cannot be described in detail until
a final facilities plan is adopted. However, the planning
process now underway is likely to develop a wastewater
management plan that serves the long-term interests of the
community.
Progress to Date
hi April 1992, the Town of Plymouth contracted with the
firm of Camp Dresser & McKee to conduct the multi-phased
assessment report required by the Consent Decree. Phase I
of the report, completed in September 1992:
• verified and updated previous wastewater facilities
planning;
• screened several feasible treatment and residuals man-
agement options;
• defined several facilities alternatives; and
• screened several potential land discharge sites.
Because ocean disposal of the treated effluent would require
a variance to the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act,
Plymouth's consultant recommended that Phase II of the
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plan evaluate technologies
for wastewater treatment with discharge to land.
The Phase 11 report was completed in October 1993. The
best land application alternatives were determined to present
unacceptable environmental impacts on surface water and
groundwater, including groundwater reserves the Town may
need to supplement its municipal water supply. Because the
consultant was not able to identify a long-term wastewater
management program, Plymouth was granted an extension to
the Consent Decree's original schedule to complete a Phase
in report.
Draft Phase III of Plymouth's Wastewater Treatment Facili-
ties Plan was completed in May 1995. This phase of the
multi-phased assessment report:
• analyzes wastewater treatment facility needs based on a
revised flow of 3.0 mgd (down from the previous 4.2
mgd).
• evaluates all potential feasible land treatment and effluent
disposal sites;
• assesses the viability of continued use of the existing
wastewater treatment facility on Water Street with its
associated 1.75 mgd of harbor outfall capacity;
• evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the
various alternatives; and
• recommends a cost-effective and implementable long-
term plan to address Plymouth's wastewater needs.
Phase IIIA describes the various components of the recom-
mended plan, discusses financing issues associated with the
plan, presents an implementation schedule, and provides a
scope of services for Phase IIIB that will allow die recom-
mended plan to be finalized.
The goals of the recommended plan are to:
• construct a new 3.0 mgd wastewater treatment facility in
order to maximize efficiency of operation;
• relocate the existing treatment facility from the water-
front to a better buffered inland site that has space for
future expansion if needed;
• maintain use of the existing harbor outfall to provide
multiple methods of effluent disposal; and
• implement a phased approach to use of land-applied
effluent so that potential surface water impacts near the
land application site can be closely monitored
Work to be Completed
The Phase IIIB scope of work, now underway, will define
additional tasks that will be required to finalize the recom-
mended plan. Some currently anticipated tasks include:
further field studies of the existing ocean outfall in the harbor,
additional environmental impact analyses for the recom-
mended plan sites, and more comprehensive soils and
groundwater evaluations. However, the Town also has begun
to re-evaluate the amount of industrial and commercial
activity to be supported by the wastewater treatment facility,
as well as discharge locations relative to Zone n wellhead
protection areas and the Eel River.
IV-30
-------
The Consent Decree originally required facilities to go on-
line in 1998. In order to give the consultant sufficient time to
complete the Phase HI report, that schedule has since been
revised. Facilities are not expected to be operational before
2000.
Issues of Concern
• Extent of sewering: at the present time, it is still not
clear how far the Town of Plymouth will extend its sewer
system, nor how much additional treatment capacity will
be needed. The Town's consultant has recommended
that, at minimum, the West Plymouth Industrial Park area
be sewered to solve existing or potential water quality
and/or health problems. However, the consultant has
also recommended that the Town encourage the use of
onsite disposal systems whenever possible.
In particular, the recommended plan for Manomet is to
rely on on-lot septic system upgrades for most of the
Manomet area, and, in the very dense portion, to work
with property owners to implement on-site disposal
options on adjacent vacant lots that cannot be developed,
and to develop shared system solutions where feasible.
• Effluent disposal: if no other effluent disposal alterna-
tives are deemed acceptable, Plymouth will likely try to
. secure a variance to the Ocean Sanctuaries Act which
would allow it to extend an outfall beyond the Plymouth-
Kingston-Duxburyembayment Before this variance can
be granted, the Town must (1) prove that ocean dis-
charge is the "only feasible alternative" as defined by the
law, and (2) demonstrate that the quality of the receiving
waters would not violate existing standards established
by the Massachusetts DEP.
• Alternatives to sewering: the traditional strategy for
managing municipal wastewater is to construct or
expand a centralized treatment plant While there is no
doubt that sewering is better than no action, this response
. is always expensive, and in the long run, may not ade-
quately address all sources of wastewater contamination.
A comprehensive wastewater management plan should
carefully examine alternatives to sewering, such as new
decentralized and/or on-site treatment and management
technologies and source reduction programs.
• Septage management: more than 70 percent of Plym-
outh's residents currently rely on subsurface systems to
dispose of their wastewater. Although the Town has
already adopted several local supplements to Title 5, at
least half of these on-site systems were installed prior to
the promulgation of Title 5, and therefore do not
meet the state's minimum performance or siting stan-
dards. On-site sewage systems are currently contributing
to water quality problems in Plymouth's groundwater,
surface water bodies, and nearshore marine waters.
Even if the proposed sewer expansions are implemented,
more than 60 percent of the Town's residents will
continue to rely on onsite systems in the year 2018.
Therefore, a long-term septage management program is
an essential component to Plymouth's wastewater
planning.
Recommended Actions
The following recommendations are intended to ensure that
the Plymouth Sewerage Project proceeds in a manner -which
maximizes benefits for the people of the region and-which
poses the least risk to the marine ecosystem. They have
been developed by the staff of the Massachusetts Bays
Program, with input from officials from the implementing
agencies and the Town of Plymouth, and interested mem-
bers of the public.
The Town of Plymouth should:
• clearly identify, on a site-specific basis, the specific
public health and/or environmental threats caused by on-
site wastewater disposal, and direct its consultants to
evaluate potential alternatives to central sewering for
each of these areas, including community systems,
alternative on-site technologies, system upgrades to Title
5, and inspection and maintenance programs; and
• explore alternatives to sewering the Industrial Park.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) should:
• encourage Plymouth and other communities, as well as
consulting engineering firms, to explore and use alterna-
tive and decentralized wastewater treatment and manage-
ment technologies whenever feasible; and
• aggressively enforce water conservation standards
established by the Water Resources Commission (Octo-
ber 1992) to help reduce wastewater flows and the need
for additional wastewater treatment and management
facilities.
IV-31
-------
IV-32
-------
A
ction Plans
-------
Introduction
The action plans in this chapter form the centerpiece of the
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the
Massachusetts Bays. Successful implementation of these
plans is expected to lead to the restoration and protection of
the Bays' water quality, living resources, and fish, shellfish,
and wildlife habitat
White some of the plans' prescribed actions are mitigative in
nature, overall the emphasis is on prevention, in recogni-
tion of the simple truth that it will cost far more to clean up
pollution later than to prevent it now. The plan is also based
on a premise of shared responsibility among all of us in the
Massachusetts Bays region who use and enjoy the Bays'
bountiful resources. It recognizes that fish, wildlife, water,
and pollutants cross jurisdictional lines, and establishes a
framework based on a partnership among government
agencies (federal, state, regional, and local), nonprofit
organizations, the private sector, and citizens.
In all, there are 15 major action plans, as follows:
CCMP ACTION PLANS
1. Protecting Public Health
2. Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resource*
3. Protecting and Enhancing Coastal Habitat
4. Reducing and Preventing Stonnwater Pollution
5. Reducing and Preventing Toxic Pollution
& Reducing and Preventing QU Pollution
7. Managing Municipal Wastewater
8. Managing Boat Wastes and Marina Pollution
9. Managing Dredging and Dredged Materials Dis-
posal
10, Reducing Beach Debris and Marine Floatable*
11. Protecting Nitrogen-Sensitive Embayments
12. Enhancing Public Access and the Working
Waterfront
13. Planning for a Shifting Shoreline
14. Managing Local Land Use and Growth
15. Enhancing Public Education and Participation
Each major action plan contains a series of individual
recommended actions, each of which is divided into eight
sections: Rationale, Responsible Agent(s), Implementation
Strategy, Legislation Required, Estimated Cost, Potential
Funding Sources), Target Date, and Further Information.
These sections document the need for each action and
describe the organizations, strategies, and timetables recom-
mended for implementing them. Estimated costs and poten-
tial funding sources are identified as well. For more exten-
sive information on funding opportunities, the reader is
referred to the MBP report entitled, Financing the Massa-
chusetts Bays CCMP: Federal, State, and Local Funding
Sources and Mechanisms (December 1994). hi addition,
Chapter Vn of mis CCMP provides a summary of this report.
To demonstrate implementation of CCMP actions, the
Massachusetts Bays Program has funded over 30 projects,
including the five-year Mini-Bays Projects in Plum Island
Sound, the Fore River Embayment, and Wellfleet Harbor. A
list of these projects, costs, and contacts is included in
Appendix I. A CCMP companion document that provides
more information on the demonstration projects, as well as a
series of individual fact sheets, are in preparation. These will
be available in early summer, 19%.
A matrix of the 15 major action plans, individual recom-
mended actions, and implementing agents follows.
V-l
-------
V-2
-------
Matrix
-------
Responsible Agency
ACTION PLAN #1
Protecting Public Health
ACTION PLAN #2
Protecting and Enhancing
Shellfish Resources
Department of Public Health
(DPH)
1.1 Establish a central clearinghouse pro-
gram for all beach testing and closure infor-
mation generated for Massachusetts' coastal
public beaches.
Division of Marine Fisheries
(DMF)
2.1 Conduct three (3) Sanitary Survey
Training Sessions annually — one each on
the North Shore, Metro Boston/South Shore,
and Cape Cod — to educate local shellfish
constables and health officers on the proper
techniques for identifying and evaluating
pathogen inputs into shellfish harvesting
areas.
2.2 Develop and administer a local Shell-
fish Management Grants Program to help
communities finance the development and
implementation of effective local shellfish
management plans.
Shellfish Bed Restoration
Program (SBRP)
2_3 Continue and expand the innovative
Shellfish Bed Restoration Program to re-
store and protect shellfish beds impacted by
nonpoint source pollution.
V-3
-------
fl
Responsible Agency
ACTION PLAN #3
Protecting and Enhancing Coastal Habitat
Municipalities
3.1 Prepare and implement an EOEA - approved Open Space Plan to preserve and protect
key wetlands, floodplains, fish and wildlife habitat, and other ecologically- and recreationally-
important natural resource areas.
3.2 Adopt and implement a local Riverfront District Bylaw to maintain river water quality,
preserve fish and wildlife habitat, and protect downstream nursery and shellfish resources.
33 Work cooperatively with neighboring communities, EOEA agencies, and other interested
parties to develop proactive, long-term ACEC Management Plans to preserve and protect these
vital resource areas.
3.4 Adopt and implement a local Wetlands Protection Bylaw to supplement the state
Wetlands Protection Act Regulations.
3.5 Prepare and implement ecosystem-based Barrier Beach Management Plans to promote
responsible use and protection of these critical coastal resources.
3.6 Employ full-time, professionally-trained conservation staff to provide ongoing technical
and administrative support to local Conservation Commissions.
Department of Environmental
Management (DEM)
3.7 Develop and implement Resource Management Plans for all DEM-owned coastal
properties.
3.8 Develop and promote the use of river basin planning reports to facilitate responsible
water resources planning and management at the local and regional levels.
3.9 Acquire and restore undeveloped coastal properties that offer outstanding living re-
sources habitat and public recreation opportunities.
Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP)
3.10 Complete the statewide inventorying and mapping of coastal and inland wetlands, and
provide local Conservation Commissions with: 1) accurate base maps depicting wetland
boundaries, and 2) instruction on proper wetland map interpretation and use.
Department of Fisheries,
Wildlife and Environmental
Law Enforcement (DFWELE)
3.11 hi collaboration with the Riverways Program, prepare an up-to-date inventory of
anadromous fish runs in the Massachusetts Bays region and develop a strategy to prioritize,
restore, and maintain these runs.
3.12 hi collaboration with the Riverways Program, develop and implement a citizen-based
Fishway Stewardship Program to restore and maintain anadromous fish runs along the
Massachusetts Bays coast
Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (EOEA)
3.13 Continue the innovative Wetlands Restoration and Banking Program to restore and
protect degraded coastal and inland wetlands.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE)
3.14 Continue and expand current efforts to support eelgrass habitat protection and restoration
in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.
V-4
-------
^ » 5i*v v v^sv^~v « x^.-. %y^ %ii\s.•••!•; \ 5v. ^' ,^ •; y
fe&yitbF^
Responsible Agency
ACTION PLAN #4
Reducing and Preventing Stormwater Pollution
Municipalities
4.1 Adopt subdivision regulations that require the incorporation of stormwater runoff best
management practices (BMPs) into all new development plans.
4.2 Implement best management practices to mitigate existing stormwater discharges that are
causing or contributing to the closure of shellfish harvesting areas and swimming beaches.
Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP)
4 J In collaboration with Regional Planning Agencies, Natural Resources Conservation
Service/MassCAP (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service), and Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Office, 1) disseminate the Nonpoint Source Management Manual and Urban Best
Management Practices for Massachusetts, and 2) sponsor public workshops to educate local
officials about best management practices and performance standards for controlling stormwater
runoff.
4.4 Develop a coordinated and streamlined regulatory system within DEP to assure effective
implementation of the stormwater components of the Massachusetts Clean Water Act, Wetlands
Protection Act, and Federal Stormwater Program (Federal Clean Water Act, Sections 401 and
402).
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
4.5 Reduce stormwater pollution in the Massachusetts Bays watersheds through: (a) technical
assistance to communities in developing comprehensive stormwater management programs; and
(b) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance for industrial
stormwater dischargers. Targeted areas are the lower Charles River for the stormwater manage-
ment programs and the Neponset River for the industrial stormwater dischargers.
Massachusetts Highway
Department (MHD)
4.6 Prepare an Environmental Manual to complement the Highway Design Manual and
provide for the integration of environmental concerns (including stormwater management) into all
phases of highway project planning, design, construction, and maintenance.
4.7 As part of its forthcoming pollution prevention plan, develop a Stormwater Pollution
Mitigation Program to identify, prioritize, and correct existing stormwater pollution problems
associated with state highway drainage facilities.
4.8 Sponsor annual workshops to train local public works personnel on the proper use of
stormwater runoff best management practices.
Massachusetts Highway
Department (MHD) and
Metropolitan District
Commission (MDQ
4.9 Require the use of on-site stormwater best management practices as a precondition to the
permitting of private property tie-ins to state drainage facilities.
V-5
-------
Responsible Agency
ACTION PLAN #5
Reducing and preventing
Toxic Pollution
ACTION PLAN #6
Reducing and Preventing
Oil Pollution
Municipalities
5.1 Adopt and implement the following set of
regulations to ensure the safe use, storage, and
disposal of toxic and hazardous materials: 1)
Toxic and Hazardous Materials Regulation,
2) Underground Storage Tank Regulation,
and 3) Commercial/Industrial Floor Drain
Regulation.
5.2 Establish Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Programs for difficult-to-manage
hazardous products to ensure their proper dis-
posal ona regularbasis.
6.1 Establish and promote the use of Used
Motor Oil Collection Facilities to ensure the
proper collection and disposal of used motor
oil from do-it-yourself oil changes.
Department of Education
(DOE)
S3 In collaboration with the Department of
Environmental Protection, develop and offer
continuing education courses on hazardous
materials management to create a pool of
trained "HazMat Specialists" at the local level.
Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP)
6.2 In collaboration with the U.S. Coast
Guard, EPA, and NOAA, implement the Policy
on the Use of Oil Spill Chemical Countermea-
sures (Dispersants) to protect coastal
resources from the adverse effects of oil spills.
Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs,
Municipalities, & Private
Sector Partnership
5.4 Form partnerships to facilitate the .safe
management of hazardous products, emphasiz-
ing reduced products use and recycling wher-
ever possible.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
5.5 Reduce and prevent toxic pollution
through targeted National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting of
significant discharges in the Massachusetts
Bays; in particular, oil tank farms on Chelsea
Creek and the Island End River.
EOEA Office of Technical
Assistance for Toxics Use
Reduction (OTA)
5.6 Continue to perform on-site assessments
and provide instructional materials to help
businesses and industries in the Massachusetts
Bays region reduce the use of toxic substances.
US Coast Guard (USCG)
63 In collaboration with other federal, state,
and local agencies, continue to update and im-
plement the Massachusetts coastwide Area
Contingency Plans to assure a rapid and effec-
tive response to discharges of oil and other
hazardous substances into the marine environ-
ment
V-6
-------
Responsible Agency
ACTION PLAN #1 - Managing Municipal Wastewater
7A. Managing Centralized
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
7B. Managing On-Sfte
Sewage Disposal Systems
7C. Decentralized
Wastewater Management
and Treatment
Municipalities
7B.1 Identify resource areas sensitive to
wastewater and develop management plans
appropriate to these areas, focusing on the
capacities of natural systems to assimilate
wastewater.
7B.2 In cooperation with DEP, develop
and implement regular inspection and
maintenance (I/M) programs for on-site
wastewater systems.
7B.3 Employ full-time, professionally-
trained public health staff to provide
ongoing technical and administrative
support to the local Boards of Health.
Note:
Specific recommended
actions for this Action Plan
will be developed by the
Massachusetts Bays
Program and incorporated it
future supplements to the
CCMP.
Coastal Regional
Planning Agencies
7B.4 Establish a Title 5 and alternative
systems technical assistance program
directed to local Boards of Health and
iealth agents, systems engineers /
installers, and homeowners.
Department of
Environmental
Management (DEM)
7A.1 In collaboration with other state
and federal agencies, continue to
implement the Ocean Sanctuaries Act
yy closely monitoring all facilities
dans which propose increased waste-
water treatment plant discharges into
an ocean sanctuary.
Department of
Environmental
Protection
7B.5 Evaluate and build upon the
centralized statewide repository for testing
information on alternative technologies, to
>e established as part of the Buzzards Bay
^roject's two-year Environmental
Technology Initiative Project
Environmental
Protection Agency
[EPA)
7A.2 Support the control of combined
sewer overflows in the Massachusetts
Bays watersheds, especially the lower
Charles River, and target National
'ollutant Discharge Elimination
Systems (NPDES) permitting to
implement technology- and water
quality-based requirements in the
vferrimack River watershed
Environmental
Protection Agency, Exec.
Office of Environmental
AJfairs, Dept of
Environmental
Protection, and Coastal
Zone Management
Office
7AJ Work collaborati'vety to develop
and implement an effective program
or monitoring and enforcing point
source discharges from wastewater
treatment plants and energy-producing
"acilities.
V-7
-------
*"?« '$• * O% % %^ •.•."? % %%N % S - •• N*f - , •. i\ f 5.. . v^
^ ^ ^ ' s H% s «.>.%.• **f*sO-s*#-i^ w <•£• S.S-.'^^'-O *%w>% v. w.^%. .> x^s \ o^ ^ ,t **• * -.^ s S '* '•fj s -. s«i?\ ^ '^A s ••
*»W\ S * %V*NVt|k •• *i' »**** J^»s»»% •. 5\-*\^ >% VS> •* ^ ^ '. / % ," * it'S " '" -
^ «- >' ,s-.-s^ S' ,?' *> ' s - CrHMTWAIIV flW l>l?^/V1MnWflFltfl¥l?Tl ASr"TW¥W,, s
;* ^^t/1 '! ? ^ S\^V^ ,;^" ;v' ; '- , / i, ,\ -„ ^
Responsible
Agency
Municipalities
Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE)
)epartment of
Environmental
Protection (DEP)
Executive Office
Df Environmental
Affairs (EOEA)
Regional Planning
Agencies,
)epartment of
Environmental
'rotection, and
Municipalities
ACTION PLAN #8
Managing Boat Wastes
and Marina Pollution
8. 1 Work cooperatively with
neighboring communities,
private boatyards and marinas^
and state agencies (DFWELE
and CZM) to establish,
promote, and maintain Boat
Pumpout Programs in targeted
embayment areas.
8.2 With assistance from
CZM and DEP, require private
boatyards and marinas to
implement effective storm-
water runoff control strategies
which include the use of
pollution prevention measures
and the proper design and
maintenance of hull servicing
areas.
ACTION PLAN #9
Managing Dredging
and Dredged
Materials Disposal
9.1 Continue to
monitor dredged material
disposal sites in the
Massachusetts Bays
region and initiate the
planning necessary to
begin a capping
demonstration project at
the Massachusetts Bay
Disposal Site.
9.2 Coordinate the
development of a
comprehensive Dredging
and Dredged Materials
disposal Plan to improve
and maintain aCCCSS to
the Commonwealth's
ports, harbors, and
channels, and to
minimize adverse impacts
o the marine
environment.
ACTION PLAN #10
Reducing Beach Debris
and Marine Floatable*
10.1 Work cooperatively
with the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management
Office, neighboring com-
munities, and waterfront
users to design and
implement Beach and
Marine Debris Reduction
Programs.
^:^:^5^f;/;f;i
0 :!^'^: : ^ ;r^ i
ACTION PLAN #11
Protecting Nitrogen-
Sensitive Embayments
1 1.1 Strengthen Massachusetts
Voter Quality Standards to enhance
and protect nitrogen-sensitive
coastal embayments.
11.2 Work collaboratively to
expand upon current Massachusetts
Jays Program efforts to identify
nitrogen-sensitive embayments,
letermme critical loading rates, and
recommend actions to manage
nitrogen so as to prevent or reduce
excessive nitrogen loading to coastal
waters and groundwater.
V-8
-------
!* *
Responsible Agency
ACTION PLAN #12
Enhancing Publk
Access and the
Working Waterfront
ACTION PLAN #13
Planning for a
Shifting Shoreline
ACTION PLAN #14
Managing Local Land
Use and Growth
Municipalities
12.1 Develop and implement
Municipal Harbor Plans which:
1) promote marine-dependent
waterfront uses, 2) enhance
public access to the water, and
3) protect habitat of shellfish and
other living resources.
13.1 Adopt and implement strict
development/ redevelopment
standards within FEMA A and V
flood hazard zones and other
areas subject to coastal flooding,
erosion, and relative sea level
rise.
14.1 Develop and implement
Local Comprehensive Plans
(LCPS) which:!) direct
development into areas in the
community capable of absorbing
the impacts of growth and its
associated facilities, and 2)
preserve and protect the
community's important natural
resources.
Coastal Zone
Management Office (CZM)
12.2 Enhance the Designated
Port Area (DPA) program with
new planning and promotional
initiatives.
Establish a new technical
assistance program to accelerate
municipal efforts to identify and
legally reclaim historic rights-of-
way to the sea.
12.4 In collaboration with the
Department of Environmental
Management and MassGIS,
prepare and distribute a
statewide Coastal Access Guide
to facilitate public access to the
shoreline.
Department of
Environmental
Management (DEM)
13.2 Continue to assist
communities in the development
of effective Floodplain
Management Regulations.
Executive Office of
Environmental
Affairs (EOEA)
In collaboration with
coastal municipalities, develop
and implement anAccess-Via-
Trails program to enhance
public access along the coast
V-9
-------
ACTION PLAN #15
Enhancing Publk Education and Participation
Responsible Agency
ISA. Educating Teachers, Students, and
the Public About the Bays
15B. Developing a State Nonpoint Source
Education and Outreach Strategy
Department of Education
(DOE)
15A.1 In collaboration with the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, continue to develop and integrate
environmental education as an important component of the
curriculum in the public schools of the Commonwealth,
making broad use of the Benchmarks for Environmental
Education developed by the Secretaries' Advisory Group on
Education (SAGEE).
Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs
(EOEA)
15A.2 Continue to work closely with the Department of
Education through the Secretaries' Advisory Group on
Environmental Education (SAGEE) in order to develop a
strategy for the implementation of the "Benchmarks for
Environmental Education". Further, EOEA should continue to
place a priority on the role of environmental education and
provide adequate staffing to insure that appropriate state
leadership is maintained.
15A3 In cooperation with the Department of Education,
continue to develop a grant relationship with the National
Science Foundation and other funding agencies in order to
provide technological outreach aimed at enhancing
environmental literacy. The goal is to make resource and
curriculum materials widely accessible and to provide ongoing
coordination among the various members of the education
community. The Massachusetts Bays Program represents an
important aspect of the total environmental picture and should
play a key role in this effort, helping to establish a unified
voice to speak for environmental education concerning the
Bays region.
15B.1 Develop and maintain a
clearinghouse of NFS education,
information, and technical assistance
materials, as well as a database of available
state NFS materials and programs.
15B.2 Develop and maintain a matrix, by
topic, of NFS education, information, and
technical assistance materials produced by
state agencies and associated organizations.
15B.3 Expand upon Massachusetts Bays
Program efforts and develop a strategy for
NPS outreach and technical assistance state-
wide that would coordinate the development
and production of NPS education,
information, and technical assistance
materials, and provide technical assistance in
order to implement NPS pollution controls.
Exec. Office of
nvironmental Affairs
[EOEA) and the
)epartment of Education
DOE)
1SA.4 Empower exemplary teachers, administrators, and/or
schools who demonstrate the competence to carry out formal
and non-formal environmental education initiatives that
complement the Commonwealth's environmental education
programs.
Massachusetts Bays
Education Alliance
MBEA)
Continue and expand its current efforts to build a
community of educators who can ably teach about and promote
the protection of the Massachusetts Bays, their shores, and
watersheds.
Coastal Advocacy Net-
rork(CAN)
15A.6 Continue to serve as a vehicle for bringing information
to and from the government on environmental issues affecting
the Bays, with a particular emphasis on proposed projects or
regulatory changes.
Massachusetts Bays
tusiness and Users
roup (BUG)
15A.7 Continue to provide a public forum for the exchange of
information and ideas on CCMP development and
implementation among the Bays' business community and
resource users.
Marine Studies
Consortium
15A.8 Continue to offer undergraduate marine science and
policy courses; and, through the bi-annual Massachusetts
vlarine Environment Symposium, bring together diverse
marine interests to promote a better understanding of marine
>olicy issues.
V-10
-------
chapter V
Irotecting Public
Health
-------
ACTION PLAN #1
PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH
Imagine that you have just returned from a day at the beach.
While remembering the hours of fun you had in the ocean,
you leaf through a local newspaper and happen upon an
article about a nearby beach that was closed because of
sewage contamination. Dismayed, you wonder if you risked
illness by swimming in the ocean.
This scenario may not seem especially likely today, decades
after the passage of strong environmental legislation.
However, reports by the Natural Resources Defense Council
(Testing the Waters - A National Perspective on Beach
Closings, Jury 1992) and others have shown that U.S. coastal
waters are not consistently monitored for contamination and
that swimmers are not always adequately protected from
avoidable public health risks.
In 1991, for example, U.S. ocean and bay beaches were
closed or advisories were issued against swimming on more
than 2,000 occasions in the coastal states that monitor beach
water quality (NRDC, 1992). High levels of bacteria -
primarily from raw and inadequately treated sewage ~ were
responsible for the overwhelming majority of these closures
and advisories.
Major sources of high bacteria levels in beach water include:
inadequate and overloaded sewage treatment plants, illegal
sewer hook-ups and discharges, combined sewer overflows
(CSOs), stormwater runoff, faulty septic systems, and boat
wastes.
In order to property assess the threat to public health in
control waters, public health officials use "indicator
organisms." The indicator organism is one that, by its
presence at certain levels, "indicates" the potential for the
presense of human pathogens (disease-causing organisms).
The principal indicators currently in use in Massachusetts are
total coliform bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, and Entero-
coccus. The use of such indictors, as opposed to the direct
measurement of the pathogens themselves, is necessary, in
part, because of the lack of economical assay methods for the
multitude of potential pathogens.
Pathogens of concern in coastal waters include numerous
viruses, such as those responsible for gastroenteritis and
hepatitis — the two most common swimming-associated
diseases worldwide - and bacteria mat can cause salmonello-
sis, shigellosis, and cholera. Other microbial pathogens
found at varying concentrations in recreational waters include
amoeba and protozoa that can cause giardiasis, amoebic
dysentery, skin rashes, and "pink eye."
While most of the reported outbreaks of infectious diseases
associated with bathing beaches are non-enteric (for exam-
ple, skin rash), there is some risk of gastrointestinal disease
from swimming in sewage-contaminated water. It is impor-
tant that all beaches open to the public for swimming be
monitored regularly during the swimming season, and that the
monitoring data collected be centrally recorded and inter-
preted so that water quality problems can be properly
identified and corrected so as to minimize public health risks.
The following recommended action directed to the Massa-
chusetts Department of Public Health is a positive step
toward addressing this need.
V-ll
-------
V-12
-------
DPH ACTION #U:
The Department of PuSic Health should establish a central clearinghouse program for
all beach testing and closure information generated for Massachusetts' coastal public
beaches.
RATIONALE:
The waters of all Massachusetts coastal beaches that are open
to the general public for swimming must, by law, be tested
bi-weekly for total coliform bacteria during the beach
operating season. Currently, forty-seven coastal communities
conduct some level of bacteria testing at their public beaches
to ensure that water quality does not pose a significant health
risk. However, it is not clear which communities employ the
code-required total coliform standard and which use a
different risk indicator, such as fecal coliform bacteria or
Enterococcus. Nor is it clear which communities adhere
strictly to the bi-weekly testing requirement Currently, most
local beach data reside solely within the individual
communities. (Notable exceptions include data gathered on
a regular basis by the Metropolitan District Commission
(MDC) for its Boston area beaches and data exchanged
informally by several neighboring South Shore communities.)
Since there is no requirement to submit the data to a single,
central authority, there may be a lack of uniformity in water
quality monitoring and record-keeping practices from
community to community and from region to region. As a
consequence, it is extremely difficult to identify and compare
beach water quality conditions and trends along the coast,
and to target current "hotspots" or areas in decline (if any) for
priority pollution abatement action.
All of this points to the need for the Department of Public
Health, in coordination with other state agencies and local
Boards of Health, to establish a central clearinghouse for all
local and regional beach testing and closure information.
Creation of a centralized, readily-accessible database on
beach water quality will help local and state public health and
environmental officials to identify problem areas and
marshall the resources necessary to improve beach water
quality, reduce public health risks, and protect the marine
environment
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The Department of Public Health's Bureau of Environmental
Health Assessment (DPH/BEHA) will be the lead agent for
this action, but should coordinate with the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), Office of Coastal Zone
Management (CZM), local Boards of Health, the
Metropolitan District Commission, and other entities (such
_ private land trusts) that are responsible for monitoring
public beach water quality.
as
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The DPH/BEHA will create a comprehensive database and
track water quality testing and closure information for all
coastal public beaches. The public beaches will be identified
on a community-by-community basis with the assistance of
CZM and local Boards of Health.
The DPH/BEHA will notify all coastal community Boards of
Health and others responsible for beach water quality testing
about the start-up of die program, and will provide each with
a uniform reporting template. The water quality data
collected by the Boards and others will be submitted monthly
to the DPH/BEHA, where it will be entered into a central
database.
The specific parameters of the database are yet to be
established, but will be developed in collaboration with
representative Boards of Health, DEP, CZM, MDC, and
others to ensure that all relevant data are collected and
reported. The data will be catalogued, interpreted, and made
available for public dissemination by the DPH/BEHA staff.
MBP, through its RPA/LGC technical assistants, will work
closely with the DPH/BEHA staff and local officials to ensure
that the data are presented in a way that is useful to beach
managers in identifying potential "hot spots" for increased
monitoring and remediation.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
The ctvA tr> T)PH7RFHA f>f establishing anH maintaining this
new clearinghouse function is expected to be about $4,000 /
annum, including $2,100 for a paid intern (8 weeks) and
$2,000 in in-kind support and management by the DPH /
BEHA staff. The costs to local Boards of Health, the MDC,
and others collecting beach testing data will vary depending
on staffing, number of water samples collected, laboratory
V-13
-------
costs, and the cost of the monthly data transfers to DPH /
BEHA. In general, these costs are expected to be minimal.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Activities under this initiative are expected to be financed
through the existing operating budgets of the DPH/BEHA,
MDC, local Boards of Health, and other participants.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Massachusetts Department of Public Health
(Bureau of Environment Health Assessment)
(617)727-7170
TARGET DATE(s):
DPH / BEHA began developing the clearinghouse program
in July 1995. Work on this will continue into 1996, when the
program will become a part of DPH's ongoing operation.
V-14
-------
chapter V
Irotecting and
Enhancing Shellfish
Resources
-------
ACTION PLAN #2
PROTECTING AND ENHANCING SHELLFISH RESOURCES
Shellfish have historically been one of the most abundant and
heavily utilized resources along the coast of Massachusetts
Bays. Even the casual explorer of the Bays' shallow coves,
estuaries, salt marshes, and coastal ponds will usually find
exposed shellfish or signs of shellfish buried in the mudflats.
The inshore shellfishery of Massachusetts Bays is a major
component of the region's marine fishery resource and an
integral part of the state's coastal heritage. A wide array of
shellfish species in the Bays are harvested for human
consumption, including soft-shell clams, quahogs, oysters,
bay scallops, blue mussels, and, to a lesser extent, conchs and
razor clams. Between 1987 and 1990, shellfish beds in
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays yielded an average of
60,000 bushels to commercial harvesters each year ~ a catch
with a market value estimated at $3 million. In that same
period, recreational harvesters collected approximately 7,000
bushels of shellfish a year, worth some $400,000.
Unfortunately, shellfish beds up and down the coast of
Massachusetts Bays are threatened by disease-causing
viruses and bacteria These pathogens enter the Bays from a
variety of sources, both point and nonpoint (diffuse). Sewage
treatment plants and combined sewer overflows have long
been recognized as sources of contaminants. More recently,
pathogen contamination has been tied to nonpoint sources
such stormwater runoff, boat sewage, and faulty septic
systems.
As they filter small food particles from the water, bivalve
shellfish concentrate these harmful pathogens in their
stomachs. Although the pathogens probably do not affect the
shellfish themselves, they do pose a health risk to human
consumers who fail to prepare the shellfish properly.
Consumption of contaminated shellfish can cause
gastroenteritis, a type of food poisoning that produces nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal cramps. An even more
serious health concern is the Hepatitis A virus, which can be
concentrated in shellfish and passed on to the human
consumer. After an incubation period of 15 to 50 days, this
life-threatening virus produces symptoms such as nausea,
malaise, and jaundice, although in children and some adults
it may show no symptoms at all.
Because pathogens are difficult to measure directly, their
presence is measured indirectly by the presence of sewage-
derived bacteria called fecal coliform. Using fecal colifonn
concentrations as an indicator, the Massachusetts Division of
Marine Fisheries (DMF) samples, classifies, and certifies
shellfish harvesting areas according to the requirements of
the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP). DMF
currently classifies shellfish beds as follows:
• Approved: monitoring indicates low levels of fecal
coliform bacteria in the water overlying the shellfish bed.
The shellfish are suitable for human consumption.
• Conditionally approved: approved except during
intermittent or unpredictable pollution events, such as
rainfall or combined sewer overflows. These beds
require close monitoring during periods of wet weather.
• Conditionally restricted: shellfish harvested in these
areas must be relayed to either a clean site or to a
depuration plant to remove pathogens. In many cases,
only specially licensed diggers are allowed to harvest
from these beds.
• Prohibited: closed due to fecal coliform levels
consistently exceeding 88 fecal coliforms per 100 ml. of
seawater.
• Management closure: closed because DMF lacked the
manpower to survey and monitor what it assumed to be an
unproductive or heavily-contaminated area.
Currently, only about 60 percent of the state's shellfish beds
are permanently open. More than 90,000 productive acres
are closed either permanently, seasonally, or conditionally.
Some areas in the Massachusetts Bays region, including all
of Boston Harbor and much of the North Shore, have been
closed to shellfishing or restricted for many years due to
unacceptably high concentrations of fecal colifonn. Other
areas have seen a dramatic increase in shellfish bed closures
only during the past two decades. Between 1970 and 1990,
the total area of closed shellfish beds on the South Shore
increased roughly threefold. On Cape Cod, the restricted
V-15
-------
acreage doubled between 1970 and 1980, and then increased
another ten/Wtf between 1980 and 1990. In 1990, the Town
of Ipswich lost an estimated $3.4 million from its local
economy due to restricted shellfish resources. Even coastal
waters that the state has designated as Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern, such as Ellisville Harbor, have been
closed to shellfishing due to pathogen contamination.
Closures continue to increase because more pathogens are
finding their way into the Bays and, to a lesser extent,
because unproved monitoring has identified previously
undocumented problems. To compound the problem, a
growing body of scientific evidence suggests that, in some
cases, traditional fecal indicator organisms may not be
adequately portraying real pathogen risks. Pathogen
contamination in shellfish areas causes economic loss, poses
a significant risk to human health, and may possibly impair
the natural dynamics of the marine ecosystem. Although the
state's shellfishery is not in imminent danger of collapse, the
time is ripe to devise a proactive shellfish management
strategy to restore closed shellfish beds, ensure the
sustainable management of those beds that remain open, and
improve monitoring.
The interagency Shellfish Bed Restoration Program (SBRP)
-- a coordinated partnership of the Division of Marine
Fisheries, the Massachusetts Bays Program, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service/MassCAP (formerly U.S.
Soil Conservation Service), the County Conservation
Districts, the Department of Environmental Protection, and
coastal communities - is beginning to address this need.
At the federal level, assistance also will be available from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA will continue
its ongoing efforts to assist the Massachusetts Water
Pollution Abatement Trust (which administers the State
Revolving Fund (SRF) in cooperation with the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, which makes
decisions regarding SRF expenditures), with the marketing
of the SRF as a funding vehicle for nonpoint source projects
(as planned under s.319, Clean Water Act) and CCMP
implementation projects (as planned under s.320, Clean
Water Act). EPA will assist the Trust and DEP, as
necessary, in their efforts to design a streamlined loan
process for local nonpoint source pollution abatement
projects that will improve the quality of shellfish growing
areas and other coastal waters.
[See also Action Plan for Reducing and Preventing Storm-
water Pollution.]
V-16
-------
DMF ACTION
•. \ *s
The Division of Marine Fisheries should conduct three (3) Sanitary Survey Training
Sessions annually—one each on the North Shore, Metro Boston/South Shore, and Cape
Cod—to educate local shellfish constables and health officers on the proper techniques
for identifying and evaluating pathogen inputs into shellfish harvesting areas.
RATIONALE:
The consumption of raw and/or partially cooked bivalve
shellfish can pose a public health risk if the shellfish are
harvested from waters contaminated with bacterial pathogens
associated with sewage or with other contaminants associated
with industries and agriculture. The first critical control point
for assuring safe shellfish for the state's commercial and
recreational shellfisheries is insuring that the shellfish are
harvested from waters of acceptable sanitary quality.
Conducting regular sanitary surveys in accordance with the
provisions of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program is the
recognized method for determining acceptable shellfish water
quality.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The Division of Marine Fisheries will be responsible for this
action. DMF has the statutory responsibility to classify
shellfish growing waters and to determine which areas are
safe for the harvesting of shellfish for direct human
consumption. DMF generally accomplishes these tasks by
working with local officials, most often shellfish constables
and health agents, to conduct shoreline surveys to identify and
evaluate all real and potential sources of pollution to shellfish
waters. The shoreline survey is part of the larger sanitary
survey, but is the most time consuming and labor intensive
part of the sanitary survey. As such, it generally requires the
combined resources of the DMF shellfish program staff and
the communities.
Historically, most coastal communities have been eager to
assist DMF in shoreline surveys in order to provide local
knowledge on their particular shellfish growing areas and to
expedite the survey work.
the shellfish constable and health agent (or others as
designated by the mayor or selectmen). Flexibility will be
exercised both in the scheduling and the formality of the
sessions to accommodate the participants.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
DMF will assume all costs associated with this action; the
training sessions will be offered free of charge to the
participating communities.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Not applicable.
TARGET DATE:
Annually each summer.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DFWELE Division of Marine Fisheries
(Sandwich Office)
(508)888-1155
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
DMF will conduct one day of classroom instruction on
shoreline survey techniques on the North Shore, Metro
Boston/South Shore, and Cape Cod, followed by one day of
field training for each participating community. The training
will be limited to two employees per community - preferably
V-17
-------
V-18
-------
DMF ACTIONS2.2s
The Division of Marine Fisheries should develop and administer a local Shellfish
Management Grants Program to help communities finance the development and
implementation of effective local shellfish management plans. ""
RATIONALE:
Shellfish management in Massachusetts is vested in the
coastal cities and towns pursuant to M.G.L. C.130 §52.
Historically, the Division of Marine Fisheries has provided
reimbursements under §20A for local monies expended for
shellfish management Originally appropriated from the
Tourism Fund, and later from the General Fund, an average
of $300,000 was apportioned annually on a percentage basis
according to actual expenditures among the eligible
communities. This reimbursement program was in place
from FY1975 until 1989, but has been unfunded since that
year. Now there is mounting interest in reviving this
program as a grants program, with greater oversight by
DMF. Funding could be prioritized based on peer review,
and could be directed to specific shellfish propagation
programs. The recipient communities could mavimiTe the
benefits of these grants by receiving them at the beginning of
each fiscal year and augmenting them with local funds.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
DMF, assisted by local shellfish officers, would be
responsible for this action.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
If an appropriation for this purpose were made from the
General Fund and transferred to the Marine Fisheries Fund,
the Director of DMF could promulgate regulations to
establish the Shellfish Management Grants Program. An
advisory committee, comprised of DMF staff and local
shellfish officers, could then be appointed by the Director and
the Massachusetts Shellfish Constables' Association to help
develop and implement the program. The committee could
establish evaluation criteria and review and approve grant
applications. DMF could administer the grants and evaluate
the performance of the recipient communities.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required if this action is undertaken as
part of the state's annual budget process. Alternatively, the
program could be established through separate legislation,
possibly filed by members of the Cape Cod delegation.
ESTIMATED COST:
$300,000. Previous legislation on this matter included
authorization for one staff position within DMF to administer
the original reimbursement program. At the present (higher)
level of staffing within DMF's Shellfish Sanitation and
Management Program, the proposed Shellfish Management
Grants Program could be administered without additional
staff support A first year appropriation of $300,000 would
be sufficient to fund the local grants.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
General Fund, matched by local appropriations.
TARGET DATE:
Implementation is dependent on the budget cycle. The
proposed program could be developed as soon as funding is
authorized and implemented shortly thereafter.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DFWELE Division of Marine Fisheries
(617)727-3193
V-19
-------
V-20
-------
SKRP ACTION
The interagency Shellfish Bed Restoration Program task force should continue and
expand its innovative efforts to protect and restore shellfish beds impacted by nonpoint
source pollution.
RATIONALE:
Closure of shellfish beds due to nonpoint source pollution is
both a visible indicator of degraded water quality and
evidence of a decline in quality of life for coastal residents.
Harvesting local shellfish beds has served for generations as
a source of both income and recreational pleasure. No single
state, federal, regional, or local entity has the resources and
mandate to identify, assess, remediate, monitor, and reopen
shellfish beds. Rather, an integrated, multi-agency team
approach is needed Such an approach allows the focusing
of shared resources on the common goal of reopening beds,
and is an innovative solution to the shellfish pollution
problem.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
In October of 1993, an interagency task force coordinated by
the Massachusetts Bays Program agreed to work together on
the common goal of reopening shellfish beds along the
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays coastline. Secretary of
Environmental Affairs Trudy Coxe offered her support and
endorsement to this effort, called the Shellfish Bed
Restoration Program (SBRP). The members of the task
force are the Massachusetts Bays Program, the Division of
Marine Fisheries (DMF), the Natural Resources
Conservation Service/MassCAP (NRCS, formerly the U.S.
Soil Conservation Service), the County Conservation
Districts, the Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP), and representatives of impacted communities.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The Division of Maine Fisheries has agreed to develop a list
of shellfish bed sites adversely impacted by storm drain
runoff which could be opened following a program of
pollution mitigation and monitoring. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service/MassCAP and County Conservation
Districts have agreed to assist in pollution source assessment
and design of remediation strategies. The Massachusetts
Bays Program has agreed to provide technical assistance to
the impacted communities and to seek their participation in
the pursutt of funding for mitigation. In addition, the Massa-
chusetts Bays Program has agreed to assist in developing an
outreach program in the communities and to transfer
technical information and lessons learned to other impacted
communities. DMF has agreed to monitor the success of the
remediation efforts and to reopen shellfish beds to harvesting
when the water quality has improved sufficiently. Recently,
the DEP joined this collaborative effort, offering its support
in the areas of pollution source assessment and remediation.
Since its inception, the Shellfish Bed Restoration Program
has identified twelve closed shellfish beds for assessment and
remediation. Preliminary site assessments have been
completed for each of these closed beds, and mitigation
strategies have been designed for six of the sites. A full-time
program manager/shellfish biologist was hired early in 1995.
Over the next year, the SBRP will work with local, regional,
state, and federal agencies and citizens groups to: 1) assess
pollution sources and design mitigation strategies for the
remaining sites; 2) implement projects for which funding has
already been secured; 3) develop monitoring programs and
outreach strategies to ensure mat reopened beds remain
harvestable; 4) promote task force participation by other state
agencies with an interest in shellfish resources (e.g., the
Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law
Enforcement's Riverways Program); and 5) coordinate with
other regional initiatives focused on shellfish bed restoration
- for example, in the Gulf of Maine. Finally, the SBRP will
continue to identify new sites for remediation and will
actively work with communities to develop proposals for
funds which target nonpoint source pollution remediation.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required at this time.
ESTIMATED COST:
Assessments and development of
pollution mitigation strategies
Pollution mitigation
Staffing and equipment
- $100,000
-$500,000
-$120,000
V-21
-------
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s): TARGET DATE:
The Massachusetts Bays Program has committed $80,000 for June 1996 for reopening of acreage within the initial 12
site assessment, remediation strategy development, and shellfish beds.
monitoring of the initial group of twelve shellfish bed sites.
Implementation of mitigation strategies is estimated to cost ^____^_____^^___^_____^_^__—__
$500,000. A total of $80,000 is available for assessment and ^••••^•••••^^••^•••••^••^••"•i
mitigation projects under the USEPA's Section 104(b)3 FURTHER INFORMATION:
Program (Clean Water Act funds). Additional Clean Water
Act funds (FY95, $62 000) have tx*n awarded from the For ^^ MomatioT1 ^ assistance)
Section 319 Program for two remediation demonstration
projects, and additional s.319 funds are being sought for Massachusetts Bays Program
FY96' (617)727-9530
Other potential funding sources include: the Seaport Bond, an
EOEA budget line item in support of Coastal Assessment and
Enhancement, and Massachusetts Highway Department
"Enhancement* funds.
V-22
-------
chapter V
I rotecting and
Enhancing Coastal
Habitat
-------
ACTION PLAN #3
PROTECTING AND ENHANCING COASTAL HABITAT
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays contain a rich variety of
estuarine and marine habitats. The coastal zone encompasses
shallow tidal creeks, sandy beaches, rocky headlands, and
deep ocean waters. The same areas that often attract human
development also provide essential food, cover, migratory
corridors, and breeding and nursery areas for a broad array of
coastal and marine organisms, including commercially
important fish and shellfish species. As development
pressures mount, it is increasingly important to protect and
enhance sensitive coastal habitat
The coastal zone encompasses several distinct types of
habitat, including:
Salt Marshes
Salt marshes are flat, open, grassy areas bordering tidal
waters. They are typically found in or adjacent to areas
protected from the high energy of the open coast, such as
estuaries, salt ponds, and barrier beaches. Once considered
wasteland, salt marshes were often filled to support
residential development or agriculture. They are in fact
extremely productive habitat, and are now recognized as a
critical component of the marine ecosystem. Many
economically and environmentally significant fish and
shellfish species reside in salt marshes for at least part of
their life cycle. Moreover, decaying salt marsh grasses are
consumed by a wide variety of invertebrates, which in turn
are consumed by fish, birds, and marine mammals. Salt
marshes also protect the coastal zone from floods and absorb
certain water-borne contaminants.
Although a large percentage of the state's salt marshes have
been lost to development, there are still more than 36,000
acres of salt marsh habitat in the Massachusetts Bays region.
Most of this is located on the North Shore and Cape Cod.
Important pocket marshes found throughout the region
include a total of 5,700 acres on the South Shore and
approximately 2,000 acres in the Boston Harbor region.
nM Flats
Also known as clam flats, tidal flats are shallow, intertidal
areas in quiet bays and estuaries. Their sand-mud substrate
does not support large plants, but it does provide habitat for
microscopic algae and vast numbers of clams, quahogs, and
marine worms. Some of the species found on tidal flats -
especially shellfish -- are commercially important All play
an important role in the coastal ecosystem. Tidal flats are
especially important foraging areas for wading shorebirds
and migratory waterfowl Cape Cod boasts more than 15,000
acres of tidal flats. Another 17,000 acres are scattered
throughout the Massachusetts Bays region.
Beds
Although eelgrass may look to the casual observer like any
other marine flora, eelgrass beds actually serve several
critical functions in the estuarine environment These beds
provide habitat for many species of finfish, shellfish, and
waterfowl. They reduce turbidity and improve water quality
by filtering suspended sediments and serving as a baffle to
moving sand. They are an essential component of nearshore
food webs. And they provide nursery and feeding grounds
for a number of commercially and ecologically important fish
species, such as winter flounder and bay scallops.
Unfortunately, eelgrass beds are threatened by many sources
of pollution, including sewer and stormwater discharges,
dredge and fill projects, heavy boat traffic, and nonpoint
sources of pollution such as urban runoff and nearby septic
systems. Although the status of Commonwealth's eelgrass
beds is still largely undetermined, limited aerial surveys and
on-site investigations indicate that beds are shrinking
throughout the Massachusetts Bays region. Eelgrass is now
reduced or absent in a number of North Shore estuaries and
embayments in which it once occurred, including the
Merrimack River estuary, Essex Bay, and Salem and
Marblehead Harbors. Eelgrass meadows in some Cape Cod
embayments have also been replaced by undesirable macro-
algal communities. Further reductions in eelgrass habitat
may have serious consequences for nearshore ecosystems.
Barrier Beaches
Most barrier beaches are long, narrow strips of coastal dune
and beach comprised of sand and gravel. They typically
begin as spits of sand which grow out from and run parallel
to the shore. As nearshore currents and tides deposit or erode
additional material, the barrier beach may connect to land on
both ends, or it may form an island. Whatever its shape, the
inland side of a barrier beach generally borders an estuary or
V-23
-------
marsh system. The side facing the open ocean absorbs the
brunt of storms and tides, and is therefore extremely unstable.
Although most geological changes to the land occur too
gradually to be noticeable to the human observer, erosion and
deposition can dramatically alter a barrier beach in only a few
years.
Ecologically, barrier beaches are extremely important They
provide critical feeding and nesting habitat for wading birds,
shorebirds, and waterfowl, including rare species such as the
piping plover and roseate tern. Moreover, many marine and
anadromous fish use the sheltered, brackish waters behind
barrier beaches as feeding or spawning areas. Human uses,
too, are significant Barrier beaches are outstanding aesthetic
and recreational resources. Careful management is needed to
ensure that human uses are compatible with inherently fragile
and volatile barrier habitats.
Rocky Headlands and Intertidal Shores
Rocky shore ecosystems occur along numerous stretches of
the Massachusetts Bays coastline. In some places, they have
developed on rocky headlands such as those found in
Rockport, Gloucester, and other North Shore communities.
In other places they have developed on the boulders and
cobbles of glacial moraines, common along the South Shore
and Cape Cod Pounded by waves, dried by sun and wind,
these resilient ecosystems are often subject to great physical
stress. Despite these harsh conditions, however, rocky shores
support a wide array of plant and animal life, including algae,
crustaceans, mollusks, and some finfish.
Nearshore Waters
The nearshore waters of Massachusetts Bays are the chief
breeding ground for many commercially important marine
animals, including lobster, haddock, bluefin tuna, winter
flounder, and Atlantic cod These waters are also a feeding
ground for numerous marine birds and mammals such as the
Atlantic white-sided dolphin, harbor porpoise, harbor seal
and on occasion, the grey seal. Deeper, offshore waters
attract many species of whale, including the humpback,
finback, minke, and the world's last remaining Northern right
whales.
Islands
Most of the islands in Massachusetts Bays are highly
developed However, there are some islands with unspoiled
herbaceous, shrub and forest habitat Because of their
isolation and lack of predators, these islands attract nesting
populations of migratory seabirds, including terns, gulls,
egrets, and herons. Outstanding examples of undisturbed
islands include Thatcher Island and Milk Island off the North
Shore.
Some of the best coastal habitat in the Massachusetts Bays
region is publicly owned and protected. The Thatcher Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the Parker River National Wildlife
Refuge, Cape Cod National Seashore, the Crane Wildlife
Refuge, and the Boston Harbor Islands State Park are
examples of publicly-owned relatively pristine coastal
habitat
Unfortunately, parts of the coasts, including wetlands, are
being steadily degraded or irretrievably lost to development
Since colonial times, Massachusetts has lost approximately
20 to 30 percent of its original coastal wetlands to human
development. Another 1,000 acres of coastal and inland
wetlands~0.2 percent of the state's total-are lost each year.
Losses result both from direct development and from the
cumulative impacts of small projects.
Recognizing the importance of its wetlands, the
Commonwealth has established a complex structure of laws
and regulations to combat wetlands loss. The cornerstone of
the state's current Wetlands Protection Program is the
Wetlands Protection Act This Act established a public
review and decision-making process to preserve the state's
dwindling wetlands. It is administered by local Conservation
Commissions with oversight from the state Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP). Under its provisions, any
person who would remove, fill, dredge, or alter a wetland
must file a Notice of Intent to initiate a process of public
review. In wetland areas that provide habitat for rare or
endangered species, no alteration which would have an
adverse impact is allowed A number of such areas have
been mapped by the Natural Heritage and Endangered
Species Section of the Massachusetts Division of Fish and
Wildlife PFW). The Act also sets strict performance
standards for any alteration to banks, submerged land, and
some fioodplain areas which support wildlife.
Although Massachusetts is considered to have one of
country's the most effective wetlands protection programs,
the state has not been able to completely stem wetlands loss.
Losses still occur from certain public and private projects
(such as bridge construction and road crossings) which are
exempt from the Wetlands Protection Act Fanning practices
which qualify as "normal maintenance and improvement" of
agricultural land also are exempt, and small dredge and fill
projects may be permitted by variance under the Act
Moreover, the Wetlands Protection Program relies heavily on
replicated wetlands to mitigate "unavoidable" losses. The
success rate of these replication projects seems to have been
less than adequate, according to some state and local
conservation officials.
At the federal level, agencies such as the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) play key roles in protecting wetlands
under s404 of the Clean Water Act It should be noted that
this regulatory framework can apply to those projects which
may be exempt from the State's Wetlands Protection Act
Further, under the ACOE's specific regulatory
responsibilities, the "nationwide permits" have been revoked
in Massachusetts and replaced with the Programmatic
V-24
-------
General Permit (PGP). The PGP simplifies and strengthens
wetlands protection, since it dovetails with federal, state, and
local permitting processes and efforts.
The effectiveness of the Wetlands Protection Act is also
impaired by the limitations of municipal government At the
local level, responsibility for protecting coastal wetlands falls
primarily on local Conservation Commissions. Most
Commission members take this responsibility seriously, and
invest considerable time in attempting to properly review
Notices of Intent filed in their community. Unfortunately,
most Commissions lack professional staff, and their volunteer
members are often ill-equipped to deal with the Act's
intricacies. Although the state DEP offers voluntary training
courses, many Commission members never receive formal
training in the provisions of the Act and its regulations.
While Commission members do learn from experience, the
learning process can be quite lengthy, especially when
compared with the typical rate of turnover on a Commission.
Compounding this problem is the lack of accurate, up-to-date
maps, scaled for local use, showing the location of coastal
habitats which warrant special protection. Existing maps are
spread throughout a variety of local, state, and federal agency
files, and vary considerably with respect to scale, format, and
reproducibiliry. Accordingly, they are either unavailable to
Commission members or are of limited value to local
decision-makers.
The Wetland Protection Program's efforts to prevent wetland
degradation are lagging even further behind its efforts to
prevent wetland loss. The quality of coastal habitat is
intimately related to the quality of incoming water and
sediment Unfortunately, the state's existing management
framework does not adequately address the point and
nonpoint pollution sources which affect coastal wetlands.
Nor does it address the hydrographic modifications
associated with small development projects, such as changes
in the amount of freshwater flowing into a wetland area or the
rate of sediment deposition. When evaluating the overall
threat to coastal habitat, these cumulative or secondary
impacts must be considered as seriously as direct
development.
The Commonwealth has launched some creative initiatives to
remedy the shortcomings of the Wetlands Protection Program
and to help the state meet its short-term goal of "no net loss"
of wetlands. The Wetland Conservancy Program uses aerial
photographs to map wetland areas and inform public officials
and land owners of activities which are incompatible with the
goals of the Wetlands Protection Program. More recently,
the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
(EOEA) initiated a Wetlands Restoration and Banking
Program. This program will coordinate the restoration of
degraded wetlands throughout the state, and will study the
concept of wetlands "banks" as a means of improving the
success of wetlands mitigation.
The complexity of the state's wetlands regulations provides
one indication of its commitment to protect and preserve its
coastal habitat. Local officials and private landowners must
show the same commitment if the coastal habitat of
Massachusetts Bays is to be maintained. The following
recommendations suggest ways in which all parties can work
cooperatively towards the common goal of preserving our
coastal heritage.
V-25
-------
V-26
-------
MUNICIPAL ACTION #3.11
Municipalities should prepare and implement an EOEA - approved Open Space Plan to
preserve and protect key wetlands, floodplaios, fish and wildlife habitat, and other
ecologically- and recreationafly-important natural resource areas.
RATIONALE:
The appearance of a community, the lifestyle of its residents,
and the richness of its natural resources can be dramatically
altered in a short period of time if steps are not taken to
preserve open space. During the building boom of the '80s,
numerous Massachusetts communities saw their populations
increase radically, straining their infrastructure and financial
resources, and destroying or degrading irreplaceable land and
water resources. In many instances, loss or fragmentation of
open land resulted in noticeable declines in water quality and
wildlife habitat
Completing an Open Space Plan gives the community a
powerful tool to begin directing development away from
sensitive natural resources and, in some cases, to achieving
lasting economic benefits. Protecting aquifers and watershed
lands, for example, can avert prolonged and costly drinking
water contamination incidents in a community. Protected
open space also increases the taxable value of adjacent
properties and, in the long run, can impose less strain on a
municipal budget than the infrastructure and services
required by development
Completing an Open Space Plan can also start a growth
management process that will lead to the development of
strategies to maintain ecosystem integrity. Although not
properly part of an official Open Space Plan, the thought
process in developing those strategies can lead to: 1)
adoption of stricter zoning bylaws and other development
controls that regulate percent imperviousness in a watershed;
2) establishment of strong sediment and erosion control
bylaws; and 3) adoption of design or performance standards
for stormwater runoff best management practices (BMPs).
Completing a local Open Space Plan also positions the
community to take an important next step - establishing a
more expansive greenway network for the surrounding
region. Linking gems of open space in neighboring
communities preserves regionally-significant scenic vistas
and wildlife corridors, and provides recreational
opportunities not available at the local level alone. Within
the coastal zone, this concept has been extended to include
the linkage of sites in more developed waterfront areas. It
has taken hold in several communities where continuous
public access to and along the shoreline of developed harbors
has been pursued with technical and financial assistance from
CZMs Harbor Planning Program.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Conservation Commissions and Planning Boards would
generally be responsible for this action, with input and
assistance from Recreation Committees, local land trusts,
watershed associations, and outdoor user groups (hikers,
hunters and fishermen, cross-country skiers, etc.).
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The Open Space Planning process should be an open,
interactive process that invites the participation and input of
diverse sectors of the community. The Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (EOEA) Division of Conservation
Services has developed a step-by-step handbook (The Open
Space Planner's Workbook, 1990 ) to help guide
communities through this process, and local planners should
closely follow these guidelines in developing their Open
Space Plans. Consistency of the local plans with the EOEA
guidelines is a prerequisite for state approval of the plans.
State approval helps to establish a community's eligibility for
Self-Help and other grant program funds to purchase and
protect key open space parcels. While particular open space
and development-related issues may vary from one
community to another, municipalities should generally adhere
to the planning process prescribed by EOEA, as follows:
Form Core Open Space Planning Group
1
Develop Community Participation Process
1
Inventory, Map, and Evaluate Environmental Resources
(emphasizing lands of special conservation and outdoor
recreation interest)
i
Analyze Resource Protection and Community Needs
1
Formulate Open Space Goals and Objectives
I
Develop Five-Year Action Plan
1
Draft Open Space Plan
I
V-27
-------
Solicit Public Comment
i
Complete and Submit Plan for EOEA Approval
I
Implement the Open Space Plan (ongoing)
In setting priorities for land acquisition (or preservation via
conservation restrictions), coastal communities should give
special consideration to developable upland areas which: 1)
adjoin, or drain to, prime shellfish harvesting areas; 2) are
located within flood hazard zones or will be subject to
relative sea level rise; and 3) bonier vegetated wetlands. The
latter areas should be kept as free as possible from
development as these will be needed for wetlands to retreat
to under rising sea level conditions.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
Preparation of an Open Space Plan will not require new
legislation. However, implementation of the plan may
require some legislative changes locally, including
amendments to me zoning bylaw and new or revised land use
policies and regulations.
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost of preparing an Open Space Plan can vary widely,
depending on a community's staff resources and reliance on
paid consultants. Many, if not most, successful plans have
been developed at relatively low cost by teams of local
volunteers supported by Regional Planning Agencies and
other outside groups. EOEA strongly recommends this
approach, and numerous environmental agencies and
organizations (EOEA, Regional Planning Agencies, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), watershed associations,
land trusts) are willing and able to offer valuable information
and assistance. (For example, various EOEA agencies and
USFWS can assist municipalities in the identification of
important coastal habitats, as well as opportunities for state
and federal grants to protect and enhance these habitats.
They recently contributed fish and wildlife habitats
information to toe Massachusetts Bays Community Resource
Atlas, an MBP-funded document that will be distributed
among the 49 coastal communities in the near future.) The
local cost of a plan prepared largely by volunteers, including
mapping and production costs, is often less than $5,000.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
In most cases, local revenues must be used for development
of the plan. However, for implementation of the plan,
specifically land acquisition and preservation, the Division of
Conservation Services offers several grant programs,
including the Self-Help and Urban Self-Help Programs (52%
- 70% state funding), and the Federal Land and Water
Conservation Funds (50% federal/50% local). Another
federal grant program, the Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery Program (UPARR), can provide matching grants
and technical assistance to selected, economically distressed
urban communities.
In addition, DEM, DFWELE, and various nonprofit land
trusts can commit funds to purchase and protect lands of
special ecological significance.
TARGET DATE:
1996 and as local resources permit A local Open Space
Plan is an integral part of a community's overall planning
program and may require 1-2 years to complete.
(Implementation of the plan is, of course, an ongoing
process.) Accordingly, communities should begin the open
space planning process as soon as possible.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
EOEA Division of Conservation Services
(617)727-1552
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
Your County Conservation District
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Gulf of Maine Project)
(207)781-8364
V-28
-------
MUNICIPAL ACTION #3.2:
Municipalities should adopt and itngplemeot a local Riverfront District Bylaw to maintain
river water quality, preserve fish and wildlife habitat, and protect downstream nursery
and shellfish resources.
RATIONALE:
The Massachusetts River Protection Act (MRPA) bill
currently before the Legislature seeks to establish river
corridor protection on a uniform statewide basis. The bill
calls for the creation of a 25-150 foot riverfront setback for
development along many rivers and streams in the
Commonwealth. So why adopt a local bylaw if the state
passes the Massachusetts River Protection Act? There are
several compelling reasons:
1) Many tributaries are not covered by the MRPA and
warrant further protection from inappropriate
development
2) Local bylaws can be written specifically for the needs of
local rivers and the community.
3) Local bylaws can require a vegetated buffer strip (not
required by the MRPA) within a Riverfront District to
atfcm'flte nonpoint source pollution and provide wildlife
habitat.
4) A community will be more likely to enforce a local
bylaw that it has helped craft and that its citizens
support
In addition, the provisions of the local bylaw may serve as a
"Municipal Development and Protection Plan" under the
proposed MRPA with approval from the Secretary of the
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. This means that,
with approval, the provisions of the local bylaw would also
serve as the provisions governing the application of the
MRPA within the community. Local Riverfront District
Bylaws will complement and supplement the MRPA just as
local wetlands bylaws complement and give added local
protection to the Wetlands Protection Act.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Planning Boards and Conservation Commissions would
generally be responsible for this action, with input and
assistance from other local boards (Selectmen, Board of
Health), Adopt-A-Stream groups, local land trusts, sportsmen
clubs, and abutting property owners.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The River District planning process should be an open,
interactive process that invites the participation and input of
diverse sectors of the community. One practical way for a
community to proceed with a River District Bylaw is for the
Planning Board to appoint a subcommittee to: (1) study the
community's rivers and evaluate options for protection, and
(2) if feasible, draft an amendment to the zoning bylaw and
help shepherd it through Town Meeting. Because state law
requires that the Planning Board issue a report with
recommendations on all proposed zoning changes to Town
Meeting, the Planning Board can play a key role in the
process. By involving Planning Board members early in the
initiative, they can share their knowledge, "buy" into and
promote the initiative, and provide political standing. In
return, the subcommittee will be helping an already busy
town board by doing much of the background work required
to establish local river protection.
The Riverways Program within the Department of Fisheries,
Wildlife & Environmental Enforcement (DFWELE) has
published a step-by-step handbook (Riverways Community
Guide-Strategies for Drafting and Passing Local River
Protection Bylaws) to help guide communities through this
process, and this should be consulted to get the process
underway.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
This action involves adoption of a local Riverfront District
Bylaw as an amendment to the community's existing zoning
bylaw, and requires town meeting or city council approval,
depending on the community's governmental structure.
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost of developing and adopting a Riverfront District
Bylaw should be minimal Model river protection bylaws are
available that can be adopted either in their present form or
with minor modifications to reflect individual community
needs. Technical assistance in drafting a river protection
bylaw is available from the DFWELE Riverways Program
and the Regional Planning Agencies.
V-29
-------
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
Local revenues
TARGET DATE:
1996 and as local resources permit This is a high priority
action from a water quality standpoint and should be
implemented by municipalities as soon as possible to prevent
further loss and degradation of important river corridors.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance contact:
DFWELE Riverways Program
(617)727-1614
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
V-30
-------
MUNICIPAL ACTION #3.3:
Muhldpalhies vvdth Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) should work cooperatively ivith
neighboring communities, EOEA agencies, and other interested parties to develop proactive, long-term
ACEC Management Plans to preserve and protect these vital resource areas.
RATIONALE:
An ACEC is an area containing concentrations of highly
significant environmental resources that has been formally
designated by the Commonwealth's Secretary of
Environmental Affairs following a public nomination and
review process.
The enabling legislation and the regulations for ACECs list
several kinds of environmental features that critical areas may
include, ranging from wetlands and water supply areas to rare
species habitat and prime agricultural land. To be eligible for
designation, an area must contain at least four of these
resource features, and the resources and area must be of at
least regional or statewide significance.
The objective of ACEC designation - i.e., the long-term
preservation, management, and use - or stewardship - of
critical resource areas - is a shared responsibility that can
only be met through the collaborative efforts of many parties
- governmental, civic and environmental, business, and
private citizens. At the state level, ACEC responsibilities
and actions are well established. Among other things, state
regulations require that all EOEA agencies subject certain
projects of federal, state, and local agencies and private
parties to the "closest scrutiny" to assure that strict
environmental standards are met for any action "subject to
their jurisdiction." While this directive covers a number of
important activities, many others remain the province of local
government, hi fact, effective stewardship of ACEC's must
be largely community-based.
To date, few communities have purposefully integrated the
stewardship of ACECs into their land use policies, plans, and
regulations. As a result, many zoning bylaws, building codes,
health regulations, and the like may be at variance with
critical resource area protection, and may need to be
strengthened to assure the long-term viability of the ACECs.
Statewide, there arc 25 coastal and inland ACECs comprising approximately 170,000 acres?
Coastal ACECs
Bourne Back River
•EUisvffle Harbor
•Herring River Watershed
•Inner Cape Cod Bay
•Neponset River Estuary
•Parker River/Essex Bay
Pleasant Bay
Pocasset River
•Rumney Marshes
•Sandy Neck/Bamstable Harbor
Waquoh Bay
•Weir River
•WeUfleet Harbor
•Weymouth Back River
Inland ACECs
Canoe River Aquifer
•Central Nashua River Valley
•Cranberry Brook Watershed
•Fowl MeadoWPonkapoag Bog
•Golden Hills
Hinsdale Flats Watershed
Hockcmock Swamp
Kampoosa Bog Drainage Basin
Karner Brook Watershed
Schenob Brook Drainage Basin
•Westborough Cedar Swamp
Approi. Acres Communities
1,850 Bourne
600 Plymouth
4,450 Bourne, Plymouth
2,550 Brewster, Eastham, Orleans
1,260 Boston, Milton, Quincy
25,500 Essex, Gloucester, Ipswich, Newbury, Rowley
9,050 Brewster, Chatham, Harwich, Orleans
150 Bourne
2,800 Boston, Lynn, Revere, Saugus, Winthrop
8,850 Barnstable, Sandwich
2,550 Fahnouth, Mashpee
950 Cohasset, Hingham, Hull
12^50 Eastham, Truro, WeUfleet
950 Hingham, Weymouth
17,200 Eastoo, Foxborough, Mansfield, Norton, Sharon, Taunton
12,900 Bohoo, Harvard, Lancaster, Leominster
1,050 Braintree, Holbrook
8^50 Boston, Canton, Dedham, Milton, Norwood, Randolph, Sharon, Westwood
500 Melrose, Saugus, Wakefield
14,500 Datton, Hinsdale, Peru, Washington
16,950 Bridgewater, Eastern, Norton, Raynham, Taunton, West Bridgewater
1,350 Lee, Stoclcbridge
7,000 Egremont, Mount Washington
13,750 Mount Washington, SheUfield
1,800 Hopkinton, Westborough
•Denotes location within Massachusetts Bays watershed
V-31
-------
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Planning Boards, Boards of Health, Conservation
Commissions, and the nominators of ACEC designations
would share much of the responsibility for this action, but
should solicit the advice and assistance of other local
authorities — Selectmen, Boards of Appeal, DPWs - which
also play a role in effecting local land use policies and
practices. Municipalities may be interested in establishing a
local or regional ACEC task force or working group.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Development of a local ACEC Management Plan should be
an open, interactive process that invites the participation of
diverse sectors of the community. In addition to the above
boards, the process should involve representatives of local
land trusts and watershed associations, affected property
owners and businesses, Regional Planning Agencies, and
state environmental agencies -most notably DEM and CZM
The latter two agencies share much of the responsibility for
monitoring and protecting ACECs at the state level, and can
offer trained staff to advise and assist communities on ACEC-
related matters. CZM has developed guidelines to help
communities prepare coastal resource management plans for
ACECs pursuant to the Chapter 91 (Waterways) Regulations
(see Final Guidance Document - The Development of
Resource Management Plans for Coastal Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern, 1992), and these are an excellent
starting point Further guidance materials may be
forthcoming from the DEM ACEC Program over the next
several years.
In developing a local ACEC Management Plan, communities
should generally adhere to the following process:
Form Core Working Group
1
Establish Public Education/Outreach Process
i
Collect Available ACEC Data and Maps
1
Inventory, Evaluate, and Map Critical Resources
I
Identify and Prioritize Threats to Resources
(development, pollution, overuse, etc.)
1
Assess Adequacy of Existing Protection Measures
1
Recommend Additional Protection Measures as Warranted
1
Develop Strategy for Implementing Enhanced Protection
Measures
i
Publish Draft and Final ACEC Management Plans
I
Implement ACEC Management Plan (ongoing)
Critical to the ultimate success of this effort will be the
public's awareness of, and appreciation for, the ACEC - so
public outreach and education should be a key component of
the planning and implementation process.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
Preparation of a local ACEC Management Plan will not
require new legislation. However, implementation of the
plan may require some legislative changes locally, including
amendments to the zoning bylaw and building code, and new
or revised land and water use policies and regulations.
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost of preparing a local ACEC Management Plan will
depend on the plan's level of detail and the community's
reliance on paid consultants. If the bulk of the work is
performed by local staff and volunteers, as is recommended,
costs should be modest ($2,500 - 5,000). A broad range of
technical assistance - including inventorying, mapping, and
evaluation of natural resources, and drafting of protection
strategies - is available from DEM, CZM, and the Regional
Planning Agencies.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Local revenues; Executive Office of Communities and
Development (EOCD) strategic planning grants.
TARGET DATE:
1999 and as local resources permit A local ACEC
Management Plan will be an integral part of the community's
overall planning program and may require several years or
more to complete. (Implementation of the plan is, of course,
an ongoing process.) Accordingly, communities are
encouraged to begin the ACEC management planning
process as soon as possible.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DEM'S ACEC Program (617) 727-3160
Coastal Zone Management Office
(617) 727-9530
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
NRCS Community Assistance Unit
(508) 295-1481
V-32
-------
MUNICIPAL ACTION
Municipalities should adopt and implement a local Wetlands Protection Bylaw to
supplement the state Wetlands Protection Act and Regulations.
RATIONALE:
While the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (WPA)
and its Regulations are considered among the most protective
wetlands legislation in the country, they have several defi-
ciencies which stricter local bylaws can address. As exam-
ples, the Cape Cod Commission's Regional Policy Plan cites
the following:
• The Wetlands Protection Act does not provide any protec-
tion for buffer areas surrounding wetlands that provide
important functions, including mitigating stonnwater
impacts, removing nutrients, and recharging ground water.
Research has documented the increase in nitrogen and
phosphorus loading to wetlands as adjacent watershed areas
are cleared of vegetation. Buffer areas are also often
exceptionally valuable wildlife habitat Many bird species
such as herons nest in upland trees adjacent to wetlands, but
feed in the wetlands. Without buffer area protection, these
nesting areas could be destroyed. Recent studies suggest
that buffers 100 to 300 feet wide are needed to protect
surface water bodies from sedimentation and maintain
wildlife habitat, and 300 to 1000-foot buffers are needed for
50 to 90 percent nutrient removal. A 200 foot buffer is
recommended to protect the scenic value of a natural area.
• Many of the Cape's wetlands occur as isolated kettle holes
that do not meet the size thresholds for protection in the
state Act
• Many developments have been designed to discharge
stonnwater directly to waterbodies or to use natural wet-
lands for stonnwater management and attenuation of
pollutants, a practice that may result in degradation of the
wetland and could adversely affect downstream waters.
Local wetlands bylaws can compensate for these deficiencies
by expanding the definition of wetlands resources, requiring
building and septic system setbacks to protect buffer zones
and improve water quality, and prohibiting or limiting
wetlands replication (conversion of upland to man-made
wetland). In addition, they can address the special needs of
non-permanent wetland types, such as vernal pools and
seasonally variable ponds (e.g., Mary Dunn Pond in
Hyannis). They also can provide for enhanced enforcement
authority and the hiring of expert consultants to review
development proposals at the applicant's expense.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Conservation Commissions and their agents would have
primary responsibility for this action, with assistance from the
Board of Health, Planning Board, and Building Inspector.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Conservation Commissions should: 1) obtain and review
model local wetlands bylaws prepared by the Regional
Planning Agencies and Massachusetts Association of
Conservation Commissions; and 2) adapt these bylaws, as
appropriate, to respond to local needs. Such bylaws typically
contain minimum performance standards to address some of
the WPA deficiencies cited above. Examples include the
following:
• Natural, undisturbed buffer areas of at least 100' width
shall be maintained from the edge of coastal and inland
•wetlands, including isolated -wetlands, to protect their
natural functions, including but not limited to mitigation
of stonnwater impacts and their -wildlife habitat value.
This policy shall not be construed to preclude pedestrian
access paths, vista pruning, or construction and mainte-
nance of voter-dependent structures -within the buffer
area, any of-which may be permitted at the discretion of
permitting authorities where there is no feasible alterna-
tive to their location. The Conservation Commission shall
require a larger buffer area where necessary to protect
sensitive areas or where site conditions such as slopes or
soils suggest that a larger buffer area is necessary to
prevent any adverse impact to wetlands and associated
wildlife habitat. Where a buffer area is already devel-
oped, this requirement may be modified by the permitting
authority, provided it makes a finding that the proposed
alteration will not increase adverse impacts on that
specific portion of the buffer area or associated wetland.
• Disturbance of wetlands and buffer areas for operation
and maintenance of underground and overhead utility
lines (electrical, communication, sewer, -water, and gas
lines) may occur. Installation of new utility lines through
these areas may occur where the permitting authority
finds that the proposed route is the best environmental
alternative for locating such facilities. In all instances,
disturbance of wetland and buffer areas shall be mini-
mized and surface vegetation, topography, and water flow
shall be restored substantially to the original condition.
V-33
-------
• Stormwater management plans for new development shall
preclude direct discharge of untreated stormwater into
natural wetlands and waterbodies.
[Note: the state's new Stormwater Initiative and the guid-
ance document Urban BMPs for Massachusetts will place
additional emphasis on the creation of "artificial" wetlands
for stormwater treatment in Massachusetts. Federal
guidance to the states is encouraging the development and
use of manmade wetlands that will retain and assimilate
some pollutants before they enter coastal waterbodies. In
order to ensure that these engineered systems operate
effectively and in full compliance with state regulations,
CZM and DEP are working collaboratively to develop
policies and general guidance for artificial wetlands
construction. This guidance will be available to local
Conservation Commissions and Planning Boards, site
designers and landscape contractors, and others interested
in minimising the water quality impacts of urban runoff.]
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
This action requires the adoption of a local Wetlands Protec-
tion Bylaw, usually as a general (non-zoning) bylaw, by vote
of town meeting or city council, depending on the commu-
nity's governmental structure. The Conservation Commission
would be responsible for administering the bylaw.
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost of developing a local Wetlands Protection Bylaw
should be minimal. Model wetlands bylaws are available that
can be adopted either in their present form or with minor
modifications to reflect individual community needs. Techni-
cal assistance in drafting the bylaws is available from the
Regional Planning Agencies.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Local revenues.
TARGET DATE:
1996-1997.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions
(617)489-3930
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
V-34
-------
MUNICIPAL ACTION #3,5:
Municipalities with locally-owned barrier beaches should prepare and implement
ecosystem-based Barrier Beach Management Plans to promote responsible iise and
protection of these critical coastal resources.
RATIONALE:
Barrier beaches comprise approximately 222 miles (or about
21%) of Massachusetts'1,500-mile beach shoreline. These
681 barrier beaches provide a wealth of ecological and
economic benefits to the commonwealth's citizens, including:
• Outstanding fish and wildlife habitat;
• Diverse recreation and tourism opportunities; and
• Effective protection against storm and erosion damage.
Inappropriate development on barrier beaches can destroy or
degrade irreplaceable natural resources and pose significant
hazards to public health and safety. It also can cost the
taxpayer enormous sums of money in the form of subsidized
loans, disaster assistance, and infrastructure improvements.
According to State-Federal Hazard Mitigation Team reports,
"Hurricane Bob" (August, 1991), the "Halloween
Northeaster" (October 1991), and the "December '92
Northeaster" cost Massachusetts taxpayers over $50 million
(over and above monies paid from the Federal Flood
Insurance Program) to repair public roads, seawalls, sewer
and water lines, buildings, and other public facilities. The
1991/1992 storm season also caused billions of dollars in
damages to private property - much of this on barrier
beaches. Approximately two-thirds of all homes destroyed
by these storms were located on barrier beaches. Many of the
homes were behind seawalls and other erosion control
structures that gave homeowners a false sense of security.
Those same seawalls also contributed to beach erosion,
thereby reducing the natural storm defenses of the barrier
beach. Most of these seawalls have been reconstructed,
sometimes at great public expense. (The large seawall and
stone mound structure on Minot Beach in Scituate, for
example, has been reconstructed nineteen times, and its
reconstruction after the "Blizzard of 78" cost taxpayers over
$700,000.)
Effective management of barrier beaches requires the
coordinated involvement of all levels of government. At the
state level, Executive Order Number 181(1980) established
a framework for the state management of barrier beaches.
This order directs that state acquisition of barrier beaches be
made a priority. It also assigns the highest priority for use of
disaster assistance funds to relocate willing sellers away from
storm damaged barrier beach areas. In addition, both state
and federal monies for construction projects cannot be used
to encourage new growth and development on barrier
beaches. These economic policies recognize barrier beaches
as hazard-prone areas where future storm damage will
inevitably occur.
Local governments also play a key role in barrier beach
management. Since municipal commissions, committees,
and boards routinely review proposals for construction
activities on barrier beaches, a large responsibility resides
with local officials to ensure that proposed activities reflect
both the natural and economic hazards and the environmental
sensitivity characteristic of barrier beaches. The
Massachusetts Barrier Beach Task Force strongly encourages
municipalities to develop management plans for locally-
owned barrier beach areas to promote their appropriate use
and protection.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Planning Boards and Conservation Commissions would
generally be responsible for this action, with input and
assistance from other local authorities - Selectmen, Boards
of Health, Boards of Appeal, Harbor and Recreation
Committees - that also play a role in effecting land use
policies and practices in locally-owned barrier beaches areas.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Development of a local Barrier Beach Management Plan
should be an open, interactive process that invites the
participation of diverse sectors of the community. In addition
to the above boards, the process should involve
representatives of beach user groups, affected property
owners and businesses, Regional Planning Agencies, and
state environmental agencies - most notably CZM, DEP, and
DEM. The latter agencies share much of the responsibility
for monitoring and protecting barrier beaches at the state
level, and offer trained staff to advise and assist communities
on barrier beach-related matters. To assist in this effort, the
Massachusetts Barrier Beach Task Force has published
working guidelines (see Guidelines for Barrier Beach
Management in Massachusetts, February 1994) that are
directed to those with stewardship responsibility for the 681
barrier beaches in the Commonwealth. These guidelines
prescribe a series of recommended performance standards
V-35
-------
and management measures ("test management practices") for
a broad range of land and water use activities on and around
barrier beaches. Such activities include:
• Construction of buildings and facilities;
• Pedestrian uses (hiking, hunting, fishing and shellfishing,
etc.);
• Watercraft and off-road vehicle use;
• Erosion control and beach restoration;
• Beach cleaning;
•Nuisance control (mosquitos, greenhead flies, exotic
plants); and
• Wildlife conservation and management.
In developing a local Barrier Beach Management Plan,
communities should carefully consult the above referenced
guidelines and contact CZM for assistance. CZM has readily
available maps which identify and delineate each barrier
beach in the Commonwealth (see Coastal Zone Management
Barrier Beach Inventory Project, December 1982).
In the instances where barrier beaches cross political or
jurisdictional boundaries, a regional approach should be
followed in drafting Barrier Beach Management Plans.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
Preparation of a local Barrier Beach Management Plan will
not require new legislation. However, implementation of the
plan will likely require some legislative changes locally,
including amendments to the building code and new or
revised land and water use policies and regulations.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Local revenues, including the general fund, a dedicated
enterprise fund, beach parking and user permit fees, and non-
criminal ticket fees (for violations of beach bylaws or
regulations).
TARGET DATE:
1999. A local Barrier Beach Management Plan should be
an integral part of the community's overall planning program
and may require several years or more to complete.
(Implementation of the plan is, or course, an ongoing
process). Accordingly, communities should begin the Barrier
Beach Management Planning process as soon as possible.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Coastal Zone Management Office
(617)727-9530
DEM Division of Forests & Parks
(617)727-3180
DEP Division of Wetlands & Waterways
(617) 292-5695
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost of preparing a local Barrier Beach Management
Plan can vary, depending on the plan's level of detail and the
community's reliance on paid consultants. If the bulk of the
work is performed by local volunteers, as is recommended,
costs should be modest ($2,500-5,000). A broad range of
technical assistance is available from CZM, DEP, DEM, and
the Regional Planning Agencies.
V-36
-------
MUNICIPAL ACTION #3»<5t
>
Municipalities should employ M-time, professionally-trained conservation staff to
provide ongoing technical and administrative support to the local Conservation
Commissions.
RATIONALE:
Among their many other responsibilities, including open
space planning and protection, local Conservation
Commissions represent the first line of defense in
implementing the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA). The
WPA and its associated regulations are lengthy and complex,
and cover a number of areas in which technical
interpretations and professional judgement are required.
Under the WPA, Commission authority extends to the review
of projects on land under the ocean, land under salt ponds,
fish runs, and land containing shellfish. Properly exercised,
this authority can be used to protect valuable marine habitats
- such as DMF-designated shellfish growing areas, town-
designated resources areas, Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACECs), fish runs, and eelgrass beds — by
prohibiting or limiting the number of new docks, piers, and
their associated dredging activities or by mitigating the
impacts of approved projects.
Unfortunately, not all Conservation Commissions are
equipped to fully exercise this authority. The formal training
of Commission numbers is not compulsory and the turnover
rate of Commissioners is often high, so few members have
developed the technical skills or comprehensive
understanding of the regulations necessary to ensure their
effective administratioa The ongoing review of subdivision
and site plans, the identification and mapping of wetlands
boundaries, the development of performance standards, and
the writing and enforcement of Orders of Conditions all
require technical capabilities and an investment of time that
are generally not available through an all-volunteer board or
pan-time conservation agent Accordingly, Conservation
Commissions should hire full-time professionally-trained
staff (for example, an environmental engineer or wetlands
scientist) who can devote full attention to carrying out the
Commissions' multiple resource protection responsibilities.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The Conservation Commission, supported by other municipal
boards, would have primary responsibility for this action.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The Conservation Commission, in consultation with the
community's finance board and chief governing body, would
request approval of an expanded annual operating budget to
accommodate the new staff position(s). Approval will be by
either town meeting or city council vote, depending on the
local government structure.
The Massachusetts Association of Conservation
Commissions and the Massachusetts Municipal Association
can offer guidance in developing job descriptions and
advertising the new positian(s) to attract qualified candidates.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost associated with hiring a full-time conservation
administrator/agent is $35,000 - $40,000 per year, including
benefits, overhead, professional membership fees, travel, and
other expenses.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Local revenues and filing fees from wetlands applications.
TARGET DATE:
1996/1997.
FURTHER INFORMATION
For further information and assistance, contact:
Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions
(617)489-3930
Massachusetts Municipal Association
(617) 426-7272
V-37
-------
V-38
-------
DEM ACTION
The Department of Environmental Management should develop and implement Resource
Management Plans for all DBM-owned coastal properties. :
RATIONALE:
DEM is one of the largest landowners of coastal property in
Massachusetts, with coastal frontage totaling more than 32
miles. Many of these properties include fragile barrier
beaches, salt marshes, and other sensitive land and water
resources. Together they provide outstanding habitat for a
wide variety of plant and animal species, including a number
of rare and endangered species. Most of these resource areas
are also highly desirable recreation sites, attracting thousands
of visitors each year to fish, swim, and stroll along the water's
edge. The Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism
reports that coastal areas are the fastest growing tourist areas
in the state, growing at a rate of 13% per year. The varied,
and sometimes conflicting, demands that are placed on these
areas require that DEM and other coastal landowners
develop Resource Management Plans that will promote a
proper balance between recreational use and the long-term
protection of natural resources for future generations.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
OEM's Division of Forests and Parks and Division of
Resource Conservation will share responsibility for this
action.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The DEM staff is currently working to develop a barrier
beach management plan that will address general
management issues for DEM'S beach properties. This
general plan will be followed by specific management
guidelines and plans for each of DEM'S barrier beaches and
other coastal properties.
Within the Massachusetts Bays region, property-specific
management plans will be prepared for the following DEM
coastal properties:
DEM Owned and/or Operated Coastal Properties
Salisbury Beach State Reservation - Salisbury
Plum Island (North End) - Newburyport
Sandy Point State Reservation - Ipswich
Halibut Point State Park - Rockport
Boston Harbor Islands State Park - Boston
• Gallops Island
• Great Brewster Island
• Bumpkin Island
• Grape Island
Webb Memorial State Park - Weymouth
EUisville Harbor State Park - Plymouth
Scusset Beach State Reservation - Sandwich
Nickerson State Forest Park - Brewster
Cape Cod Bay Property
The plans are expected to follow a standard format consisting
of the following:
• plan cover with photo of subject property,
• table of contents and introduction, including appropriate
citations - e.g., Barrier Beach Executive Order, Wetlands
Protection Act (Coastal Preamble), applicable DEM
regulations;
• regional locus map and property map
(topographic, GIS, or hand drawn by staff);
• property description - location, size, access, key physical
and ecological attributes, public use, staffing;
• vehicular use;
• management guidelines and specifications (e.g., NHESP
nationally accepted guidelines for managing plovers and
terns, specifications for modular boardwalks, etc.);
• copies of information signs installed seasonally at access
areas; and
• other attachments as needed, such as DEM'S off-road
vehicle (ORV) regulations.
In preparing the plans, DEM will consult with and seek
approval (as warranted) from local Conservation
Commissions, CZM and DEP regional offices, DFWELE's
Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, and
others as appropriate.
V-39
-------
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost of developing the DEM-owned coastal property
management plans is expected to be borne by DEM using
existing DEM planning and field staff.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Proposed Open Space Bond.
TARGET DATE:
1996/1997
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DEM Office of Natural Resources
(617)727-3160
V-40
-------
DEM ACTION
The Department of Bavfronmental Management staid develop and promote the use of
river basin planning1 reports to facilitate responsible water resources planning and
management at the local and regional levels. : - ;'
RATIONALE:
River basin planning reports are intended to provide a
technical reference point for responsible water resources
planning management, and decision-making at the local and
watershed levels. They provide the basic data and analyses
needed to: 1) identify potential water resource management
problems; 2) resolve outstanding issues of resource use and
protection; and 3) develop and implement recommendations
for community and regional water supplies and demand
management activities.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, with
management, planning, and engineering assistance from
OEM's Office of Water Resources, will be responsible for
this action. Input will be sought from the DEP Offices of
Water Supply and Watershed Management, the Department
of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement,
municipal water managers, local and regional planners,
citizen groups, and other agencies and individuals as
appropriate.
and the watershed approach, and to facilitate responsible
water resources planning and management at both the local
and regional (i.e., watershed) levels.
EOEA BASIN SCHEDULE
(Massachusetts Bays River Basins)
Basin Assessment Planning Implementation
Nashua
Merrimack
Boston Harbor
Cape Cod
Parker
Ipswich
Shawsheen
Concord
South Coastal
Charles
North Coastal
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1996
19%
1997
1997
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
19%
19%
1997
1997
1998
1998
1995
19%
19%
19%
19%
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
DEM's Office of Water Resources will prepare sections of
the EOEA river basin reports dealing with basin and
subbasin characteristics, including surface water and ground
water hydrology, water supply sources and yields, current and
projected community population, water use, and water
conservation status. The plans will be developed on the
schedule approved by EOEA (see chart) and updated every
five years.
In addition, the Office of Water Resources will prepare water
resources reports to inventory and assess other aspects of
basin water resources and will work with communities, other
state agencies, and local groups to develop specific action
plans. For example, options can be developed for a
community seeking to construct a new public water supply
well in an ecologically-sensitive area and may need guidance
on alternative approaches. DEM reports will be distributed
among governmental, regional planning, and environmental
advocacy groups to promote broad awareness of water issues
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
Preparation of these planning reports does not require new
legislation. However, the Water Resources Planning Task
Force is in the process of updating the Massachusetts Water
Supply Policy Statement which was last revised in 1984.
This policy emphasizes the need for long-range statewide
planning as mandated by 313 CMR 2.00, and adopts supply
and demand management policies in a balanced approach
aimed at:
• providing for multiple uses;
• protecting water quality;
• assuring availability for consumptive and non-
consumptive needs; and
• supporting local and regional capabilities to plan,
construct, manage, and protect water supplies.
V-41
-------
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost of preparing these reports will vary, depending on
the size and development of a basin and complexity of water-
related issues.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Massachusetts Water Resources Commissioa
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DEM Office of Water Resources
(617) 727-3267
TARGET DATE:
The river basin planning reports will be prepared in
accordance with the EOEA basin schedule shown on the
preceding page.
V-42
-------
DEM ACTION #3.9:
The Department of Environmental Management should acquire and restore undeveloped
coastal properties that offer outstanding living resources habitat and public recreation
opportunities. __
RATIONALE:
Only about one quarter of the Massachusetts coastline is in
public ownership. As a result, many of the Commonwealth's
prime coastal resources are vulnerable to degradation. In
addition, only about 10% of the entire coast is truly
accessible to all members of the public. This, combined with
the Colonial Ordinance which limits public use of the
intertidai zone to "fishing, fowling, and navigation," severely
restricts public access to the shore. Protection of the
Commonwealth's remaining unspoiled coastal areas should
be a high priority for OEM's Land Acquisition Program.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
DEM's Land Acquisition Program staff will be responsible
for planning and implementing future coastal acquisitions. In
addition, DEM will be responsible for the Massachusetts
Coastal Access Project, through which DEM will acquire
public easements for pedestrian access across selected
privately-owned intertidai areas along the coast
The restoration of degraded coastal habitat acquired by DEM
will be the joint responsibility of DEM's Waterways Program
staff and Coastal Property Program staff, with assistance from
appropriate federal and state agencies (e.g., EOEA Wetlands
Restoration and Banking Program), and citizen volunteers.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
DEM has completed research to identify significant
unprotected areas of the coast, and will target appropriate
properties for acquisition. In addition, DEM will work to
restore degraded coastal habitat through beach replenishment
and dune stabilization. DEM also is analyzing the privately-
held intertidai zone, and will identify selected areas where
acquisition of right-to-walk easements would provide much-
needed public access to the coast
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required
ESTIMATED COST:
$15 million.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
1987 Open Space Bond Coastal Acquisition Account; 19%
Open Space Bond.
TARGET DATE:
Ongoing as opportunities arise.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DEM Office of Natural Resources
(617)727-3160
DEM Office of Waterways
(617)727-3160
V-43
-------
V-44
-------
DEP RECOMMENDATION #3JO:
The Department of Baviroomenta! Brotection should complete its statewide mventorymg
and mapping of coastal and inland wetlands, and provide local conservation commissions
with: 1) accurate base maps depicting wetland boundaries, and 2) instruction on proper
wetland map interpretation and use. \.
RATIONALE:
Despite the protection offered by the state Wetlands
Protection Act and its Regulations, coastal and inland
wetlands continue to be destroyed or degraded at an
unacceptable rate. A recent study conducted in southeastern
Massachusetts indicated that, between 1977 and 1986 alone,
over 1,300 acres of freshwater wetlands were lost The
cumulative impacts of many small projects -- development of
homes and businesses, construction of docks and piers,
dredging of boating channels -- are often the most significant
cause of wetlands loss and habitat decline. Contributing to
these losses is the uneven administration and enforcement of
wetlands regulations at the local level. This stems in part
from a lack of reliable local wetlands information, especially
wetland maps which accurately depict wetland boundaries.
All too often, Conservation Commissions and other town
boards must rely on wetland maps that are either sorely out-
of-date or are produced at a scale inappropriate for site-level
planning and decision-making. There is an urgent need for
more current and consistent wetland maps that can be used
both locally and regionally to identify and protect wetlands.
At the same time, there is an urgent need for direct technical
assistance to the local boards to ensure that they are properly
interpreting and using the maps.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The DEP Wetlands Conservancy Program (WCP) staff will
be responsible for this action.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Funding permitting, the WCP staff will complete the
inventorying and mapping of the Commonwealth's coastal
and inland wetlands using recent aerial photography and
photo interpretation. These updated wetlands maps will be
used by state personnel to increase understanding of the
extent and condition of the state's wetlands, and to improve
coordination among DEP's regulatory programs which deal
with wetlands and water quality issues. Equally important,
the maps will serve as a new and valuable planning and
management tool
for local Conservation Commissions and Planning Boards,
regional planning agencies, watershed associations and land
trusts, and private land owners.
The photos to be used in the mapping process are color
infrared (CIR) aerial photos at the 1 "=1,000' scale. These
photos will be viewed, in stereo, by experienced interpreters
from the Wetlands Mapping Unit at the University of
Massachusetts. Wetlands will be delineated to a minimum
size of one-quarter acre. Currently, the WCP has completed
wetlands photo interpretation for over 40% of the state.
The base maps upon which the wetland delineations will be
displayed are extremely accurate orthophoto maps at the
1 "=417' scale. Because these maps are photo-based, they
will show all the features of both the natural and human-made
landscape. At this time, approximately 20% of the
Commonwealth is covered by this type of base map.
Statewide coverage is expected to be completed over the next
several years.
As the wetland maps are produced, the DEP Wetlands
Conservancy Program staff will present one set of maps, free
of charge, to each community's Conservation Commission.
The WCP will notify Conservation Commissions of the
availability of the maps and will provide instruction on their
proper interpretation and use. Additional copies of both the
maps and the color infrared aerial photos will be available to
other town boards and organizations at the cost of
reproduction.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required
ESTIMATED COST:
One set of orthophoto wetlands maps will be given free of
charge to each Conservation Commission. Additional maps
will be available at a cost of $ 10 per map. (On average, 5-7
maps will be required for complete coverage of a
community.)
V-45
-------
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s): Portions of North Shore (Ipswich, Rowley, and Parker
River Watersheds)
1996 Open Space Bond City of Cambridge Water Supply Watershed Area
Fort Devens Area
Merrimack Valley
TARGET DATE:
Funding permitting, the orthophoto wetlands maps for the
following regions are projected to be available by the end of FURTHER INFORMATION:
1996:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DEP Division of Wetlands and Waterways
Metro/Suburban Boston (Wetlands Conservancy Program)
Buzzards Bay (West Shore) (617) 292-5907
MDC Watersheds (Sudbury, Quabbin, Wachusett) •M^MBMBH^^HMM^HBH^MI^HH
V-46
-------
DFWELE ACTION #34lJ
The DF WELB Division of Marine Fisheries should prepare an up-to-date inventory of
anadromous fish runs in the Massachusetts Bays region and develop a strategy to
prioritize, restore, and maintain these runs,
RATIONALE:
The Division of Marine Fisheries last surveyed the
Commonwealth's anadromous fish runs in 1968-1970. A
report on this survey, published in 1972, described individual
coastal streams and their headwaters; identified obstructions
to fish passage; assessed the condition of passage facilities;
calculated the size of spawning areas; and developed a
priority list for restoration. In the 25 years since this survey
was conducted, many changes have occurred. New fishways
were constructed while others have deteriorated; populations
of anadromous fish were re-established while others have
declined; and the character of many streams has changed due
to agricultural, commercial, and residential development hi
order to successfully manage the Commonwealth's
anadromous fish resources, it is necessary to prepare an up-
to-date inventory of anadromous fish runs. This inventory
would serve as the basis for establishing a prioritized
schedule for fish run restoration and maintenance.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
DMF is ultimately responsible for managing the
Commonwealth's anadromous fish resources, although the
authority to regulate individual fisheries can be assumed by
municipalities under Section 94 of Chapter 130 of the
Massachusetts General Laws. With 64 coastal streams
within the Massachusetts Bays region, preparation of an
updated Bays-wide inventory is a labor-intensive proposition
that will require additional staff support, at least on a
seasonal basis. The responsibility for restoration strategy
development, and the actual restoration and maintenance of
fish runs, can be delegated in part to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service by utilizing their fishway design capabilities
and to municipalities through Section 94. In addition, DMFs
evolving Fishway Stewardship Program (see DFWELE
Action #2) is expected to provide a volunteer labor force to
aid in cleaning, mamtammg_ and regulating fishways over the
long term.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
DMF will conduct a survey of the 64 coastal streams in the
Massachusetts Bays region to determine their present
condition and development potential as anadromous fish
runs. Basic water quality parameters will be measured for
each stream, obstructions to fish passage will be noted, and
the condition of existing fishways will be evaluated. The
survey will be conducted during the period March 15 - May
IS in order to better confirm the presence or absence of
anadromous fish species. DMF will use the 1972 survey
report as a guide for designing the new survey, and will
present the results in a similar format
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
The estimated cost of this action is $7,500, as follows:
Salaries
Transportation
Equipment
$6,500
500
500
Total $7,500
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Federal Wallop-Breaux Funds
TARGET DATE:
1997/1998
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DFWELE Division of Marine Fisheries
(617)727-3193
V-47
-------
V-48
-------
DFWELE ACTION #342:
The DFWELE Division of Marine Fisheries, in collaboration with the Riverways
Program, should develop and implement a citizen-based Pishway Stewardship Program
to restore and maintain anadromous fish runs along the Massachusetts Bays coast
RATIONALE:
Massachusetts coastal streams contain over 200 constructed
fishways. These structures allow the passage of a variety of
freshwater and anadromous species, although they are
primarily intended for use by river herring. DMF, acting
under the authority granted by Section 19 of Chapter 130 of
the General Laws, has the statutory responsibility to ensure
that these structures are in place and functioning properly.
After a half-century of continuous fishway construction, most
spawning areas of significant size have again been made
accessible, and the emphasis is now shifting to ongoing
maintenance and repair.
With so many fishways in the Commonwealth, it is
impossible for DMF's three-person construction crew to
provide the annual attention needed to maintain optimum
efficiency of passageways. The problem is exacerbated by
the seasonality of the work and the conflicting demands
placed on the crew's time by the added responsibilities of
shad and alewife stocking.
In the early 1970's, DMF encouraged local control of alewife
fisheries to shift some of the burden of fishways management
to town government, while still retaining a degree of
oversight In some cases (usually towns with highly visible,
income-producing fish runs), this has worked well. Under
the leadership of the local herring warden or his/her
counterpart, cleanup and repair of fishways are underway.
Many other towns, however, have failed to react to the
deterioration of their fishways. This failure is due largely to
changing administrations, loss of individuals knowledgeable
about alewife requirements, and the lack of financial
resources during the current economic downturn. In a
surprising number of instances, local officials are completely
unaware that they have been granted control. The net result
is that, while DMF can point to a few spectacularly
successful runs, many of the smaller runs which cumulatively
may contribute more to the total Massachusetts anadromous
fish population are diminishing.
To remedy this problem, DMF, in collaboration with the
Riverways Program, has initiated a program of ongoing
citizen participation in fishways maintenance and repair.
This program, called the Fishway Stewardship Program,
seeks to enlist the existing broad base of volunteer support
established under the "Adopt-a-Stream" program to help
DMF's staff improve and maintain the quality of local fish
runs along the coast
The Fishway Stewardship Program has the potential to
provide the Commonwealth with an effective and economical
means of upgrading and maintaining a large portion of its
fishways. At the very least, it will provide a much needed
watchdog task force to oversee the fish runs and detect
problems which DMF can then respond to in a more timely
fashion than was possible in the past
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The Division of Marine Fisheries and the Riverways Program
will share responsibility for implementing this action.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
With the basic structure and operating procedures of the
program now in place, the Riverways Program, with its
already well-established network of Adopt-a-Stream
volunteer organizations, is ready to take the lead in promoting
the concept
Riverways and DMF have prepared materials for distribution
to groups that want to "adopt" fishways and become long
term stewards of anadromous fish runs. Letters of agreement,
to be signed by DMF and the volunteer organizations, will
describe in detail the tasks to be delegated. DMF will
provide onsite instruction and make regular inspections to
assess the progress of the work and to correct any problems.
In the case of locally controlled fisheries, all work will be
cleared through the appropriate town officials. Participants
will not be allowed to regulate water flow in public water
supplies or water bodies used for agricultural purposes
without prior consent of the user. Since local groups will be
assigned to individual fishways, management plans specific
to the needs of each fishway will be developed
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
V-49
-------
ESTIMATED COST: ««^—^—^^-^——^—^
FURTHER INFORMATION
The cost of this program is expected to be negligible as the
work will be performed by volunteers. Any incidental costs, For further information and assistance contact:
such as for fishway replacement materials, will be borne by
DMF, the towns, or affected landowners. DFWELE Division of Marine Fisheries (Sandwich Office)
(508)888-1155
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: DFWELE Riverways Program
(617)727-1614
Not applicable ^H^^^^H^^^H^^HH^^HMB||^^H^HBH^H||B
TARGET DATE:
Several small-scale pilot projects have been underway since
1993, but the full-fledged, formalized program did not begin
until 1995. The program will be developed further during
19%, at which time implementation will begin and will be an
ongoing proposition.
V-50
-------
EOEA ACTION #3,13:
The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs should continue its innovative Wetlands
Restoration and Banking Program to restore and protect degraded coastal and inland
wetlands. %
RATIONALE:
Wetlands provide numerous environmental and economic
benefits to Massachusetts. Wetlands help to control flooding,
protect the shoreline from storm damage, purify water
supplies by filtering out pollutants and sediment, and provide
recreational and educational opportunities, hi addition,
wetlands provide habitat that is essential for commercial fish
and shellfish, as well as rare and endangered species. When
wetlands are lost, many of these important functions must be
provided by manirniHe facilities, such as wastewater
treatment plants, dams, and shoreline protection structures.
These facilities are expensive and often fail to replicate the
natural wetland functions.
According to recent EOEA estimates, Massachusetts has lost
more than 28 percent of its valuable wetlands acreage since
Colonial times. In addition, because the state is densely
developed, much of the remaining 600,000 acres is
moderately or highly degraded Although Massachusetts has
been committed to wetlands protection for decades and has
maintained a policy since the early 1990s of "no net loss in
the short term, and a net gain in the long term," previous
losses, current illegal filling, and continued degradation of
wetlands all point to the need for an innovative and ambitious
wetlands restoration program statewide.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
m June of 1994, U.S. Congressman Gerry Studds, Secretary
of Environmental Affairs Trudy Coxe, and other federal and
state agency representatives signed a Resolution to Restore
Massachusetts Wetlands. In signing the Resolution,
Massachusetts launched a partnership with a host of federal
agencies to restore lost and degraded wetlands throughout the
state. Included in this partnership are representatives of the
Federal Partners of Coastal America, whose purpose is to
protect, preserve, and restore the nation's coastal systems by
integrating appropriate federal programs and cooperating
with state, local, and non-governmental efforts. Federal
agencies belonging to the Coastal America partnership
include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Departments of
Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Transportation. These
agencies will participate in a coordinated approach to
restoring Massachusetts' wetlands that have been filled,
drained, and polluted.
The Resolution calls for extensive scientific and citizen
advisory committee input to develop a watershed-based
wetlands restoration plan. This plan will outline how the
cooperating agencies will work closely with communities to:
set priorities for wetlands restoration; increase public
awareness and support for restoration projects; undertake and
complete restoration projects; and monitor these projects to
ensure that program goals are met.
As stated by Representative Studds, "this effort represents a
level of governmental cooperation that is unprecedented."
The Resolution to Restore Massachusetts Wetlands
establishes a partnership of not only the federal and state
agencies that signed the Resolution, but other parties who
wish to contribute to wetlands restoration. Partners will play
a variety of roles in wetlands restoration, from funding
studies to volunteering to plant marsh grass.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Under this Resolution, EOEA's Wetlands Restoration and
Banking Program (WRBP) will initiate and coordinate the
restoration of drained, filled, and polluted wetlands statewide.
Many restoration projects are expected to result from the
restoration plans developed under the Department of
Environmental Protection Office of Watershed Management
(OWM). OWM will use Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) and field data, watershed by watershed, to: 1) evaluate
water resources information; 2) consolidate and target
permitting, enforcement, compliance, technical assistance,
and grant programs; and 3) help communities develop
wetland resource management strategies. Through this
approach, OWM will directly involve communities in water
resources decision making, such as choosing appropriate
wetland restoration sites.
Unlike wetlands creation and restoration required under
permits to compensate for wetlands destruction caused by
construction and other activities, WRBP restoration projects
may be initiated by project sponsors who simply want to
restore Massachusetts' wetland heritage, solve community
water quality and flooding problems, or restore wildlife
habitat Restoration project sponsors may be public agencies
V-51
-------
(including Conservation Commissions), non-profit
organizations, fanners, businesses, or other private
landowners.
WRBP will work in partnership with communities, financial
supporters, landowners, and project sponsors by:
• developing inventories of wetlands restoration sites,
watershed by watershed;
• identifying and supporting project sponsors;
• helping sponsors establish clear goals for restoration
projects;
• establishing scientific criteria and providing technical
assistance;
• coordinating project funding;
• coordinating with other agencies;
• facilitating restoration work;
• evaluating and reporting project and program successes;
• maintaining a data base of restored wetlands; and
• ensuring that proposed restoration projects comply with
state and federal wetlands laws.
As a parallel and complementary effort, WRBP will study the
concept of wetlands "banking" as a means of improving the
success of wetlands mitigation associated with unavoidable
permitted wetlands loss and wetlands violations. A public
advisory committee will be convened and broad public input
will be sought before final decisions are made.
The Water Resources Commission has established a policy
that: 1) mitigation banking shall be utilized to compensate
for project impacts only when wetland impacts are
unavoidable - that is, all measures have been taken to avoid
and minimize such impacts or loss BEFORE mitigation of
any kind is considered; and 2) wetlands banks shall not be
viewed as an opportunity to propose wetlands fill or increase
the amount of proposed fill for any project.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
The costs of implementing this multi-year program are as yet
undetermined, but are expected to be in the millions of
dollars. Program costs support the following components:
• WRBP general operations (staff, travel, equipment, etc.);
• wetlands watershed restoration planning (data gathering,
data analysis, public outreach);
wetlands restoration projects (site assessment, project
design, construction, monitoring);
research; and
program tracking and monitoring.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
The overall program will rely on a complex support network.
At this time, funding for WRBP operations comes from the
state operating budget, the state capital budget, and from
federal grants. Funding for inventories, projects, and
monitoring is expected to come from a variety of public and
private sources, such as:
Partners For Wildlife - USFWS;
S.22 Planning Assistance to States - ACOE;
Floodplain Management Studies - ACOE;
MARSH Program - Ducks Unlimited;
319 Nonpoint Source Competitive Grants - DEP/EPA;
104(b)(3) Wetlands Grants - EPA/DEP;
104(b)(3) Stormwater Grants - EPA/DEP;
Massachusetts Environmental Trust;
ISTEA-FHA/MHD;
National Fish & Wildlife Foundation Grants; and
Open Space Bond
TARGET DATE:
Wetlands restoration is an ongoing, long term effort
Developing detailed wetlands inventories for each watershed
will take several years. WRBP will rely on those inventories
to prioritize and select future projects. However, the
important work of restoring the Commonwealth's wetlands
resources cannot wait for completion of the inventories.
Work on several restoration projects is already underway and
WRBP is seeking additional restoration projects and project
sponsors. The success of WRBP's wetlands restoration
efforts will depend on an active and involved citizenry.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
EOEA Wetlands Restoration & Banking Program
(617)727-9800x213
V-52
-------
EPA/NMFS/ACOE ACTION #3.14:
The Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Army
Corps of Engineers should continue and expand their current efforts to support eelgrass
habitat protection and restoration in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. , _^
RATIONALE:
Eelgrass (Zostera marina L) is a submerged, narrow-bladed,
grass-like plant which typically grows in the shallow, less
disturbed waters of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. This
plant performs many important functions in the estuarine
ecosystem. It is usually found in "beds," distinct ecosystems
which provide breeding and nursery habitat for many finfish
species, as well as for shellfish and crustaceans. It also is a
food source for numerous species of wading birds and
migratory waterfowl In addition, eelgrass beds serve to both
stabilize coastal sediments and filter suspended particulates
and nutrients from surrounding waters. Finally, decaying
eelgrass supplies significant quantities of organic material to
the oceanic food chain.
These varied and important functions create significant
economic value for the recreational and commercial fishing
industries, the recreational hunting industry, and the tourism
and service industries which support these activities.
Further, due to its sensitivity to changes in water quality,
eelgrass is an important indicator of the overall health of the
estuarine ecosystem.
Research has identified four major factors affecting the health
and expansion potential of eelgrass beds:
1) General water qualify degradation; reduced water
clarity, in particular. As water clarity is reduced, the
depth to which light sufficient for eelgrass growth can
penetrate is also reduced Wastewater disposal,
discharge of stormwater runoff, and faulty septic systems
all can contribute to reduced water clarity,
2) Elimination of suitable habitat. Dredging, filling, and
pier construction are examples of activities that can
reduce or eliminate shallow water areas where eelgrass
thrives;
3) Conflicts with fishing and boating activities. Propeller
wash and fishing gear can uproot large areas of eelgrass;
areas frequently exposed to this type of activity typically
display non-vegetated bottom sediments; and
4) "Wasting" disease. This disease has been implicated in
widespread eelgrass die-offs. However, neither the exact
cause of the disease nor the conditions which trigger its
outbreaks have been conclusively determined.
Given the obvious importance of these habitats to the
economic and environmental health of the estuarine eco-
system, as well as the significance of the impacts to these
habitats, it is important for all involved parties to support,
enhance, and expand their protection, management, and
restoration activities.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The EPA, NMFS, and ACOE will continue to be the major
responsible parties for these efforts, with support from other
federal agencies (such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service),
state agencies, municipalities, research institutions, and
nonprofit organizations.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
For several years, EPA and NMFS have convened an annual
technology transfer meeting for eelgrass researchers and
regulators in New England, including those working within
the Massachusetts Bays region. These two agencies will
continue this effort, as it provides significant opportunities for
the exchange of technical information, research results, and
other pertinent data among the responsible agents. Further,
EPA and NMFS, along with ACOE, will seek to capitalize on
other opportunities to restore, protect, or manage eelgrass
habitat, within their existing operating budgets.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
None.
ESTIMATED COST:
Minimal. The annual technology transfer meeting is covered
by the current operating budgets of the participating
organizations; in addition, the recommendation for any future
action includes the stipulation that such action would occur
within these current budgets.
V-53
-------
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
Agency and organization operating budgets, as previously
noted, as well as contributions of cash and in-kind services
from these participants.
TARGET DATE:
Ongoing.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Environmental Protection Agency
(617) 565-3533
National Marine Fisheries Service
(508) 281-9204
Army Corps of Engineers
(617)647-8231
V-54
-------
chapter V
Reducing and
Preventing
Stormwater
Pollution
-------
ACTION PLAN #4
REDUCING AND PREVENTING STORMWATER POLLUTION
Precipitation that falls on land either percolates into the
ground or drains into streams, rivers, and, eventually, the sea.
Although precipitation is often considered to be generally
free of contaminants as it falls, in fact it can pick up a variety
of contaminants from the air. As it pools on the ground and
flows over the land, it picks up many more. Before reaching
the sea, stonnwater travels over countless streets, parking
lots, lawns, golf courses, and farms. As it goes, it washes
sediments, pathogens, nutrients, toxic metals, pesticides, and
other organic compounds off the land, and eventually, into
coastal waters.
In order to drain roadways efficiently and to eliminate or
reduce local flooding, most urban and suburban areas are
serviced by stonnwater collection systems. These systems
direct excess water through stonnwater drains which connect
to basins, ditches, or pipes. These, in turn, leach the runoff
into the groundwater or divert it directly into a nearby surface
waterbody. Of course, as it flows to the storm drains, the
runoff collects debris, sediment, animal wastes, toxics, oil,
and just about everything else that accumulates on city
streets. If the collection system diverts the runoff into a
coastal tributary, these contaminants will eventually reach,
and degrade, nearshore waters.
In older urban areas, storm drains may lead to combined
sewers which carry both stonnwater runoff and municipal
wastewater. During periods of wet weather, excessive
stonnwater can quickly overwhelm the combined sewer
system's limited flow capacity. When this happens, the
combined sewers overflow and discharge untreated sewage
and stonnwater directly into receiving waters. The sewage
component of the overflow typically carries extremely high
levels of pathogens and other wastewater contaminants.
Rural runoff also can contribute to water quality problems in
the coastal zone. In areas that are not serviced by stonnwater
collection systems, most stonnwater percolates into the soil
and groundwater, where it is gradually released to rivers,
wetlands, estuaries, and other surface water bodies. A
portion of stonnwater (up to 40 percent) can flow as uncon-
solidated sheets directly into surface waterbodies. Although
sheet flow generally moves more slowly, and therefore
carries less debris than urban runoff, it does cany away
pathogens, nutrients, and some sediments. In agricultural
areas, it picks up toxics used in pesticides and herbicides, and
in the same way, it washes fertilizer from suburban lawns and
golf courses.
Development generally exacerbates stonnwater impacts. By
increasing the percentage of land that is paved or otherwise
covered with impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots,
rooftops, and driveways, development reduces percolation,
and increases both the volume and velocity of stonnwater
runoff. As stonnwater flows increase, so too do the total
contaminant loads reaching coastal waters and wetlands.
Historically, the institutional and statutory framework for
regulating stonnwater runoff has not been cohesive. Amend-
ments to the Federal Clean Water Act of 1987 updated and
revised the municipal and industrial stonnwater discharge
permit program, administered by EPA. This program (the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or
NPDES) applies to stonnwater discharges from both large
municipalities (population greater than 100,000) and to
numerous types of industrial land uses. Given the sheer
number of potential permits in this latter category, EPA
actions have largely focused, and will continue to focus, on
discharges of major environmental impact or those located in
high priority resource areas. Additional efforts include
general permits for industrial land uses.
Nevertheless, this picture has been changing in a positive
way in recent years with the development of two strong and
complementary nonpoint source pollution initiatives by the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office (CZM) and
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP). These two state agencies share responsibility for
developing and implementing the state's Coastal Nonpoint
Program. They have worked closely with other state agen-
cies, local officials, Regional Planning Agencies, non-profit
organisations, and wide range of industry groups and affected
individuals to develop a comprehensive and effective coastal
nonpoint program. CZM has assumed the lead for develop-
ing this program and its associated action plan (Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Plan, or CNPCP) with support
and coordination from DEP. The CNPCP contains compre-
hensive descriptions and explanations of the various federal
V-55
-------
requirements mandated under s.6217 of the 1990 Coastal
Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments. It also describes the
specific strategies Massachusetts has developed to implement
effective, enforceable stormwater and other nonpoint source
(NFS) controls, as well as preventive planning. In support of
these control and planning efforts, CZM is developing a
technical guidance document, The NFS Control Manual:
Guidance for Local Officials, Planners, and Managers to
Aid in Implementation ofs.6217Management Measures.
Paralleling this effort, DEP, with assistance and coordination
from CZM, has developed a comprehensive stormwater
control strategy (the "Stormwater Initiative") to regulate
stormwater discharges through existing environmental
programs. For example, through its Office of Watershed
Management (OWM), DEP will focus on enforcing storm-
water discharges that require federal NPDES permits, as well
as on conducting assessments and requiring remediation of
other significant existing discharges. DEP also is drafting a
series of stormwater management performance standards
which will be implemented through the regulatory review and
permitting processes of the Wetlands Protection Act and the
s.401 Water Quality Certification Program. In support of this
effort, DEP is developing a guidance manual, Urban Best
Management Practices for Massachusetts, to explain these
performance standards and provide technical and regulatory
guidance to the regulated community and local officials.
Locatfy-developed stormwater controls can complement
these stormwater regulations and prescribed performance
standards originating at higher levels of government Within
well-established municipal authority, there are numerous
methods to control water pollution associated with new
development One of the most effective methods of mitigat-
ing the impact of stormwater is through the adoption of
regulations or bylaws designed to limit the loadings of
bacteria, nutrients, and sediments. At the present time, few
communities in the Massachusetts Bays region have adopted
such regulations or bylaws.
A simpler method of controlling stormwater impacts is
through the use of existing regulatory reviews. For example,
under the provisions of the state Wetlands Protection Act
(WPA), any development within or near a wetland must be
reviewed by the local Conservation Commission, hi order to
mitigate the impact of stormwater on a nearby wetland or
waterway, the Commission may condition its permit on
appropriate measures to control both short-term construction
impacts and long-term changes in runoff quantity and
quality. One frequently imposed condition requires that
developers use stormwater retention basins and/or leaching
fields to prevent an increase in the peak runoff rate. Al-
though the Commission's authority to impose such conditions
ends at the limits of the WPA, Planning Board review offers
further opportunities for community input on stormwater
mitigation. Subdivision regulations, for example, may
provide guidelines for removing runoff from roads and paved
areas, although currently these regulations are more often
used to promote drainage efficiency rather than to protect
water quality.
Municipalities can best prevent future stormwater impacts by
implementing "best management practices" (BMPs) at the
local level. Accepted BMPs include:
• infiltration devices to increase the percolation of storm-
water into soil and thus decrease runoff volume. These
devises may include porous pavement, soak-away pits or
dry wells, infiltration trenches, percolation basins, and
grass swales;
• vet detention basins to detain runoff and allow for
settling of sediments and reduction of nutrients through
biological processes; and
• regular public works cleaning and maintenance to
remove sediment, debris, and associated contaminants
from streets, catch basins, and storm sewers.
Of course, the most effective and most appropriate storm-
water mitigation design will vary with individual site condi-
tions, the type and use of receiving waters, and the cost of
implementatioa
Although local stormwater controls can minimise the impact
of new development, there is really no easy or inexpensive
way to reduce the impact coexisting storm drains and ditches,
which are present in large numbers throughout the Massa-
chusetts Bays region. In some cases, it may be cost-effective
to concentrate mitigation efforts on especially problematic
point sources of stormwater runoff, such as those known to
be impacting shellfish beds. However, such sources consti-
tute only a small part of the total runoff problem, so long-
term solutions will ultimately require broader scale
remediation, sound land use planning, and proactive runoff
control strategies. A collaborative effort between federal,
state, regional, and municipal officials will be required to
successfully address stormwater pollution in the Massachu-
setts Bays region.
The following recommended actions are an important step in
this direction.
V-56
-------
MUNICIPAL ACHON #40:
Municipalities should adopt subdivision regulations that require the incorporation of
stonnwater runoff best management practices (BMPs) into all new development plans.
RATIONALE:
Stonnwater runoff from developed areas and construction
sites is a major source of sediment, nutrients, and bacteria to
Massachusetts Bays, and contributes to the closure of
shellfish harvesting areas and swimming beaches. Over the
past two decades, a number of stonnwater runoff BMPs have
been developed and refined to help mitigate adverse impacts
associated with development activity. BMPs such as porous
pavement for driveways or parking lots, infiltration basins,
constructed wetlands, and grassed swales and filter strips can
attenuate downstream flood flows and control the transport of
pollutants from new development sites. By mandating such
practices as a fundamental component of each subdivision
development plan, communities can minimise further
stonnwater impacts to Massachusetts Bays and its living
resources.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Local Planning Boards will have primary responsibility for
this action, but should solicit the advice and assistance of
other local authorities - Conservation Commissions, town
engineers, DPW or highway departments, Boards of Health —
that are also concerned with stonnwater management
Technical assistance in drafting the regulations is available
from the Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs). In addition,
the DEP Nonpoint Source Program can offer specific
guidance on performance standards. Involvement of these
agencies can help ensure consistency of regulations between
communities which share watersheds or embayments.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Model stonnwater management regulations are available
from a variety of sources, including the RPAs and the DEP
Nonpoint Source Program, and these can serve as useful
guides in developing regulations tailored to local conditions.
Such regulations generally emphasize retention and treatment
of stonnwater on-site via source controls and best
management practices, and contain: 1) minimum design
and/or performance standards to prevent the generation and
transport of stonnwater pollutants off-site; and 2) inspection
and maintenance requirements to ensure the structural
integrity and pollutant removal efficiency of BMPs during
and after construction of a project Because stonnwater often
impairs water resources and habitats shared by multiple
jurisdictions, it is imperative that communities coordinate
their actions to ensure successful implementation at the
natural resource, rather than individual town, level.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
This action requires new or upgraded local stonnwater
management regulations, adopted by Planning Boards as an
addition to their existing subdivision rules and regulations.
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost of developing and adopting the new regulations
should be minimal. Model regulations are available that can
be incorporated either in their present form or with minor
modifications to reflect individual community needs.
Technical assistance in drafting the regulations is available
from the Regional Planning Agencies, DEP Nonpoint Source
Program, and Natural Resources Conservation Service
(formerly Soil Conservation Service) Community Assistance
Unit
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Local revenues
TARGET DATE:
1996/1997. This is a high priority action from a water
quality standpoint, and should be implemented by Planning
Boards as soon as possible to prevent additional discharges
of untreated stormwater runoff from new development sites.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
DEP Nonpoint Source Program
(617)292-5597
Natural Resources Conservation Service
(508)295-1481
V-57
-------
V-58
-------
MUNICIPAL ACTION # 4.2*
Municipalities should implement best management practices to mitigate existing
stonnwater discharges that are causing or contributing to the closure of shellfish
harvesting areas and swimming beaches. '
RATIONALE:
Sanitary surveys conducted by the Division of Marine
Fisheries (DMF), the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), and others have documented the presence
of hundreds of known and suspected stonnwater pollution
sources along the Massachusetts Bays'coast These sources,
including storm sewers and drainage ditches, have been
found to be major contributors of bacteria and other
pollutants to coastal waters, and are a leading cause of
shellfish bed and swimming beach closures. Mitigation of
these sources through the application of appropriate BMPs is
essential to reclaiming and preserving these resources for
present and future use.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Stonnwater mitigation projects can be complicated and
costly, and will generally require the participation and
commitment of property owners and a number of local
authorities, including chief elected officials, public works
officials, harbormasters, shellfish officers, boards of health,
and Conservation Commissions. Representatives of these
groups should take the lead on local stonnwater mitigation
projects through the formation of "Water Quality Task
Forces" or "Coastal Pollution Control Committees."
Technical assistance, including assessment of water quality
data and design of best management practices, is available
from DMF, DEP, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service/MassCAP (formerly Soil Conservation Service), and
Regional Planning Agencies.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Before actual mitigation can begin, the Water Quality Task
Forces will need to inventory, evaluate, and prioritize storm
drain problems based on their effect on critical resources and
the technical feasibility and cost of mitigation. This would
include seeking out and eliminating illegal sewer connections
to storm drains. (The Boston Water and Sewer Commission,
in particular, has been successful in reducing local pollution
problems on beaches by eliminating illegal sewer
connections.) Communities sharing an embayment or
affected resource area should coordinate their efforts to
ensure that the mitigation project will result in the reopening
or substantial improvement of shellfish beds or swimming
beaches.
Following the prioritization of storm drain problems, the
Water Quality Task Forces will need to evaluate the
mitigation options available, then select, design, and
implement BMP(s) appropriate for the conditions at hand.
Throughout this process, DMF and Natural Resources
Conservation Service/MassCAP personnel can work
cooperatively with the municipalities (as they did recently in
assessment projects in Ipswich and Gloucester), providing
technical information and engineering expertise not available
locally. DEP's Nonpoint Source Program staff and CZM*s
Coastal Nonpoint Program staff can provide information on
BMPs and performance standards as well as technical
assistance.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required unless a community seeks to
establish a special stonnwater utility district, in which case
two-thirds majority approval by both houses of the State
Legislature is required.
ESTIMATED COSTS:
Costs for stonnwater treatment faculties (sediment basins,
constructed wetlands, peat-sand filtration systems, etc.) vary
widely, depending on such factors as drainage and
impervious surface area, land use, soils, cost of land rights or
easements, and maintenance requirements. Design and
permitting costs can range from 50% to over 100% of
construction costs. (At the high end of such costs would be
retrofitting of storm drain outlets just above the high tide line,
for example.) Construction costs range from under $10,000
to over $30,000 per impervious acre treated.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
Potential sources of funds include: Section 319 Nonpoint
Source Program grants available from the DEP; State
Revolving Fund (SRF) loans, available from the DEP;
V-59
-------
ISTEA "Enhancement" funds available from the Massachu-
setts Highway Department; Coastal Pollution Remediation
Program (CPR) funds available from CZM; and stonnwater
utility fees. (The latter require prior Legislative approval of
special stonnwater utility districts.)
TARGET DATE:
1996 and as funds permit This is a high priority action from
a water quality standpoint, and should be implemented by
municipalities as scon as possible.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
DEP Nonpoint Source Program
(617) 292-5597
CZM Coastal Nonpoint Program
(617)727-9530
Natural Resources Conservation Service
(508) 295-1481
V-60
-------
DEP ACTION #4.3;
The Department of Environmental Protection, in collaboration with Regional Planning
Agencies, Natural Resources Conservation Service/MassCAP (formerly U.S. Soil
Conservation Service), and Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office, should: 1)
disseminate iteNonpomt Source Management Manual and Urban Best Management
Practices for Massachusetts, and 2) sponsor public workshops to educate local officials
about best management practices and performance standards for controlling stormwater
runoff! ; ^
RATIONALE:
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), through
its Nonpoint Source Program, has produced and distributed
an excellent general guidance document for local officials,
entitled Nonpoint Source Management Manual — A
Guidance Document for Local Officials. A second guidance
document, Urban Best Management Practices for
Massachusetts, is in preparation.
The first of these documents, commonly referred to as the
Megamanual, offers general guidance on the management of
a broad range of diffuse, largely unregulated, nonpoint
sources of pollution, such as stormwater runoff, landfill
leachate, and agricultural runoff. It is intended to provide
local officials with the framework for developing a
community-based Nonpoint Source Management Plan that
is tailored to each community's individual circumstances and
needs. Such a plan can serve as a blueprint for initiating and
directing local actions that will protect and manage water
resources and related land uses. The plan also can be used to
document the need for, and identify sources of, financial,
planning, and technical assistance. The ultimate goal is to
prevent and mitigate nonpoint source pollution, with the
emphasis on prevention. Without exception, pollution
prevention and source reduction have proven to be more
effective and less costly than remedying a problem after the
fact
The second guidance document, Urban Best Management
Practices for Massachusetts, is still in development and will
provide technical details and design recommendations for
acceptable stormwater control practices. It also will provide
performance standards that must be met, including standards
for reducing annual loadings of total suspended solids by 80
percent The guidance will not mandate the implementation
of specific practices, however. All of the performance
standards will be consistent with CZKfs s.6217 management
measure requirements, and the development of the DEP
document is being closely coordinated with CZM and other
agencies.
Broader outreach, including hands-on workshops, is needed
to ensure that both the Megamanual and Urban Best
Management Practices for Massachusetts reach their
intended audience (i.e., Planning Boards, Boards of Health,
Conservation Commissions, Public Works Departments, and
other local stormwater management practitioners), and that
their pollution control recommendations are understood and
implemented.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
DEP's Nonpoint Source Program staff will have primary
responsibility for this action, but should seek the advice and
assistance of the Regional Planning Agencies, Natural
Resources Conservation Service/MassCAP, and CZNTs
Coastal Nonpoint Program.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Under the direction of DEPs Nonpoint Source Program staff,
the above agencies should jointly develop a strategy for
financing and holding a series of regional workshops aimed
at educating local officials about best management practices
(BMPs) and performance standards to control stormwater
runoff and other nonpoint sources of pollution. The
workshops should be specifically targeted to Chief Elected
Officials, Planning Boards, Boards of Health, Conservation
Commissions, Public Works Departments, and other
municipal authorities who play a key role in local pollution
control policies, regulations, and practices. The workshops
should be held at convenient locations and should be
extensively advertised via press releases, direct mailings, and
telephone calls in order to maximize community
participation. The five Local Governance Committees
(LGCs) of the Massachusetts Bays Program should be
explored as a vehicle for co-sponsoring and promoting the
workshops.
V-61
-------
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required
ESTIMATED COST:
$5,000 per regional workshop (includes additional copies of
both the Megamanual and Urban Best Management
Practices for Massachusetts, and handout materials tailored
to individual boards and departments).
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
DEP Nonpoint Source Program; CZM Coastal Nonpoint
Source Program; Massachusetts Highway Department
surface transportation enhancement (ISTEA) funds.
TARGET DATE:
Planning and development of workshops and handout
materials -1996/1997
Publicizing and holding of workshops -1997/1998
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
DEP Nonpoint Source Program
(617)292-5500
CZM Coastal Nonpoint Program
(617)727-9530
Natural Resources Conservation Service
(508)295-1481
V-62
-------
DEP
#4,4:
The Department of Environmental Protection should develop a coordinated and
streamlined regulatory system within DEP to assure effective implementation of the
stormwater components of the Massachusetts Clean Water Act^ Wetlands Protection
Act, and Federal Stonnwater Program (Federal Clean Water Act, Sections 401 and 402).
RATIONALE:
Overlapping regulatory authority on Stonnwater permitting
has given rise to conflicting standards and a confusing,
inefficient bureaucracy. Stonnwater needs to be regulated
with "less process and more protection" so that the DEP can
direct its limited resources where they will be most effective.
Accordingly, DEP's Stonnwater Initiative will implement a
regulatory and outreach program designed to address the
discharge of untreated stormwater runoff by promoting
effective Stonnwater management practices. This program
will simplify the existing system, which is currently
inefficient and confusing for regulated parties and regulators
alike. The goal is a streamlined, enforceable, and predictable
permitting process which will improve water quality and
decrease flooding impacts, leading to both economic and
environmental benefits.
With the assistance of an Advisory Committee, DEP has
drafted proposed stormwater performance standards to
establish uniform criteria for adequate stormwater
management for use as Department-wide guidance. These
standards are intended to be consistent with the Surface
Water Quality Standards, the requirements of the Wetlands
Protection Act, and the regulations to protect drinking water
supplies. The standards establish design criteria that will
require implementation of stormwater management systems
to reduce water quality and flooding impacts.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
DEFs Bureau of Resource Protection (BRP), assisted by an
Advisory Committee, will be responsible for this action.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The DEP Advisory Committee has reviewed the agency's
existing organizational responsibilities, policies, and
standards relative to stormwater pollution control, and has
recommended improvements that will lead to a more
coordinated and streamlined regulatory system within the
Department Initiatives to be undertaken tentatively include
the following:
• Development and adoption of BRP stormwater
performance standards which, if met by project
proponents, will protect the interests of the Wetlands
Protection Act and eliminate the need for a surface water
discharge permit
• Establishment of a review process that encourages
Conservation Commission use of the adopted BRP
performance standards when writing local Orders of
Condition; dissemination of BMP guidance materials to
project proponents proposing stormwater discharges; and
targeting of certain large projects for individual review
using the MEPA thresholds.
• Setting of stormwater management priorities, beginning
with the impact of highway runoff within public water
supply watersheds and areas discharging to closed or
threatened shellfish beds.
• Addressing existing stormwater discharges within the
basin framework established by the Office of Watershed
Management (OWM).
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
$40,000.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
DEP Nonpoint Source Program funds; Section 104(b)3
stormwater funds (currently being used).
V-63
-------
TARGET DATE:
This action is expected to be implemented by DEP according
to the following schedule:
Projected
Task Completion Date
Develop/adopt stormwater
performance standards Spring 19%
Develop BMP manual and
related guidance June 19%
Revise policies/regulations June 1997
Prepare/distribute outreach
materials Winter-Spring 19%
Select implementation target areas 1996
(as part of EOEA/OWM basin
program)
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DEP Bureau of Resource Protection
(617)556-1172
V-64
-------
EPA ACIION#4.5;
The Environmental Protection Agency should reduce stonnwater pollution in the
Massachusetts Bays watersheds through: (a) technical assistance to communities in
developing comprehensive stormwater management programs; and (b) National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance for industrial stormwater
dischargers. Targeted areas are the lower Charles River for the stormwater management
programs and the Neponset River for the industrial stormwater dischargers.
RATIONALE:
Typically, water which runs off from developed areas such as
lawns, streets, parking lots, and construction sites during
storm and melting events ("stormwater runoff") carries
numerous contaminants, including nutrients, bacteria, and
solids. In particular, runoff from residential areas is usually
less polluted than that from industrially developed facilities,
as the latter often carries metals, oils and grease, and other
toxic substances from material storage locations, parking lots,
and related facilities. In either case, the runoff is frequently
directed to a wetland, waterway, or waterbody where these
contaminants are discharged. Adverse impacts to these
sensitive ecosystems from the released contaminants include
algal blooms, decreased dissolved oxygen levels, and
sedimentation.
While numerous remedial and preventive "best management
practices" (BMPs) exist to minimize water quality impacts
from stormwater runoff, their implementation is enhanced
when undertaken through a comprehensive stonnwater
management program. These programs will be prepared on
a community-by-community basis along the lower Charles
River as part of the EPA's initiative to restore this portion of
the river to fishable and swimmable status by 2005. Due to
its urban nature, the lower Charles River receives significant
quantities of polluted runoff from developed areas, leading to
poor water quality. Accordingly, the comprehensive
programs will address related issues such as pollutant source
identification and prevention, as well as design and
implementation of appropriate BMPs. These programs will
be developed in conjunction and coordination with related
efforts such as the MBP and DEP's Basin Team, within
EPA's position to offer technical assistance where needed or
required.
Stormwater runoff is also a significant water quality problem
in the Neponset River. The Neponset River watershed has
served as the pilot project for the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection's (DEP) assessment, planning,
and implementation efforts that comprise the state's
Watershed Initiative. In support of this Initiative as well as
community-based efforts, EPA will work with industrial
dischargers to build compliance with the NPDES stonnwater
program. Through a permitting process in this program,
certain industrial facilities which discharge stormwater into
wetlands, waterways, and waterbodies are required to
implement BMPs to improve the quality of their discharges.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The initiative to improve water quality in the lower Charles
River will be guided and monitored by EPA's "Clean Charles
Task Force," comprised of state agencies, local communities,
and environmental groups. With respect to NPDES
compliance, EPA will be primarily responsible for
supporting outreach and permitting industrial discharges in
the Neponset River watershed, with continued coordination
with the Massachusetts DEP.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
No major organizational efforts are needed to implement
these recommendations in the specified areas; EPA has
already created the Clean Charles Task Force and has been
a participant in the Watershed Initiative/Neponset pilot
project since its inception.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
The financial resources necessary to support the EPA staff
charged with carrying out these recommended actions are
currently being considered for inclusion in the agency's
operating budget
V-65
-------
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Agency and organizational operational budgets, as well as
potential contributions of cash and in-kind services from
participants.
TARGET DATE:
Ongoing.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance contact:
EPA-New England
(617) 565-4422
V-66
-------
MHD ACTION # 4,«;
The Massachusetts Highway Department should prepare an Environmental Manwl to
complement its Highway Design Maraud and provide for the mtegration of environmen-
tal considerations (including stormwater management) into all phases of highway project
planning, design^ construction, and maintenance.
RATIONALE:
In 1989, the Massachusetts Highway Department (formerly
the Massachusetts Department of Public Works) issued a
comprehensive Highway Design Manual to guide the
planning and design of all highway construction, reconstruc-
tion, and rehabilitation projects for which the Highway
Department is responsible. This manual describes the
highway design process and prescribes specific criteria to be
used by Department engineers and consultants in designing
projects to meet all necessary transportation service and
public safety requirements. Among the criteria are a series
of drainage and erosion control measures that are intended to
prevent or minimise project-related flooding, erosion, and
sedimentation, both on-site and downstream. While these
criteria give considerable attention to controlling the hydrau-
lic aspects - i.e., the volume and rate - of stormwater runoff,
they do not adequately consider the water quality aspects of
stormwater runoff (especially in light of the recent advance-
ments in the application of stormwater Best Management
Practices). As a result, some highway projects are failing to
achieve the stormwater pollutant removal efficiencies that are
necessary to safeguard inland and coastal water quality. A
comprehensive Environmental Manual to complement the
Highway Department's Highway Design Manual is needed
to ensure the integration of environmental considerations,
including stormwater quality control, into all phases of
highway project planning, design, construction, and mainte-
nance. In addition to serving the specific needs of the state
Highway Department engineers and consultants, this manual
could also be a valuable guidance document for local public
works personnel.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
MHD's Environmental Division will be responsible for this
action.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Preparation and implementation of the Environmental
Manual will be pursued in accordance with the following
work elements:
1. Development of a Targeted Outreach Program to identify
the goals and responsibilities of the Highway Department,
applicable regulatory agencies, and environmental
advocacy groups, and to identify regional environmental
issues to be considered in the development and mainte-
nance of corridor-specific roadway and bridge projects
and maintenance of facilities.
This outreach program will consist of meetings with
applicable Division and District staff of the Highway
Department, the Massachusetts Executive Office of
Transportation and Construction, and all regulatory
branches of the federal and state agencies which have
permit responsibilities for highway and bridge projects.
Agencies such as the Federal Highway Administration,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)
Unit and the Massachusetts Department of Environmen-
tal Protection will be included. A professional facilitator
will be provided through a consultant contract to moder-
ate the meetings with regulatory agencies and advocacy
groups in order to maintain focused discussions on agency
purpose and need and on general regulatory requirements,
rather than on project specific discussions.
Targeted environmental advocacy groups will include
watershed associations, the Massachusetts Association of
Conservation Commissions, and the Massachusetts Bays
Program Coastal Advocacy Network.
A committee of Highway Department staff selected by the
chief Engineer and chaired by the Environmental Project
Manager will participate in these outreach meetings.
Representation will consist of the appropriate MHD
Divisions and Bureaus and all District offices.
The information gained through these meetings will be
used in the development of the Environmental Manual as
described in elements 2 through 4, below, and will also be
used to develop environmental resource guides for each
District These resource guides will provide information
on the priority environmental concerns within each region
of the State and will serve as a focus for design alterna-
tives analysis.
V-67
-------
2. Preparation of the main body of the Environmental
Manual to include:
• Environmental Policy Directive for Department activi-
ties; and
• Identification of the specific tasks and level of effort of
environmental review, documentation, design consider-
ations, and best management practices for all phases of
project advancement from planning through construc-
tion and maintenance.
Coordination and review of each section of the Environ-
mental Manual will be undertaken with the District
Highway Directors and applicable Divisions and Bureaus
within Headquarters to insure that the policies and
procedures properly reflect the mission of the Department
to design, bufld, and maintain a safe and efficient highway
system for the general public.
3. Preparation of Guidance and Directive on the preparation
of all permits and regulatory compliance actions required
for highway and bridge projects.
For all permits and compliance actions that may be
required by a highway or bridge construction/ mainte-
nance project, guidelines will be developed which will
detail the type and extent of information, documentation,
coordination, and plans needed to complete a
permit/compliance application.
4. Preparation of Training Modules for use by the Environ-
mental Division and others for conduct of training for
Department personnel and consultants.
To effectively implement the Environmental Manual,
training will be provided to both Department personnel
and consultants on a regular basis. Such training will be
offered in the form of training modules with appropriate
graphics and resource materials.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required
ESTIMATED COST:
$430,000
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
Federal Highway Administration Statewide Planning and
Research (SPR) funds.
TARGET DATE:
1996-1997.
Preparation of the Environmental Manual began in 1994 and
is expected to be completed in 1996. Development and
presentation of the training modules and accompanying
resource materials are planned for 1996/1997.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance contact:
MHD Environmental Division
(617)973-7309
V-68
-------
MHD ACTION #4.7!
As part of its forthcoming pollution prevention plan, the Massachusetts Highway
Department should develop a Stormwaier Pollution Mitigation Program to identify,
prioritize, and correct existing stormwater pollution problems associated with state
highway drainage facilities.
RATIONALE:
ID 1994, Governor Weld issued Executive Order 350, known
as the "Clean State Order." Under this Order, state agencies
were directed to identify all existing and potential environ-
mental problems associated with state facilities and proper-
ties. A cooperative inter-agency effort was initiated to
identify, prioritize, and correct these problems. The technical
expertise of state employees of all agencies was pooled to
implement an effective program of environmental compli-
ance.
A major component of the Executive Order is the preparation
of Pollution Prevention Plans for each agency. These plans
prescribe preventive measures that can be taken to insure that
future violations do not occur, and identify pro-active
measures which can be implemented to improve the environ-
mental sensitivity of each agency's actions.
Currently, state roadway and bridge projects are selected
solely on the basis of safety and operational criteria. Unsafe
conditions or structural deficiencies dictate priorities for
action. These criteria are seen as having paramount impor-
tance because the State Highway Department has been
specifically charged by the Legislature with providing a safe
and efficient roadway system for the transport of people and
goods. Indeed, this is the Department's primary mission.
Nevertheless, other criteria could be added to the selection
process, and the analysis of existing roadway deficiencies
could be broadened to include consideration of stormwater
pollution problems associated with state highway facilities.
Above the agency level, the Commonwealth as a whole has
a broad mission to insure the safety and well-being of the
public. This mission includes protection of water and other
environmental resources. Within each agency's areas of
responsibility, then, consideration of the statewide public
interests should be integrated with the assigned agency
mission.
The Massachusetts Highway Department currently incorpo-
rates stormwater best management practices (BMPs) as part
of the design process on individual projects. However, this
is a piecemeal approach and its impact on improving water
quality statewide is extremely limited A pro-active, agency-
wide program should be developed to identify existing
stormwater pollution problems statewide, prioritize these
problems for corrective action, and incorporate this prioritiz-
ation scheme into the project selection process.
Since the Highway Department has jurisdiction over thou-
sands of miles of roadway throughout the state — roadways
which traverse every major watershed and many water supply
zones of contribution - implementation of such a stormwater
mitigation program could have a major beneficial impact on
water resources statewide.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Highway Depart-
ment is responsible for establishing policy for the agency, and
the Chief Engineer implements these policies through the
various Divisions and Districts. A commitment should be
made by the Commissioner to establish stormwater pollution
mitigation as an environmental priority for the agency. The
Chief Engineer would then direct the appropriate Division
within MHD to take the lead in developing a Stormwater
Pollution Mitigation Program.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The Environmental Manual to be developed by the Depart-
ment (see MHD Action #1) would provide the appropriate
vehicle for developing the framework for the Stonnwater
Pollution Mitigation Program. The Scope for the proposed
Environmental Manual includes an outreach component
V-69
-------
which will bring together a wide range of environmental
agencies and advocacy groups. Their collective expertise on
stormwater management could be tapped to help develop the
Stormwater Pollution Mitigation Program.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
The Federal Transportation Bond, known as ISTEA (Inter-
modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act), is the funding
source for projects eligible for federal aid. Use of these funds
for improvements to drainage systems is permissible when
such improvements are part of a larger roadway project. In
addition, a new category of funds, "Enhancement Funds," can
provide grants for projects which fall within certain specified
categories. Stormwater pollution mitigation is one of those
categories.
ESTIMATED COST:
Development of the Stormwater Pollution Mitigation
Program could be undertaken as part of the Environmental
Manual project, for which funding is currently being
pursued
Implementation of the program - i.e., correction of the
stormwater problems statewide -- is expected to cost many
millions of dollars. This could be programmed into each
year's transportation budget through the Bond Bills
submitted to the Legislature every few years. This would
spread out the cost and minimize the financial impact on the
general public.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
The Transportation Bond Bills provide state funds for
projects undertaken by the transportation agencies. The 1994
Bond Bill passed by the State Legislature provides
approximately $1 million for the retrofitting of stormwater
systems for the purpose of mitigating pollution. Future Bond
Bills should continue to incorporate similar requests.
TARGET DATE:
The identification and prioritization of existing stormwater
pollution problems is expected to be completed by MHD
during 1996, with implementation proceeding as priorities
are established and as funds become available.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
MHD Environmental Division
(617) 973-7309
V-70
-------
MHD ACTION #4.8:
The Massachusetts Highway Department should sponsor annual workshops to train local
public works personnel on the proper use of stormwater runoff Best Management
Practices*
RATIONALE:
The traditional thinking behind highway design has been to
remove stonnwater runoff from the paved surface as quickly
as possible and discharge it directly to the nearest stream,
pond, or wetland While it remains essential for public safety
purposes to remove stonnwater from road surfaces as quickly
and efficiently as possible, it is now recognized that the direct
discharge of runoff to water courses can have a serious long-
term impact on water quality. Runoff from roadways carries
a wide array of contaminants, including solids, nutrients,
heavy metals, oil and grease, and bacteria. These
contaminants contribute to the degradation of our costal and
inland waters and the closure of shellfish beds and swimming
beaches.
Best management practices (BMPs) for stonnwater have
been proven to substantially improve the quality of roadway
runoff. Stonnwater BMPs include both nonstructural and
structural measures. Nonstructural measures refer to such
practices as street sweeping and catch basin cleaning, and the
controlled use of fertilizers, pesticides, and deicing
compounds. Structural BMPs include storage controls such
as detention and retention basins, infiltration practices such
as infiltration basins and trenches, porous pavement, and
leaching catchbasins, vegetative controls such as grassed
swales and vegetative filter strips, and artificial -wetlands.
These measures are generally both cost effective and
reasonably simple to implement
Because municipal public works and highway departments
rely heavily on the standard design practices prescribed by
the Massachusetts Highway Department in its Highway
Design Manual, there has been a general reluctance to
implement innovative and alternative solutions to runoff
management However, an effective statewide stonnwater
management program must incorporate a wide array of both
traditional and innovative solutions. It must also involve
active participation by the municipalities as well as the
MHD. Inasmuch as the municipalities look to the State
Highway Department for guidance on roadway and drainage
design, MHD is the appropriate authority to provide direct
("hands-on") instruction on stonnwater BMPs to local public
works personnel.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The Chief Engineer of the Massachusetts Highway
Department is responsible for establishing engineering
design policy. This individual should direct MHD's
Environmental Division and Highway Engineering Division
to develop an appropriate guidance document on stonnwater
BMPs for roadway design and to issue this guidance as an
Engineering Directive. The MHD Environmental Division
should then coordinate with the Bay State Roads Program to
develop a series of regional workshops targeted to municipal
highway personnel. The Bay State Roads Program is a
technology transfer program that provides continuing
education on issues relevant to local highway departments.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
At the direction of the Commissioner and the Chief Engineer,
the MHD Environmental Division should develop a scope of
work for the preparation of a guidance manual on stormwater
BMPs for roadways. Funding for the manual should then be
secured and a contract let The effort should be coordinated
with other agencies that are also concerned with, and
knowledgeable about, stonnwater management, including
CZM, DEP, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service/MassCAP (formerly Soil Conservation Service).
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required The Transportation Bond
Bill passed by the Massachusetts Legislature this year
provides the matching funds needed to access federal
research monies for this action. (See "Potential Funding
Source(s)", below.)
ESTIMATED COST:
Development of the BMP guidance manual and training
workshops for local DPW personnel is estimated at under
$50,000.
V-71
-------
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
The most likely source of funds is Federal SPR (research)
funds. The Deputy Secretary for Environmental Policy in the
Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (EOTC)
has begun the application process to obtain these funds.
TARGET DATE:
Development of the BMP guidance manual can begin when
funds are secured It is anticipated that this work will be
completed in 1996 and that three regional workshops for
local highway personnel will be offered in 1996/1997 and
annually thereafter.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
MHD Environmental Division
(617) 973-7309
V-72
-------
MHD/MDC ACTION
The Massachusetts Highway Department and the Metropolitan District Commission
should require the use of on-site stormwater Best Management Practices as a
precondition to the permitting of private property tie-ins to state drainage facilities.
RATIONALE:
Many areas of Massachusetts are densely developed, and the
options for installing new drainage systems are limited.
Drainage systems for commercial and industrial sites in
particular often face severe areal and topographical
constraints. Often, the only recourse is to "tie in" to an
existing drainage facility. When these facilities are under the
jurisdiction of a state agency, permits are required.
Traditionally, the principal criterion for permitting private
party tie-ins to a state drainage system is one of hydraulics —
i.e., will the system be able to handle the additional volume
of runoff? If it can, the tie-in is generally permitted,
regardless of whether on-site stormwater retention or
treatment measures have first been employed.
As our focus on stormwater management broadens to include
water quality considerations, it becomes increasingly
important to reach beyond just the hydraulic capabilities of a
public drainage facility and look toward influencing site
design on properties abutting the public facility. As
stormwater regulations are strengthened, more and more
public revenues will be spent on redesigning and retrofitting
the existing stormwater systems on public roadways. The
public should not be expected to bear the added burden of
mitigating stormwater pollution from private developments
as well.
Requiring the implementation of stormwater best
management practices (BMPs) as a precondition to a private
party's tying into a state facility is no more burdensome than
the conditions placed on wastewater and other effluent
discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works. The cost of
implementing on-site BMPs has been shown to be minimal
when compared to the public cost of remediating polluted
stormwater discharges or of retrofitting existing storm
drainage systems.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The Commissioner and the Chief Engineer of the
Massachusetts Highway Department and the Commissioner
of the Metropolitan District Commission are responsible for
setting policy for their respective agencies. These public
officials should direct the appropriate personnel within their
agencies to develop water quality related performance criteria
for use in evaluating and permitting private property tie-ins
to state drainage facilities.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The process for developing water quality-related permit
criteria for drainage system tie-ins should be a cooperative
effort between the MHD and MDC. Consistency in permit
requirements between the two state agencies would benefit
the general public and the development community.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
The development of water quality-related performance
criteria can be accomplished through the environmental and
permitting staff of the respective state agencies. Other than
the cost of employee salaries for the time involved, no
additional funds should be necessary.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Not applicable.
TARGET DATE:
The development of the new permit criteria, including the
required coordination between MHD and MDC and
consultation with other agencies as appropriate, is expected
to be accomplished in 1996.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
MHD Environmental Division
(617) 973-7309
V-73
-------
V-74
-------
chapter V
Ixeducing and
Preventing Toxic
Pollution
-------
ACTION PLAN #5
REDUCING AND PREVENTING TOXIC POLLUTION
All living systems use and recycle a variety of naturally-
occurring chemicals and nutrients. Changing the normal
balance of chemical concentrations in an ecosystem can
jeopardize the health and reproductive capacity of the
organisms in that ecosystem. Chemicals which induce such
deleterious effects are called "toxics." Since 1940, more than
70,000 synthetic chemicals have been introduced to the
marine environment Many of these chemicals are toxic even
in minute concentrations.
There are several classes of toxics in the marine environment
Those of greatest concern include:
Potycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
PAHs are a class of organic compounds found primarily in
fossil fuels such as oil and coal. These compounds enter the
Bays from many different sources, including oil spills and
runoff, car exhaust, worn tire rubber, and soot from backyard
barbecues, to name only a few. Prolonged exposure to PAHs
is believed to cause cancer and birth defects, as well as
physiological damage.
Toxic metals
Copper, arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, silver, chromium,
nickel, zinc, and other metals enter the Bays both from
nonpoint sources such as urban runoff and point sources such
as wastewater discharges. Although low concentrations of
these metals occur naturally in the marine environment,
devated concentrations may endanger marine organisms. All
metals are chemical elements, which means they cannot be
destroyed or broken down. Once they enter the marine
environment, they persist indefinitely.
Pofychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs)
PCBs are a family of organic compounds used since the
1920s in electrical transformers, liquid coolants, flame
retardants, lubricants, adhesives, caulking compounds, and
various other products. They are believed to be highly
carcinogenic. PCBs do not readily break down into less
harmful chemicals and therefore persist in the environment
for long periods.
Pesticides
Although many of the most harmful pesticides have been
banned in Massachusetts, many chemicals used during the
1950s and '60s still persist in the Bays. Less toxic com-
pounds are still used extensively in agricultural areas to
combat crop pests and in wetland areas to hold down mos-
quito populations, as well as on suburban lawns and golf
courses. All of these eventually find their way to coastal
waters.
Toxic contaminants enter the Bays through many routes:
industrial and municipal waste, dredged material, atmo-
spheric fallout, stormwater discharges, and nonpoint runoff,
to name a few. hi 1991, the Massachusetts Bays Program
sponsored the first comprehensive survey of the sources of
toxic contaminants in the Bays'ecosystem. This survey found
toxic contamination to be most serious along the North Shore
and in the vicinity of Boston Harbor, where industrial
wastewater and urban runoff contain relatively high loadings
of chemical contaminants. However, tracing the diverse
origins of these contaminants is no easy task. Each toxic may
have its own unique source. For instance, corroding water
pipes are believed to be a major source of copper. Lead, on
the other hand, seems to enter the marine environment mostly
through atmospheric deposition.
However they enter the marine environment, toxic contami-
nants eventually settle out of the water column and come to
rest on the ocean floor. The highest concentrations of
contaminants are typically found in sediments close to shore,
localized around a point source of pollution or in a tranquil
depositiona! area Most contamination is concentrated in the
vicinity of urban areas or localized "hot spots."
Evaluating the fate and effects of chemical contaminants in
the Bays is a complex task which requires an understanding
of the contaminants'temporal and spatial distribution. After
toxic contaminants become incorporated into marine sedi-
ments, invertebrates may accumulate the toxics and pass
them along the marine food web. The rate of bioaccumu-
lation depends on variables such as species feeding patterns,
the nature of the contaminant, and the contaminant's persis-
tence in the environment Toxics tend to become more
concentrated as they move up the food chain. As they
accumulate toxics in their tissue, individual organisms may
develop cancerous tumors or other diseases. Toxic contami-
V-75
-------
nation has already been tied to disease in some commercially
valuable species in Massachusetts Bays, including liver
lesions and fin rot in flounder, and black gill disease in
lobsters. Widespread disease could potentially cause
declines in populations of sensitive species, alter foodweb
interactions, and impact the marine ecosystem.
Human exposure to toxic pollution generally occurs indi-
rectly, through consumption of contaminated seafood. The
magnitude of the health risk is difficult to quantify because
the effects of exposure do not immediately manifest them-
selves in an acute illness. Consumption of contaminated
seafood probably raises the overall risk of cancer and
neurological impairments in fetuses or children. However,
because the effects may not be apparent for many years, it is
difficult to definitively link consumption to impacts.
Even if the magnitude of risk is uncertain, management
decisions still need to be made to protect public health and
the health of the marine ecosystem from exposure to chemical
contaminants Federal and state authorities have already
taken preliminary steps to regulate the chemically-contami-
nated fishery resources in Massachusetts Bays. The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates all
seafood shipped across state lines, has set "action levels" or
thresholds for chemical concentrations in all food products.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established similar tolerance levels for pesticides. However,
these action levels are based on average national consump-
tion rates, and are not intended to protect local segments of
the population whose seafood consumption may exceed the
national average. Moreover, the FDA has not yet set action
levels for many chemicals in Massachusetts coastal waters.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH), with
the assistance of the state Division of Marine Fisheries
(DMF), supplements the work of these federal agencies. The
state has issued two advisories concerning chemically-
contaminated seafood. The first warns all segments of the
population against eating the tomalley of lobsters harvested
in Boston Harbor. The second advises certain high-risk
segments of the population to avoid all seafood harvested in
Boston Harbor.
Much work needs to be done in order to fully understand the
sources of toxic contamination, its effects on the marine
ecosystem, and its potential impact on human beings. While
scientists work to resolve these uncertainties, action must be
taken to reduce the amount of toxic pollution reaching the
Bays. The following recommendations will move us in the
right direction.
V-76
-------
; MUNICIPAL ACTION
Municipalities should adopt and implement the following set of regulations to ensure the
safe use, storage, and disposal of toxic and hazardous materials: 1) Toxic and
Hazardous Materials Regulation, 2) Underground Storage Tank Regulation., and 3)
Commercial/Industrial Floor Dram Regulation,
RATIONALE:
Leaking underground fuel storage tanks (USTs) and
improper storage and disposal of hazardous materials have
contaminated scores of drinking water supplies across the
Commonwealth, and are a source of toxic contaminants to
Massachusetts Bays. While federal and state regulations
provide some measure of protection, they are not a substitute
for strict oversight at the local level. For example, the State
Board of Fire Prevention Regulations (527 CMR 9.00) that
govern underground fuel storage specifically exempt farm
and residential fuel oil tanks of 1,100 gallons capacity or less
from construction/installation, monitoring, and tightness-
testing requirements, even though these tanks can be a
significant source of contaminants to the environment
Moreover, numerous small commercial and industrial
establishments (gas stations, autobody shops, machine shops,
furniture refinishers, etc.) house unauthorized floor drains
which can discharge contaminants directly into the ground or
a leaching facility, and many of these establishments often go
largely unregulated.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Boards of Health and Fire Departments would share most of
the responsibility for this action, with assistance from the
Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Coordinator,
Building Inspector, and Plumbing Inspector. Technical
assistance in drafting the recommended regulations is
available from the Regional Planning Agencies, the DEP
Division of Water Supply, and the DEP Division of
Hazardous Waste.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The Board of Health and other local authorities cited above
should evaluate the community's existing regulations
pertaining to toxic and hazardous materials management,
based on model regulations provided by the Regional
Planning Agencies. Where existing regulations are found to
be outdated or otherwise deficient, the Board of Health
should adopt new regulations which empower the Board and
the Fire Chief to better track and control the siting, storage,
and disposal of hazardous materials in the community. The
new regulations can be stricter and more comprehensive than
the corresponding state and federal regulations, so long as
they do not conflict with the state and federal regulations. As
an example of a stricter local provision, some municipal UST
regulations call for the outright removal or intensive leak
detection-testing of all underground storage tanks 20 years or
older, regardless of tank size, use, or construction material.
As part of this process, local officials can provide facility
owners and operators with helpful guidance materials on best
management practices (BMPs) appropriate for their
particular business. These guidance materials are readily
available from DEP and OTA in the form of individual fact
sheets which prescribe specific waste handling and storage
practices for a range of business operations, such as autobody
painting, furniture stripping, and commercial dry cleaning.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
If the recommended regulations are adopted as Board of
Health regulations (rather than as general bylaws or
ordinances), this action will require majority approval by the
Board of Health following the issuance of a public notice and
a public hearing. Adoption as general bylaws or ordinances
will require town meeting or city council approval.
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost of drafting and adopting the recommended
regulations should be minimal. Model regulations are
available that can be adopted either in their present form or
with minor modifications to reflect specific local needs.
Assistance in drafting the regulations and establishing
associated record-keeping systems is available from the
Regional Planning Agencies.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Local revenues
V-77
-------
TARGET DATE:
1996/1997. This is a high priority action from a water
quality standpoint and should be implemented by
municipalities as soon as possible.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
DEP Division of Water Supply
(617)292-5770
DEP Division of Hazardous Waste
(617)292-5853
EOEA Office of Technical Assistance
for Toxics Use Reduction
(617) 727-3260
V-78
-------
MUJSIOPAL ACTION
Municipalities should establish Hottsehold Hazardous Waste Collection Programs for
difficult-to-manage hazardous products to ensure their proper disposal on a regular basis.
RATIONALE:
Households account for approximately 25% (35,000 tons per
year) of hazardous waste disposal in Massachusetts, and
discharge a variety of toxic chemicals into septic systems,
sewers, and landfills. These chemicals are found in everyday
household and yard products such as oven and tile cleaners,
spot removers, wood stains and preservatives, and pesticides.
Disposed of improperly, many of these contaminants
ultimately reach ground and surface waters, where they
endanger public health and the environment.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Local Boards of Health and health departments will generally
be responsible for this action, with assistance from local fire
departments, public works departments, recycling
committees, civic organizations, and citizens. Regional
Planning Agencies can provide technical assistance in many
phases of a collection event, including: selection of an
appropriate collection site; preparation of the bid
specification package; selection of a qualified hazardous
waste contractor, and event promotion.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Until such time as permanent collection facilities are
established in or near each community (or mobile collection
facilities are available on a rotating basis), municipalities
should sponsor annual household hazardous waste collection
events for difficult-to-manage hazardous products. These are
products, such as pesticides, that are not readily recycled
and/or are highly toxic. The collection events are typically
held in the spring or fall to coincide with home and yard
cleanups, and provide an effective means for removing large
quantities of potentially harmful household products. They
also afford an opportunity to educate homeowners on the use
of safer alternative products, and on the hazards posed by
certain products, such as septic system cleaners that contain
organic degreasers. For best results, the events should be
held at convenient sites Gorge, centrally-located parking lots,
for example) and should be widely publicized (press releases,
flyers, cable tv.) to maximize community participation. Joint
sponsorship of events by neighboring communities can
reduce costs significantly.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required
ESTIMATED COST:
Collection event costs vary widely, depending on the length
(hours) and frequency of events, number of participants,
types and volumes of wastes collected, and contractor's fee.
For small to mid-size communities (5,000 - 25,000 residents)
costs typically range from $15,000 to $25,000, of which
$4,500 - $6,000 is the contractor's fixed fee for site setup.
The remaining costs cover event publicity, and waste
transport and disposal.
Cost savings can be achieved through: preventative consumer
education, participant pre-registration, pre-screening of
wastes to prevent the introduction of non-hazardous wastes,
regionalization, and "Buy-A-Barrel" campaign contributions
from sponsoring businesses and civic organizations.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
Local revenues, including fees on water, sewer, and
municipal solid waste services; cash contributions from
business and civic organizations; and modest "tipping" fee to
participants.
TARGET DATE:
1996 and annually thereafter.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
EOEA Office of Technical Assistance
(617) 727-3260
DEP Division of Hazardous Waste
(617)292-5853
V-79
-------
V-80
-------
DOE ACTION #53:
The Department of Education, in collaboration with the Massachusetts Comiaunity
College System and with technical assistance from the Department of Environmental
Protection, should develop and offer continuing education courses on hazardous
materials management to create a pool of trained "HazMat Specialists" at the local level.
RATIONALE:
Communities are becoming increasingly concerned over the
threats toxic and hazardous materials pose to their drinking
water supplies and sewage treatment plants. Nonpoint
sources of pollution are a particular problem. Leaking
landfills and underground storage tanks, businesses using and
storing hazardous materials, and even individual households
are all recognized as potentially significant contributors of
toxic contaminants to the environment. To address these
concerns, many communities are adopting hazardous
materials bylaws to help monitor the use, storage, and
disposal of hazardous chemicals in the community.
Unfortunately, the task of implementing these bylaws often
falls on the shoulders of already overburdened health officers
or other local officials who have little, if any, formal training
in hazardous materials management As a result, many of the
bylaws are not being administered or enforced as effectively
as they should be.
The availability of qualified HazMat specialists at the local
level would help remedy this problem. Depending on the
needs of the community, these specialists could be either paid
employees (such as health agents or building inspectors),
volunteer board members, or even private citizens. The latter
could include retirees or graduate interns interested in serving
their community. In addition to helping administer the
bylaws, which often includes the difficult task of setting up
and operating a comprehensive record-keeping system, the
local HazMat Specialists could provide public outreach and
education services. These specialists could assist users of
hazardous materials, both residential and commercial, in
identifying less-toxic alternatives and understanding proper
management of hazardous chemicals in the home and the
workplace.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The Department of Education (DOE), assisted by the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), would have
primary responsibility for this action. DOE should engage
the services of a professional curriculum specialist to: 1)
develop a HazMat training course (or series of courses) to be
offered through the state community college system; and 2)
develop an application process for interested colleges to
apply for grants to operate the "HazMat Specialist" program.
Linkages with the Local Emergency Planning process (SARA
Title HI), Massachusetts Firefighting Academy training
program, and Massachusetts Health Officers Association
certification program should be explored.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Once a source of funding is developed, DOE should issue a
Request for Proposals for a professional curriculum
specialist Components of the course should include basic
environmental principles related to the protection of land, air,
and water, the nature of chemicals used in small commercial
operations and in households; public education tools and
techniques; municipal inspection and enforcement strategies;
and roles and responsibilities of federal, state and municipal
environmental protection authorities. The second phase of
program implementation would be training of instructors.
Federal job development and training programs aimed at
minorities and senior citizens should be explored for possible
linkages.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
$100,000 (or less) per participating college. This would
cover the cost of integrating the HazMat curriculum, training
of instructors, administrative overhead, and preparation of
instructional materials. Registration fees for course
participants would not be covered
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
Massachusetts Department of Employment and Training (Job
Training Partnership Act Program).
V-81
-------
University of Lowell's Toxics Use Reduction Training
Program, funded through the Toxics Use Reduction Act
Massachusetts Department of Education.
Environmental Education Grants Program, Environmental
Education Division, U.S. EPA.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DEP Hazardous Waste Management Program
(617)292-5853
TARGET DATE:
1998 and annually thereafter.
V-82
-------
EOEA/MONICIPAI/PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIP AOlONf 5.4: .
The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, municipalities, and me business
community should explore and form partnerships to facilitate the safe management of
hazardous products, emphasiTing reduced products use and recycling wherever possible.
RATIONALE:
The following preliminary actions are the result of recent
discussions among representatives of the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (EOEA) and the Massachusetts Bays
Program, including the MBP's Business and Resource Users
Group. While these actions are not developed as fully as the
other actions in the CCMP, they are expected to be the
subject of an ongoing dialogue between EOEA and MBP
over the next year, and may be presented as more complete
actions in future supplements to the CCMP.
State Actions (preliminary)
• The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA)
should develop a comprehensive plan for household
hazardous waste (HHW) management to coordinate
programs on a state-wide basis. The plan should
develop comprehensive collection programs for wastes
such as used oil, oil filters, antifreeze, car batteries, tires,
household batteries, and paint, which form the bulk of
the waste stream at HHW collections but can be handled
more cost-effectively through tailored programs. The
plan should include a strategy for other household
hazardous wastes that are considered as priorities for
collection due to their toxicity. This plan should refine
existing programs, as well as provide guidance for
establishing new program initiatives.
• The Commonwealth should encourage and assist in
developing research initiatives into the public health and
environmental effects caused by specific household
hazardous products and chemicals. This research should
be used to establish priorities for focusing HHW collec-
tion efforts.
• In cooperation with municipalities, regional govern-
ments, and the private sector, the Commonwealth should
develop and promote public outreach and educational
programs to encourage citizens to shift away from the
use of hazardous products and to handle the household
hazardous products that they do use in a safe manner.
EOEA also should provide increased technical assis-
tance, including a "how to" m«n"«l for the safe handling
of specific types of HHW and a technical assistance
packet for municipalities containing a list of available
technical assistance information.
• EOEA should work with the Department of Environ-
mental Protection PEP) and the Department of Pro-
curement and General Services (DPGS) to provide state
contracts for the collection of used oil, oil filters, anti-
freeze, and paint products, hi addition, EOEA should
work with a battery manufacturer to provide collection
services for lead acid car batteries collected by munici-
palities. These agreements would provide collection
services to state, municipal, and regional government
agencies at a low cost based on economies of scale.
• EOEA should use the Clean Environment Fund to
provide additional equipment grants to help municipali-
ties establish collection centers for automotive materials
and paint products. These grants should be coupled
with training and technical assistance to ensure proper
collection and handling procedures.
• The Commonwealth should encourage development of
private sector collection sites by easing regulatory
requirements for businesses which generate hazardous
wastes such as used oil.
• The Commonwealth should improve options for very
small quantity generators to safely dispose of hazardous
wastes through existing collection programs and by
exploring new collection mechanisms such as private
sector collection centers.
• EOEA should establish a working group to mobilize and
promote business community involvement in carrying
out these actions, using the MBP Business and Resource
Users Group as the vehicle to accomplish this.
Municipal Actions (preliminary)
• Municipalities should develop tailored programs to
collect readily recyclable wastes, such as used oil, oil
filters, antifreeze, lead-acid car batteries, tires, house-
hold batteries, and paint products, on a regular basis.
Collection of these wastes should be the cornerstone of
municipal household hazardous waste (HHW) collection
programs, even if held on only a periodic basis.
• Municipalities should develop "automotive recycling
centers", which would handle all major automotive
waste products, including oil filters, antifreeze, tires, and
V-83
-------
lead-acid car batteries. Ideally, municipalities should
collect all four of these materials. The costs of collect-
ing all four materials may range anywhere from $750 -
$1,500, depending on market conditions, transporter's
fees, and amounts of the material collected.
Municipalities should consider purchasing on-site
antifreeze recycling systems as an alternative to hiring a
contractor to collect antifreeze, especially if the munici-
palities have large municipal vehicle fleets. Use of on-
site recycling systems can reduce the need to purchase
new antifreeze.
Municipalities should apply for state grants to purchase
used oil collection tanks and paint storage sheds.
Municipal and regional governments should minimise
reliance on one-day HHW collection events that indis-
criminately collect and dispose of all household wastes
perceived as "hazardous" without regard to the actual
risk such wastes present HHW collection programs
should be used only for specific hazardous wastes, such
as pesticides, that cannot be safely handled through
other, more efficient and cost-effective mechanisms.
When one-day collection events continue to be necessary
to provide for safe disposal of household hazardous
waste, municipalities should take advantage of competi-
tive market dynamics to negotiate agreements for less
costly collection services and use model RFPs offered by
the state.
Municipalities should work with the private sector to
establish permanent collection mechanisms, hold
collection events on a multi-town or regional basis, and
emphasize reduction in toxic materials use.
Municipalities and the Commonwealth should amend
their procurement processes to purchase recycled and
reused materials such as re-refined oil, recycled anti-
freeze, recycled paint, recycled paper products, recycled
construction materials, and other products made from
recycled content This strategy will help "close the
recycling loop" for these materials and reduce local
collection and processing costs for recyclables. Munici-
palities should work with the Department of Procure-
ment and General Services to take advantage of existing
and future state purchasing agreements for recycled
products.
V-84
-------
EPA ACTION #5.5:
The Eavironmental Protection Agency (EPA) should reduce and prevent toxic polhitioa
through targeted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDBS) pennittmg
of significant discharges in the Massachusetts Bays; in particular., oil tank farms on
Chelsea Creek and the Island End River..
RATIONALE:
Several classes of toxic contaminants exist in the marine
environment as a result of stormwater runoff and point source
discharges, atmospheric deposition, and dredging of
contaminated sediments. Toxic contamination causes direct
impacts to marine life, as evidenced by liver lesions in
flounder. Human health impacts from toxic contamination in
the marine environment also can occur, typically through the
consumption of contaminated seafood
A particular class of toxic contaminant prevalent in the
Massachusetts Bays is known as "polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons" or PAHs. PAHs are a component of many
grades of crude and refined oils (e.g., gasoline). While many
concentrated "hot spots" of PAH contamination exist within
the Massachusetts Bays, two tributaries of Boston Harbor -
Chelsea Creek and the Island End River - are hot spots of
particular note. Numerous oil storage faculties are situated
along the banks of these waterways, due to their proximity to
material handling facilities and shipping channels. These so-
called "tank farms" are thought to be sources of PAHs for two
reasons. First, each tank is designed to hold condensation,
small leaks, and overflows in a storage area at the base of the
tank. This storage area is sometimes drained directly to the
nearest waterway after only limited pretreatment or reme-
diation. Second, the paved areas surrounding the tanks
routinely have significant quantities of oil on their surfaces
due to releases which occur when oil is transferred to or from
the tank. Accordingly, the stormwater runoff from these
areas may contain concentrations of PAHs and other
petroleum hydrocarbons.
Under the NPDES program, industrial land uses which
discharge, via point sources, stormwater runoff or other types
of releases into wetlands, waterways, and water bodies, are
required to implement treatment and preventive best
management practices (BMPs) through a permitting process
in order to maintain the quality of the receiving waters. This
is the same compliance effort targeted for stormwater
discharges in the lower Charles River Basin, as described in
EPA Action #4.5.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
NPDES permitting and compliance for the oil tank farms in
the targeted areas is the responsibility of the EPA, with
continued coordination with the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP).
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
No major organizational efforts are needed to implement this
recommendation in the specified areas, since EPA staff
resources dedicated to the NPDES program will be
redirected to the Chelsea Creek and the Island End River
industrial discharges, in coordination with Massachusetts
DEP.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required
ESTIMATED COST:
Minimal, since the recommended action will be carried out
by EPA staff who are already funded by the agency's
operating budget
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Agency operating budgets.
TARGET DATE:
Ongoing.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
EPA-New England
(617)565-4422
V-85
-------
V-86
-------
OTA ACTION #5.6:
The EOEA Office of Technical Assistance for Toxics Use Reduction (OTA) should
perform on-site assessments and provide instructional materials to help businesses and
industries in the Massachusetts Bays region reduce the use of toxic substances.
RATIONALE:
Under the Toxics Use Reduction Act of 1989, over 600
Massachusetts companies must develop and implement
pollution prevention plans, and all hazardous waste
generators must adopt waste minimization plans. OTA, a
non-regulatory state agency, was created to work
cooperatively with business and industry to meet the
statewide goal of a 50% reduction in toxic wastes by 1997,
and to make continued progress thereafter. This goal is to be
achieved through a promising new approach to the
management of toxic substances called "Toxics Use
Reduction", or TUR.
TUR includes a variety of changes in production processes
and practices, all of which reduce or eliminate the generation
or use of toxic substances without increasing risk to workers
or consumers. TUR differs from more traditional approaches
to industrial pollution in that it refocuses attention away from
the treatment and disposal of toxic emissions at the end of the
manufacturing process, and toward minimization or
elimination of toxic materials used during the process.
Because TUR prevents toxic pollution at its source, rather
then merely treating it once it has been created, it represents
the safest and most environmentally responsible approach to
managing industrial toxics It also offers powerful economic
incentives to industries which employ it. Indeed, against the
backdrop of soaring treatment and disposal costs and the
liability exposure associated with the use of hazardous
materials, TUR makes increasing sense from a purely
economic standpoint
To date, OTA has held over 50 TUR workshops throughout
the state, worked closely with several hundred Massachusetts
businesses, and provided direct on-site consultation and
viable TUR recommendations to more than 60 firms.
Nevertheless, many commercial and industrial facilities have
not yet availed themselves of OTA's free (and confidential')
technical assistance, and numerous opportunities exist for
further progress in toxics use reduction in the workplace.
Recently, in an effort to maximize these opportunities, OTA
joined forces with over 80 businesses in the Merrimack
Valley region to establish a Business Environmental
Network This network brings diverse industries together to
promote business awareness on environmental issues and
regulatory requirements, and to share information and
expertise on pollution prevention technologies. Businesses
in other regions in the Commonwealth, including coastal
areas, have expressed interest in either expanding this
existing network or forming additional networks, and have
requested OTA's assistance to accomplish this.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
OTA will be responsible for initiating and implementing
industry outreach and technical assistance actions.
Expansion of the existing Business Environmental Network
or establishment of additional networks will be pursued by
OTA in collaboration with local businesses.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
OTA will implement its TUR program by offering the
following non-regulatory services at no charge:
• Perform on-site assessments designed to help businesses
identify TUR opportunities and learn about alternative
processes and technologies applicable to their particular
operations.
• Respond to telephone and written requests for general
information about TUR and specific information about
the legal requirements of the Toxics Use Reduction Act
• Sponsor conferences, workshops, seminars, and trade
fairs to disseminate information about TUR
technologies.
• Promote alternative manufacturing processes that reduce
toxic substance use, hazardous waste generation, toxic
air emissions, and wastewater discharge.
To support these efforts, OTA will develop and broadly
disseminate materials that promote the concept and practice
of pollution prevention. One such publication, OTA's *A
Practical Guide to Toxics Use Reduction," provides step-by-
step guidance on all aspects of TUR planning and
implementation.
Overall, OTA's strategy will be directed not to merely
V-87
-------
encouraging individual, short term TOR projects, but rather
to helping businesses launch and sustain long term in-house
TUR programs.
TARGET DATE:
1996 and annually thereafter.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost of the TUR program will be borne by OTA, with
possible grant assistance from EPA for the Business
Environmental Network component.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
EOEA Office of Technical Assistance for
Toxics Use Reduction
(617) 727-3260
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
Grant from EPA Waste Management Division.
V-88
-------
chapter V
lieducing and
Preventing Oil
Pollution
-------
ACTION PLAN #6
REDUCING AND PREVENTING OIL POLLUTION
Few environmental catastrophes do more damage to marine
resources or cause more public outrage than a large oil spill.
Six years after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska's Prince
William Sound, few people have forgotten images of oil-
soaked beaches and poisoned wildlife. Many people do not
realize, however, that large spills and offshore blowouts
account for only a small percentage of the oil polluting our
coastal waters. In fact, most of the approximately four
million tons of oil added each year to the world's marine
environment comes from small spills and stormwater runoff.
Petroleum is the most common of several types of fossil fuel
hydrocarbons —"oil"- which find their way into Massachu-
setts Bays. These hydrocarbons enter the Bays from diverse
sources. In addition to accidental spills, fossil fuel hydrocar-
bons enter the Bays from industrial and municipal waste-
water, stormwater runoff, boats, and creosote-treated wood
pilings.
Oil pollution may adversely affect much of the marine
environment, but is especially threatening to stationary
plants, sensitive species, and organisms in early life stages.
Some economically and ecologically significant resources,
such as shellfish and eelgrass beds, are especially vulnerable
to oil pollution. Immediately after a spill, these resources
generally experience a high mortality, and even those
organisms that survive often suffer short-term stress and
impaired metabolism. Residual toxic effects on individuals
or populations may be evident long after the spill has dissi-
pated. Damage is especially acute if the spill reaches a
confined embayment, where slow flushing, prevailing winds,
and on-shore currents keep the oil concentrated.
Although the Massachusetts Bays have so far avoided any
catastrophic spills, tankers and barges carrying petroleum
products through the Port of Boston, the Cape Cod Canal,
and Salem Harbor pose a constant risk. The federal govern-
ment has developed a broad regulatory framework to monitor
and mitigate this risk. The keystone of this framework is the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990, a comprehensive piece of legisla-
tion which addresses issues of liability and compensation,
vessel farming and training, communication system require-
ments, and design specifications for tankers, including the
compulsory phasing in of double hulls. The Act also requires
the federal government to develop Area Contingency Plans
and regularly update the National Contingency Plan.
The party responsible for an oil discharge that affects
navigable waters is required to adequately respond under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended
The Coast Guard On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) and the State
OSC from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection will ensure that the responsible party adequately
responds to such spills. If a response is not adequate, the
Coast Guard and the State will direct response actions. The
spiller is liable for all money spent by the Coast Guard or
State during a response. The Coast Guard owns oil spill
containment and recovery equipment and can call upon a
spill response Strike Team for additional assistance, but will
rely primarily on contracted resources. The spiller also is
required to provide compensation to restore or replace
natural resources damaged by a spill.
Nonpoint sources of oil pollution are less dramatic - but
more insidious — than accidental spills. The culprits in this
case are not giant corporations or irresponsible sea captains,
but unthinking individuals. Lots of them. Countless car
owners, perhaps ignorant of the harm they are doing, pour
used motor oil down storm drains or throw it in their garbage
to avoid the inconvenience of disposing of it properly.
Eventually, most improperly disposed oil will pollute
groundwater and/or surface waters, including coastal
embayments.
Mitigating oil pollution in the coastal zone will require action
aimed at both point and nonpoint pollution sources. Because
spills cannot realistically be eliminated, an effective strategy
for controlling this source of contamination should include a
combination of prevention, early response, and mitigation.
Nonpoint sources will be more difficult to control, but there
are ways to put a dent in the problem. The recommended
actions which follow are an effective starting point
V-89
-------
V-90
-------
MUIWCJPAL ACTION
Mxraicipalities should establish, maintain., and promote the use of Used Motor Oil
Collection Facilities to ensure the proper permanent collection and management of used
motor oil from do-it-yourself oil changes.
RATIONALE:
According to a 1996 study conducted for the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), 2.9 million gallons
of used motor oil are generated annually in the
Commonwealth by do-it-yourself oil changers. EOEA
estimates that up to 80% of this amount may be disposed of
improperly by dumping it on the ground, throwing it in the
trash, or pouring it down a storm drain. Used motor oil
contains petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals which
can contaminate drinking water supplies and living resources
habitat While the Massachusetts Used Oil Retention Act
(MGL Ch. 21, s52a) allows the return of used motor oil to the
place of purchase, the requirement that do-it-yourselfers
retain their receipts, the reluctance of small convenience
stores to collect used oil, and inadequate state enforcement
have combined to severely limit the effectiveness of this
measure. Most used motor oil continues to be disposed of
improperly due to the lack of convenient, local collection
facilities.
Due to the many concerns expressed over the current
collection law, EOEA is working with interested parties to
develop new legislation. Legislation based on a proposal
developed by EOEA will be introduced by the Natural
Resources and Agriculture Committee during the 1996
legislative session. A consensus on this proposal has been
reached by the following groups:
Massachusetts Petroleum Council;
American Petroleum Institute;
Retailers Association of Massachusetts;
Environmental League of Massachusetts;
MassPIRG;
New England Service Station and Automotive Repair
Association; and
• Convenient Automotive Services Institute.
If passed, this legislation will make significant improvements
in the collection of used oil from do-it-yourself oil changers
(DIYers). The legislation would make current collection
requirements more flexible and pay recycling incentives to
collection centers and to DIYers who return used oil for
recycling. It also would provide needed resources (through
payments made by motor oil manufacturers) for public
education programs, reimbursement of collection centers for
costs of disposing of contaminated oil, and expansion of
current Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
municipal recycling grants for used oil storage tanks.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Local Public Works Departments and Boards of Health will
be responsible for this action, with input and assistance from
the Fire Departments and recycling committees. Assistance
on siting and equipment requirements, as well as facility
operation, is available from the DEP Division of Hazardous
Waste and the Regional Planning Agencies. The MWRA
offers guidance to member communities in the MWRA
service area.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The above departments and boards should consult recent
DEP and EPA guidance documents on used oil collection.
These provide helpful information on the steps communities
can take to establish and operate a successful used oil
collection facility. Topics include:
• Selecting and preparing a suitable collection site;
• Obtaining state and local approvals;
• Staffing and operating the site;
• Purchasing collection equipment (e.g., above-ground,
double-walled used oil storage tank);
• Publicizing the facility and educating the public; and
• Contracting with a licensed used oil transporter.
Municipalities are responsible for management of the
collected oil from municipality-run facilities. Most used oil
transporters will remove the collected oil at no or low cost
(less than 20 cents/gallon). As an alternative, municipalities
may, with DEP authorization, burn the used oil in an
approved space heater during the heating season. Some
communities are doing this as a means of defraying the cost
of heating their DPW garages and other municipal buildings.
Wherever feasible, municipalities also should encourage the
establishment of private oil collection faculties by
V-91
-------
appropriate local businesses, such as gas stations and
marinas.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
Construction and operation of a municipal used oil collection
facility requires the prior approval of the local fire and
building departments and of the DEP Hazardous Waste
Compliance office. In addition, either a state (DEP) or
federal (EPA) identification number must be obtained to
allow tracking of the movement of the used oil from the
municipal collection site to its final reuse or disposal
destination.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
DEP recycling equipment grants; local revenues; modest
"tipping" fee to participating oil changers; area business and
service organization sponsors.
TARGET DATE:
1997/1998. This is a high priority action from a water
quality standpoint and should be implemented by
municipalities as soon as possible.
ESTIMATED COST:
Oil collection program costs can vary, depending on facility
size, hours of operation, staffing needs, and amount of oil
collected/amoved In general, however, the costs are low to
moderate and should not prove prohibitive for any
community. Based on existing collection programs, average
costs are as follows:
Site preparation (one-time cost)
Oil storage tank (one-time cost)
(assumes on-duty DPW staff)
Transporter Disposal Fee (annual)
(assumes 1,000 gal. @ $0.20/gal.)
TOTAL (first year)
- $2,500-$3,000
- $2,000 - $4,000*
0-
- $ 0- $200
$5,000 - $7,500
* Note: EOEA/DEP grants have paid for over 50
municipal tanks in the past two years.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
DEP Div. of Hazardous Waste (Regulations)
(617) 292-5853
DEP Div. of Solid Waste (Grants)
(617) 292-5984
MWRA Toxic Reduction & Control Dept
(617) 242-6000
V-92
-------
DEP ACTION
The Department of Enwonmental Protection, in collaboration with the U.S. Coast
Guard, EPA, and NOAA, should implement the recently-developed Policy on the Use
of Oil Spilt Chemical Counter Measures (Dispersants) to protect coastal resources from
the adverse effects of oil spills.
RATIONALE:
There are many ecologically, economically, and culturally-
important resources along the Massachusetts coast that may
not always be adequately protected from spilled oil by
conventional physical cleanup methods, such as booming and
skimming. Under certain spill scenarios, these conventional
methods would either be infeasible or would not afford the
desired level of protection for the particular resources at risk.
When conventional methods are not possible or appropriate,
the use of chemical dispersants may be required. Chemically
dispersed oil remains for a time in the water column (where
it is eventually degraded), but because it does not beach or
sink into the sediments, its overall persistence in the marine
environment is generally reduced.
Recently, an environmentally sound policy governing the use
of chemical dispersants in Massachusetts coastal waters,
developed by the U.S. Coast Guard (with assistance from
other federal and state agencies, including DEP), was
accepted by EOEA and incorporated into the state's Area
Contingency Plans for use during oil spill response.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The DEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup will be responsible
for implementing this policy, with assistance from DEP's
Bureau of Resource Protection (BRP), Office of Watershed
Management (OWM). The OWM will continue to provide
guidance on environmental issues that need to be addressed
in implementing the policy, and is taking the lead in acquiring
pertinent information from state and federal resource
agencies (DFWELE, CZM, USFWS, USCG, EPA, and
NOAA) and private marine science organizations, such as
the New England Aquarium and the Center for Coastal
Studies.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Now that the policy is developed, DEP will continue to work
with the U.S. Coast Guard Area Committees, EPA, and
NOAA to develop an effective implementation strategy.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
DEP staff time.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
DEP's annual operating budget
TARGET DATE:
1996 for developing an implementation strategy.
Implementation of the policy on dispersants will be ongoing.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
(617) 292-5852
V-93
-------
V-94
-------
USCG ACTION #63:
The US. Coast Guard, in. collaboration with other federal, state, and local agencies,
should continue to update and implement the Massachusetts coastwide Area
Contingency Plans to assure the rapid and effective response to discharges of oil and
hazardous substances into the marine environment.
RATIONALE:
Despite increasingly rigorous oversight and enforcement of
pollution prevention regulations by the U.S. Coast Guard and
other regulatory authorities, occasional oil and hazardous
materials pollution incidents continue to occur. The potential
for such incidents is ever present when petroleum products
and hazardous materials are moved or stored in bulk
quantities on or near the water. In recent years, oil shipments
have increased, and tank vessels and shoreside terminals
have grown in size and capacity. Over the last decade alone,
the Coast Guard has responded to dozens of significant oil
spills in the Massachusetts Bays regioa Fortunately, none of
these was a major discharge (over 100,000 gallons). Recent
oil spills of note in the Metro Boston area include the
following:
• In May 1991, the tankship DELPHINA, en route to the
Citgo Oil terminal in Braintree, struck a rock in the
Wevmouth Fore River. The ship's # 1 and #2 cargo tanks
ruptured, spilling 16,000 gallons of No.2 fuel oil into the
river.
• hi July 1987,13,800 gallons of insulating oil leaked into
the Mystic River through a corroded electrical conduit at
Boston Edison's Mystic Station.
• In December 1991, the tankbarge B-NO-105 leaked
4,200 gallons of No. 4 fuel oil into the Chelsea River.
• In February 1987, 1,000 gallons of No.6 oil was
discharged into the Mystic River from a storage tank at
Boston Edison's Mystic Station. Tank #3 was being
loaded from Exxon Everett when a meter malfunctioned,
overfilling the tank. The spilled oil flowed into the
Mystic River through nearby storm drains.
• In March 1986, 1,000 gallons of No.4 oil leaked into
Boston Harbor from an underground oil tank at the
Hoffman Building, Boston.
These and other oil pollution incidents underscore the need
for a rapid, coordinated, and effective response to potentially
harmful releases of oil and hazardous materials into the
marine environment To address this need, the U.S. Coast
Guard, in collaboration with the Department of
Environmental Protection and designated Area Committees,
has been developing a coordinated response capability, and
recently completed a two-volume comprehensive oil spill
contingency plan - Area Contingency Plan for Oil and
Hazardous Substance Spills and Releases — for the
Massachusetts coast One volume of the Area Contingency
Plan (ACP) covers the coast from Salisbury to Plymouth
(Manomet Point); the second volume covers the remainder of
the coast from Plymouth to the Rhode Island border, and
includes Cape Cod and the Islands.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, the Department
of Environmental Protection, and designated Area
Committees will share the responsibility for planning,
developing, and implementing incident response actions.
The Area Committees serve as "planning and preparedness"
bodies, and are comprised of experienced environmental and
emergency response representatives from a broad range of
federal, state, and local agencies. Advising and assisting the
Area Committees are facility owners/operators, shipping
company representatives, cleanup contractors, environmental
consultants, environmental advocates, and concerned
citizens.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The first iterations of the two Area Contingency Plans
(ACPs) were recently released, and will be reviewed and
updated annually through 1997, and then every 5 years
thereafter. The ACPs prescribe specific notification and
response procedures that are to be followed by the Federal
and State On-Scene Coordinators, the "responsible party",
and others when responding to a spill or discharge from a
vessel, an offshore facility, or an onshore facility operating in
or near the coastal zone. The ACPs are intended to cover
spills of all sizes and, when implemented in conjunction with
the National Contingency Plan, "shall be adequate to remove
a worst case discharge of oil or a hazardous substance, and to
mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of such a discharge...".
The plans identify available resources and prescribe response
V-95
-------
procedures for all aspects of a spill incident, including:
• Initial notifications and subsequent communication;
• Identification and mobilization of response personnel
and equipment;
• Identification of launching and staging areas;
• On-water mechanical recovery of pollutant(s);
• Cleanup of shoreline;
• Identification and protection of ecologically and
economically sensitive areas;
• Identification and protection of wildlife;
• Assessment of damage to, and restoration of, natural
resources;
• Training requirements;
• Site safety and health procedures; and
• Media interaction and community relations.
To assist responders in the protection of ecologically-
sensitive resources, the Area Contingency Plans describe
and map the locations of each community's shellfish beds,
anadromous fish runs, endangered species habitat (piping
plover nesting sites, for example), and other sensitive natural
resources. Derived from the coastal atlas entitled "Sensitivity
of Coastal Environments and Wildlife to Spilled Oil-
Massachusetts", prepared by Research Planning Institute,
Inc., under contract to NOAA's Office of Oceanography and
Marine Services, mis information will be updated and refined
as additional Living resources data become available.
To assess the effectiveness of the Area Contingency Plans,
the Coast Guard and DEP will conduct periodic drills of spill
response capabilities. These drills are expected to include
participation by federal, state, and local emergency response
authorities, owners and operators of vessels and facilities in
the area, and private cleanup contractors.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
Not applicable.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
U.S. Coast Guard
TARGET DATE:
The first iterations of the Area Contingency Plans for Oil
and Hazardous Substance Spills & Releases for the
Massachusetts coast were printed and distributed in 1994.
These plans will be reviewed and updated annually until
1997, and then every 5 years thereafter. Exercises to test
response preparedness will be conducted by the Coast Guard
as deemed necessary.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
(617) 223-3000
DEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
(617)292-5500
V-96
-------
chapter V
Managing
Municipal
Wastewater
-------
ACTION PLAN #7
MANAGING MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
Significant improvement in water quality has been achieved
over the past 20 years through implementation of the Clean
Water Act and the construction of new and upgraded
wastewater treatment facilities. Nonetheless, there are
sections of inland and coastal waters that either do not yet
meet water quality criteria designed to protect aquatic life, or
are otherwise degraded, and the challenge remains as to how
best to provide adequate treatment and disposal of sewage as
population and development pressures mount in the coastal
region.
Wastewater facilities have the potential to cause a local
decline in water quality. However, in many instances, both
the larger centralized wastewater treatment facilities operated
by municipalities and the smaller on-site systems of home-
owners also cause regional water quality impairment,
resulting in a decline in the overall health of the Bays' coastal
and inland ecosystems. For example, toxic substances,
pathogens, and nutrients in wastewater from both types of
facilities have rendered certain receiving waters unfit for
drinking and have forced the closure of many acres of
valuable shellfish beds and swimming beaches. Clearly, both
centralized and on-site systems have advantages and disad-
vantages related to characteristics such as operation and
maintenance, accountability, and environmental protection.
No one approach provides the ideal solution. Centralized
facilities, described in greater detail in Action Plan #7A, can
be an appropriate solution to water quality problems in
certain situations; on-site systems, described in Action Plan
#7B, may be an appropriate management measure in others.
The extent to which municipal wastewater adversely affects
water quality and living resources in the Bays region depends
on many factors, including the volume of wastewater gener-
ated, its quality of treatment, and the location of its effluent
disposal Because wastewater impacts may be felt over long
distances from the origin of discharge, it is essential that
wastewater be managed on a comprehensive (i.e., watershed)
basis. Through the Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs' innovative Watershed Approach and the model work
of the Massachusetts Bays Program, this approach is begin-
ning to take hold in Massachusetts. However, this has not
always been the case. Traditionally, densely developed urban
areas have turned almost exclusively to public centralized
collection and treatment systems for their wastewater man-
agement needs, while rural areas have relied almost solely on
private, standard-design individual on-site disposal systems.
While both methods employ a range of technologies and, for
a given area and need, may well be the best alternative, they
also can create negative impacts, sometimes unforeseen. Use
of these methods may preclude other management options
that might prove more protective environmentally and less
costly socially in the long run. Indeed, throughout the Bays
region, there are many geographic settings - especially
suburban communities and neighborhoods - where waste-
water management needs fall "in between" centralized
treatment and standard design on-site disposal. In these
areas, a mix of decentralized wastewater managment options,
including package treatment plants, innovative/alternative on-
site systems, waste grinder/ STEP systems, and/or manage-
ment districts, may be preferable. The phrase, "decentralized
wastewater management," refers to coordinated management
of dispersed on-site or near-site,' individual, or neighborhood
and community, small-scale, wastewater treatment systems.
Please refer to Action Plan #7C for additional discussion of
this wastewater management approach.
Managing wastewater wisely and efficiently in the developing
coastal watersheds of the Massachusetts Bays region is a
major challenge for the region's decisionmakers and its
citizens, now and in the future. It is critically important,
therefore, that all levels of government work closely and
cooperatively to explore the full range of available planning
and wastewater management alternatives, and to adopt and
implement those that are best suited to a given area and its
surrounding watershed's particular wastewater and environ-
mental resource needs.
When choosing among wastewater management options,
municipalities should give careful consideration to current
and future growth management strategies based on their
natural resource capacities and local commitment to achieve
and maintain a certain minimum level of environmental
quality.
The recommendations presented in the following three action
plans - Managing Centralized Wastewater Treatment
Facilities, Managing On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems,
and Decentralized Wastewater Management and Treat-
ment - are a step in this direction.
V-97
-------
V-98
-------
7A. ACTION PLAN
FOR
MANAGING CENTRALIZED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Almost everyone has a morning ritual that involves, among
other things, turning on a faucet and flushing a toilet There
is no perceived need to think about where the water comes
from, or where it goes after it flows down the drain. Because
our water comes and goes so easily, it is easy to forget that
the water we use must in some manner be disposed.
In some areas, the water that goes down our drains enters a
centralized sewage system for treatment A sewage system
consists of the pipes which collect the wastewater, pumping
stations which transport it through the pipes, and a treatment
plant (or plants) that remove some of the contaminants before
the wastewater is returned to the environment
There are three levels of sewage treatment:
• Primary treatment: the least expensive and most common
type of treatment relies exclusively on physical straining
and settling to remove solids from the wastewater.
During primary treatment, wastewater is screened to
remove large solids and then passes to a storage tank
where smaller particles are allowed to settle to the
bottom. Primary treatment typically removes about one
third of the organic solids from the wastewater stream.
Chemically enhanced primary treatment is sometimes
used, where chemicals are added to the wastewater to
enhance solids removal.
• Secondary treatment: employs a combination of physical
and biological processes that together are much more
effective than primary treatment at removing most
contaminants. A settling tank is first used to remove
suspended particles. Microorganisms are then used to
degrade organics which are dissolved in the wastewater.
Secondary treatment removes approximately 80-85
percent of the organic matter in the wastewater stream.
Many sewage treatment authorities have been required to
install secondary treatment facilities to comply with the
Clean Water Act
• Advanced treatment, also knows as tertiary treatment:
includes a variety of more advanced treatment processes
currently available. Advanced waste treatment processes
can remove nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus,
which when allowed to remain in the effluent may cause
eutrophication of receiving waters.
Before being discharged, the effluent from a treatment plant
is usually disinfected with chlorine or some other chemical to
kill harmful pathogens. The effluent then passes through an
outfall and into a receiving water body.
All treatment plants produce a semi-solid byproduct called
"sludge", which is disposed of separately from the effluent
The quality of this sludge depends in large measure on the
concentration of contaminants in the wastewater that reaches
the plant Sludge with low concentrations of toxic materials
can be composted and used as a soil additive. Advanced
sludge processing facilities - such as the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority's (MWRA) new facilities at the
Fore River Shipyard — can convert sludge into high-grade
fertilizer pellets. If the sludge has high concentrations of
toxic contaminants, however, it has no beneficial use.
Incineration or disposal at a landfill can be very expensive.
For this reason, source reduction programs, designed to
minimize initial contaminant loadings, are an important
element of most sewage treatment programs. For example,
sludge from the MWRA treatment facility has elevated
molybdenum concentrations during the summer months,
which occasionally precludes its use for production of
fertilizer pellets. The source of the molybdenum has been
traced to anti-fouling agents in industrial cooling towers and
large air conditioning units. The MWRA TRAC (Toxic
Reduction and Control) group is working with clients to find
substitute compounds to alleviate this problem.
Sewage outfalls are often the single greatest point source of
pollution in coastal waters. Not surprisingly, the quality of
the treatment plant's discharged effluent can have a dramatic
impact on the quality of the receiving waterbody and its
living resources. This is especially true if the receiving
waterbody is a poorly-flushed embayment, or if the volume
of effluent is especially large, hi Boston Harbor, for instance,
nearly one-third of the freshwater inflow comes from the
MWRA's sewage treatment facilities. Discharges of this
magnitude can have impacts that reach far beyond the point
of discharge.
V-99
-------
However, as subsequently described in this section, central-
ized treatment can be the most viable option for a community,
given the community's particular circumstances. In these
cases, the impacts of an effluent discharge can be identified,
managed, and mitigated.
State and federal agencies regulate discharges from sewage
treatment facilities through permits granted under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
These permits set thresholds for contaminant concentrations
in the effluent Discharge permits generally set limits for
suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), fecal
coliform bacteria, and chlorine. They may also set limits on
specific chemicals or metals, especially if the sewer system
serves industries which use or produce toxic chemicals or if
there has been a problem with contaminant's in the past All
permits require self-monitoring by the discharger in order to
demonstrate compliance with the permit requirements.
In addition, while NPDES permits for municipalities dis-
charging to marine waters typically set limits on BOD, solids,
and other convential pollutants (as described above), it is not
common for these permits to include limits on nitrogen and
phosphorus, even though these nutrients can adversely
impact receiving waters. For example, for marine dis-
charges, the ambient data to support establishing these
thresholds is insufficient for large-scale application. None-
theless, discussions are currently underway with some
Massachusetts communities (e.g., Scituate) to set nutrient
limits in their permits to discharge wastewater effluent to
coastal areas. Further, NPDES permits must ensure compli-
ance with both technology-based requirements and water
quality standards, including designated uses and criteria to
meet those uses, hi addition, in Massachusetts, the NPDES
must satisfy, and is otherwise supplemented by, the antide-
gradation provision of the Commonwealth's Water Quality
Standards. This provision acknowledges the Common-
wealth's commitment to: (1) protect existing uses and the
water quality necessary to maintain such uses; (2) where the
water quality exceeds levels necessary to support propagation
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the
water, maintain and protect such water quality unless a
variance is granted based on a finding that there are no
reasonable alternatives and the lowering of water quality is
necessary to accommodate economic or social development;
and (3) maintain and protect without qualification the
outstanding resource waters designated by the state.
As the population of the Massachusetts Bays region contin-
ues to grow, the pressure on existing wastewater treatment
facilities will grow as well. Unfortunately, some centralized
sewage systems in the Massachusetts Bays region will not be
able to handle increased flows. Some have antiquated or
undersized collection systems, and others are connected to
stonnwater drains; these result in infiltration and inflow that
dramatically reduce the overall effectiveness of the treatment
system. Facility improvements almost always require heavy
capital outlays that are passed on to the sewage district's
ratepayers.
In some instances, there may be no alternative to constructing
new centralized wastewater treatment facilities. The
MWRA, for example, is required by court order to construct
a new secondary treatment plant in order to comply with the
Clean Water Act Fast-growing towns such as Plymouth may
need to increase plant capacity to keep up with population
growth. But the cost of constructing new sewage facilities
can be exorbitant Other, less expensive options, such as
land application and alternative technologies, will need to be
evaluated and implemented to help treat and safely dispose of
increased sewage flows in the Massachusetts Bays region.
V-100
-------
: DEM ACTION *7A.l:
•> N •• X %
The Department of Environmental Management, in collaboration with other state and
federal agencies, should continue ip Implement the Ocean Sanctuaries Act by closely
monitoring all facilities plans which propose increased wastewater treatment plant
discharges into an ocean sanctuary.
RATIONALE:
With the notable exception of the metropolitan areas south of
Lynn and north of Marshfield, most of the Massachusetts
Bays coastline below mean low water lies within one of five
designated ocean sanctuaries. Under the Ocean Sanctuaries
Act (OSA), these sanctuaries must be protected for their
"ecological" and "aesthetic" interests. The OSA is designed
to protect coastal waters by prohibiting activities that could
be environmentally or aesthetically damaging. Prohibited
activities include new or increased wastewater discharges;
building of any structure on the seabed; mining or removing
sand, gravel, or minerals; dumping or discharging of com-
mercial or industrial wastes; incineration of solid waste on
vessels; construction of offshore electric stations; and
commercial advertising. Some of the prohibited activities
may be allowed if the project proponent receives a Chapter
91 permit from the Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) and also meets the conditions defined in the regula-
tions as the "public necessity and convenience" standard.
In 1989, the OSA was amended to establish a variance
procedure for proposed increases in municipal wastewater
discharges into a sanctuary. Prior to the amendment, a
community with an existing municipal wastewater discharge
into an ocean sanctuary could not correct outstanding
pollution problems (increased sewer use or combined sewer
overflows, for example) if it meant increasing the volume of
effluent or relocating the point of discharge. Effluent vol-
umes had to remain at the original (permitted) volume even
if the increased discharge were to be cleaner due to a higher
level of treatment
With the variance procedure in place, increased wastewater
discharges are now possible. However, the strict environ-
mental requirements of the variance procedure will ensure
that increased discharges remain a last resort Rigorous
scrutiny of wastewater facilities plans will continue to
ensure that alternative disposal technologies are fully ex-
plored and mat increased discharges will not adversely affect
marine water quality or living resources.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The Commonwealth's ocean sanctuaries have been placed
under the "care and control" of the Massachusetts Depart-
ment of Environmental Management Acting as a caretaker
rather than a permitting authority, DEM is responsible for
reviewing all other state agencies' licensing, permitting, and
approval activities in ocean sanctuaries to ensure compliance
with the Act It is the responsibility of all state agencies to
conduct their activities in a manner consistent with the
provisions of the Act and to confer with the Ocean Sanctuar-
ies Coordinator at DEM.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
To implement the Ocean Sanctuaries Act, DEM will continue
to assure strict adherence to the environmental review
process required under the variance procedure. Variances
will be granted only if the proposed wastewater discharge is
determined to be the only feasible alternative and receives a
minimunof secondary treatment Multiple prerequisites will
need to be met and plans developed for pretreatment, water
conservation, and the control of infiltration/inflow, sewer
connections, and CSOs. DEM will emphasize the require-
ment that land application and other alternative disposal
technologies be fully examined prior to consideration of an
ocean discharge, and that water conservation measures be
implemented to their fullest practicable extent DEM also
will inform the public that any project in an ocean sanctuary
must comply with the "public necessity and convenience"
standard set forth in the Ocean Sanctuaries Act and defined
in Massachusetts regulations 302 CMR 5.00.
V-101
-------
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost of implementing this action is for the DEM staff
time involved, and will be borne by DEM.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
DEM annual operating budget
TARGET DATE:
Ongoing.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DEM Ocean Sanctuaries Program
(617)727-3267
V-102
-------
1PA ACTION #7A»2:
The Environmental Protection Agency should support the control of combined sewer
overflows in the Massachusetts Bays watersheds, especially the lower Charles River, and
should target National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting to
implement technology- and water quality-based requirements in the Merrimack River
watershed.
RATIONALE:
Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) occur in drainage
systems which carry both stormwater runoff and raw sewage,
typically during times of high volume flow in what are usually
undersized and outdated systems. Without separation and
traditional treatment of the sewage component, CSOs can be
major sources of harmful pathogens, toxics, and debris. The
presence of numerous CSOs in the Massachusetts Bays and
their watersheds has led to limitations on human contact
through swimming, the closure of economically important
shellfish beds, and a general decline in environmental quality.
This is especially true in the lower Charles River, where this
important urban resource is currently neither swimmable nor
fishable due to both CSOs and a number of cumulative
nonpoint sources of water pollution (e.g., stormwater runoff).
Additional water quality problems resulting from inade-
quately treated and managed wastewater and CSOs include
high levels of toxic pollutants and metals which surpass the
ability of the receiving water to assimilate and dilute these
contaminants to concentrations below acceptable limits.
Reduction of the sources of these pollutants (e.g., via
pollutant-specific limits, BMPs) is a proven solution to these
problems. The need to manage these water quality problems
is especially pressing in the Merrimack River watershed,
which is known to be a major contributor of toxic pollutants
and metals to the Massachusetts Bays.
The water quality problems noted above result partially from
wastewater discharges, which are subject to the NPDES
program. Under mis program, such discharges into wetlands,
waterways, and waterbodies are required to obtain a permit
which sets limits for various contaminants in the discharge.
These permit limits are typically met through a variety of
remedial and preventive measures which are implemented at
or by the wastewater treatment plant
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
NPDES permitting and compliance for wastewater dis-
charges is the joint responsibility of the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection (DEP). Permitting actions
will be developed and implemented with the coordination and
cooperation of involved agencies such as the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority (MWRA). Further, any NPDES
permitting will be integrated with existing, holistic efforts to
better manage and protect the Charles River Watershed (e.g.,
EPA's Lower Charles Initiative). Finally, this action will be
implemented in accordance with EPA's Combined Sewer
Overflow Policy, as published in the Federal Register on
April 19,1994.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
No major organizational efforts are needed to implement this
recommendation in the specified areas, since EPA staff
resources dedicated to the NPDES program will be redi-
rected to the lower Charles River and Merrimack River
discharges, in coordination with the Massachusetts DEP.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
Minimal, since the recommended action will be carried out
by EPA staff who are already funded by the agency's operat-
ing budget
V-103
-------
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Agency operating budgets.
TARGET DATE:
Ongoing.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
EPA-NewEngland
(617) 565-4422
V-104
-------
EPA/EOEA/DEP/CZM PARTNERSHIP ACTION #7A3: !
s
The Environmental Irotection Agency* Executive Office of Environmental Affairs,
Department of Environmental Protection,, and Coastal Zone Management Office should
work collaboratively to develop and implement an effective program for monitoring and
enforcing point source discharges from wastewater treatment plants and energy-
producing facilities. !
RATIONALE:
In Massachusetts, there are 32 municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants (WWTP) and six energy-producing facilities
with discharges to near coastal waters. These discharges
have the potential to cause localized and regional declines in
receiving water quality - with resultant adverse impacts to
living marine resources and coastal habitats - unless closely
monitored on a regular basis. Opportunities exist to improve
the existing discharge permitting and enforcement structure
so as to maximize facility compliance and pollutant removal
effectiveness.
PROPOSED ACTIONS:
Accordingly, the following CCMP actions are proposed.
These are expected to be developed and articulated more
fully in future supplements to the CCMP.
1. EPA/DEP Action
In order to develop a streamlined and concise permit-
ting and enforcement strategy to manage point source
discharges, EPA-New England should consider dele-
gating the NPDES permit program to the Massachu-
setts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
2. DEP/CZM/EPA Action
Consistent with the EOEA Basin Management Initia-
tive, DEP and the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Man-
agement Office (CZM) should re-evaluate the effec-
tiveness of the current NPDES program and, with
EPA, redesign the program to achieve effective pollu-
tion reduction, including pollution trading and other
innovative "offsets/credits" models; all to the extent
authorized by existing law.
3. EOEA/DEP/CZM Action
EOEA, DEP, and CZM should pursue state legislation
to modify the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act to meet
EPA requirements for NPDES delegation. Legislation
has been before the state legislature for some time
without additional action.
4. CZM/DEP Action
CZM and DEP should assemble an interagency team to
develop criteria for a routine comprehensive evaluation
of coastal WWTP discharges. The evaluation should
focus on permit compliance and pollution removal
effectiveness to assist in prioritizing key issues within
coastal watersheds. Priorities thus identified should be
used to focus state agency program actions.
Monitoring plans developed by dischargers should be
reviewed by appropriate agency staff (e.g., EPA, DEP, MBP,
CZM) to ensure use of performance-based methodologies
and inclusion of acceptable quality assurance/quality control
procedures. Monitoring data should be reviewed periodically
to ensure compliance with permit limits and to track trends in
effluent and receiving water quality.
V-105
-------
V-106
-------
7B. ACTION PLAN
FOR
MANAGING ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
In areas that are not saved by a centralized sewage treatment
facility, wastewater generated by residents and businesses
often must be disposed of on the premises. Homes and
businesses in many areas of the Massachusetts Bays region
dispose of their sewage through on-site systems, including
parts of the South Shore, most of the Upper North Shore, and
virtually all of Cape Cod. These same areas have generally
experienced the greatest population growth over the last 20
years. As the population in unsewered rural and suburban
areas continues to expand, it becomes increasingly important
to find ways to limit the adverse impact of these systems on
the coastal environment
On-site sewage disposal systems (OSDS), such as septic
tanks and cesspools, remove pathogens from waste by two
mechanisms - physical straining and adsorption or adher-
ence to soil particles. Most of these systems temporarily
store wastewater and then gradually allow it to leach into
surrounding soils. As the sewage percolates through the soil,
much of the bacteria is filtered out, allowing relatively clean
water to pass through to the groundwater below.
Three physical factors govern the placement of a septic
system:
(1) the elevation of the site above groundwater,
(2) the lateral distance between the leaching component of
the system and a point of water use (e.g., drinking
water well); and
(3) the suitability of the soils or sediments into which the
effluent will be discharged.
In Massachusetts, all of these factors are addressed by the
Title 5 regulations of the State Environmental Code, most
recently revised in March, 1995. Unfortunately, many on-site
systems pre-date both the current Title 5 regulations and the
previous (1978) regulations, and are severely degrading
coastal habitat and nearshore waters in the Massachusetts
Bays region.
There are three ways in which pathogen contamination from
on-site systems can reach the coast The most obvious threat
is outright system failure, which occurs when a system
component is blocked by accumulated solids or when
receiving soils become saturated. With no place else to go,
sewage collects on top of the septic system, cesspool, or
leaching structure. If it breaks onto the surface of the ground,
the sewage may eventually be carried to receiving waters by
stormwater runoff or gravity. Systems installed before the
promulgation of the 1978 Title 5 may have little or no
separation from groundwater and may therefore cause
contamination even if the sewage does not emerge onto the
ground These "covert" system failures are especially
insidious because they give no obvious visible indication of
the harm being done.
During dry weather, system failures probably contribute only
a small amount of pathogen contamination to the Bays.
During periods of wet weather, however, system failures are
more frequent and may be a locally significant source of
coliform bacteria in some coastal areas. Wet weather also
triggers overflows in some older systems. Although they are
illegal now, many pre-Title 5 systems were equipped with
overflow pipes to prevent aesthetically unpleasant system
failures. When the wastewater in these systems backs up to
a critical level, it is diverted through the overflow pipe, which
usually empties directly into a surface waterbody or a
connecting ditch. Existing overflow connections are thought
to contribute significantly to pathogen contamination in
coastal waters and their tributaries.
Even when they meet current design standards, are operating
properly, and are properly maintained, however, on-site
sewage disposal systems may threaten water quality. Studies
suggest that, in most instances, soils filter bacteria out of
wastewater over a distance of a few yards. However, viruses
- which are typically much smaller than bacteria - may pass
through these soils and enter the groundwater. They subse-
quently contaminate resource areas (aquifers, shellfish beds,
swimming beaches) which intersect the groundwater flow.
Depending on the horizontal distance between an on-site
sewage system and the shore, sewage-derived pathogens may
contaminate coastal waters and habitat
In addition, on-site sewage disposal systems can be a signifi-
cant source of nitrogen. Soil infiltration generally does not
remove nitrogen effectively from the effluent Instead, the
soil merely converts ammonia nitrogen to potentially harmful
V-107
-------
nitrates. Excessive nitrates not only can contaminate drink-
ing water supplies, but also can stimulate excessive growth
of algae in nitrogen-sensitive embayments.
On-site sewage disposal systems also may contribute toxic
and corrosive contaminants from household cleaning and
maintenance products. While quantitative data are not
available to conclusively establish the relative magnitude of
septic systems as a source of toxicants to water resources,
efforts need to be made to reduce the use of household
contaminants in order to better protect the environment and
to increase the longevity of the disposal systems.
Prior to their recent revisions, the Title 5 regulations were not
sufficient to prevent serious coastal degradation from on-site
sewage disposal systems. Originally, the Title 5 regulations
were adopted as minimum standards of protection. Many
homeowners and real estate developers, however, miscon-
strued them as adequate standards of protection, hi light of
scientific gains made since Tide 5 was promulgated in 1978,
the regulations have been substantially revised to better
protect public health and the marine environment Some of
the positive changes include:
• Required system inspection by a certified inspector at the
time of property transfer, change of use that results in
increased sewage flow, or increase in the number of
bedrooms.
• Clarified definition of a failed system - i.e., a system
exhibiting obvious hydraulic failures (breakout or backup
of sewage); systems located within Zone I of public water
supply wells, within 100 feet of public water supply
reservoirs, or within 50 feet of surface water bodies;
cesspools without at least a half-day capacity; systems
found to be a specific health or environmental threat
• Nitrogen loading limits for new systems to be served by
both on-site systems and private wells, and for systems
located in nitrogen-sensitive areas (zones of contribution
of public drinking water supply wells). Designation of
other nitrogen-sensitive areas will occur through the
surface water quality standards process.
• A comprehensive system for review and approval of
alternative technologies, based on the level of information
available about the proposed technology. For example,
recirculating sand filters are approved for general use,
and humus/composting toilets, already approved wher-
ever a conventional system could be used, are approved
for upgrades, with use of existing leaching systems under
some conditions.
No matter how positive these and other changes to the state
regulations, mitigating the impact of on-site sewage systems
will require the broad cooperation of municipalities and
individual homeowners. Fortunately, some remediation
measures are easy to implement. Many conventional system
failures, for example, can be prevented simply by pumping
out the solids that collect in the septic tank during routine
system maintenance.
New technologies also promise to mitigate the impact of on-
site sewage systems. Innovative on-site treatment systems
have shown considerable promise in removing significant
amounts of nitrogen from wastewater. Some of the most
promising technologies include:
• Humus/composting toilets: composting of sanitary
wastes has been used since the dawn of civilization. Its
principle is simple. If sanitary wastes are allowed to sit
long enough, perhaps with a little added organic matter
such as leaves or sawdust, it will eventually degrade to a
soil-like material. There have been several drawbacks to
this approach, however. Odors, exposure to pathogens,
and general unsightliness have historically limited its use
to situations where these objections could be overcome.
Recently, Clivus Multrum has packaged this technology
to address health and aesthetic concerns. Clivus's com-
posting technology is presently approved for use in
Massachusetts under certain conditions. This technology
has been combined elsewhere with other technologies
such as sand filters and standard leaching facilities;
however, this "combined" approach has not yet been tried
in Massachusetts
• Peat filters: in these systems, peat bed filters are placed
after the septic tank and function as both a filter and leach
field. As wastewater moves through the peat, micro-
scopic fungi transform nitrates to harmless nitrogen gas.
Peat beds require little maintenance and can remove more
than 90 percent of the total nitrogen in the wastewater
flow.
• Recirculating sand filters (RSFs): these systems are
equipped with a series of sand filters. Wastes from the
bouse ate first discharged into a septic tank, where solids
are separated from the liquid portion of the wastes.
Effluent from the septic tank then flows into a pump
chamber. From there, the wastes are periodically
pumped to the top of a sand filter. After percolating
through the sand filter, the effluent is collected by an
underdrain and either recirculated back to the pump
chamber or discharged to a standard leaching facility.
The majority of the effluent collected at the bottom of the
sand filter is usually returned to the pump chamber by
gravity flow. RSFs are typically designed to recirculate
effluent three to five times before discharging to the
leaching facility.
• RUCK systems: like filter systems, the RUCK system
relies on bacteria to convert ammonium first to nitrate
and then to nitrogen gas. It incorporates separate septic
tanks for black and gray water. A special filter aerates
V-108
-------
and nidifies the blade water, which is then mixed with the
gray water in an anaerobic environment At this stage,
bacteria draw carbon from the gray water, allowing them
to convert nitrate to nitrogen gas. The combined effluent
is then discharged to a standard leaching facility.
While the cost of these systems may be beyond the immediate
reach of many home owners, low-interest "betterment" loans
are expected to become increasingly available as more and
more communities take advantage of the recent betterment
law that enables communities to offer loans for on-site system
upgrades, lead paint abatement, and removal of underground
fuel tanks. Additional assistance is available from a $10
million loan program, to be administered by the Executive
Office of Communities and Development (EOCD), the
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), the Massachusetts
Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), and some private
lending institutions. Also, with increased use of alternative
systems, costs should fall. In the meantime, homeowners
need to be educated about their on-site sewage systems in
order to keep them functioning properly. At the same time,
town officials, particularly local Boards of Health and health
agents, need reliable up-to-date information on alternative
technology systems and direct "hands-on" technical assistance
in evaluating on-site systems proposals and monitoring
alternative systems performance. Working together, state
officials, local officials, and private homeowners can ensure
that our coastal resources are not degraded by sewage-
derived contaminants.
V-109
-------
V-110
-------
: MUNICIPAL ACTION WTR.V.
Municipalities should identify resource areas sensitive to wastewater and develop
management plans appropriate to these areas, focusing on me capacities of natural
systems to assimilate wastewater. .
RATIONALE:
In many Massachusetts coastal communities, groundwater is
both a source of drinking water and a receptor for
wastewater. Septic systems located in areas of high ground-
water, in recharge areas to freshwater ponds, and in recharge
areas to sensitive coastal embayments can seriously degrade
water quality, resulting in an array of problems, including
closed shellfish beds and excessive plant growth and odor in
ponds and coastal waters.
By identifying their wastewater-sensitive resource areas (e.g.,
wellhead protection areas, potential public water supply
areas, recharge areas to freshwater ponds, recharge areas to
nitrogen-sensitive coastal embayments, areas where ground-
water has been degraded by point and nonpoint source
pollution), municipalities can better manage wastewater and
minimise adverse impacts on groundwater and surface water
quality.
Once these individual resource areas are identified, munici-
palities can develop appropriate sub-area management plans
that specify permissible and prohibited activities based on the
specific resource and public health interests to be protected.
For example, specific limits can be set on nitrogen discharges
from new development or redevelopment sites in order to
protect the quality of drinking water supplies in wellhead
protection areas or to prevent excessive plant growth in
coastal waters. Strategies to achieve and maintain safe
nitrogen levels may include: zoning changes to increase
minimum lot sizes, restrictions on selected land uses that
generate high nitrogen loads, use of denitrifying wastewater
treatment systems, and land acquisition.
One important note: This recommendation can and should be
considered a minimum level of planning needed to protect
specific embayments and other sensitive areas from
wastewater-rdated nutrient and pathogen impacts, especially
for existing development hi many cases, municipalities will
need to undertake a more comprehensive level of planning
related to wastewater management and the potential impacts
associated with wastewater discharge. This is particularly
true for impacts from new development or in densely devel-
oped areas adjacent to sensitive resource areas. Please refer
to Action Plan 7C regarding Decentralized Wastewater
Management for additional information on these broad
criteria
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Planning Boards and Boards of Health would share most of
the responsibility for this action, with assistance from local
Conservation Commissions and Water Departments, Re-
gional Planning Agencies, and the Massachusetts Depart-
ments of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Environmental
Management (DEM). Where management areas cross town
boundaries, municipalities should work cooperatively with
their neighboring communities and RPAs to ensure the
effective management of wastewater at the regional level.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Local boards, assisted by the RPAs, should obtain and
evaluate relevant information on sensitive resource areas in
the community. Sources of such information include local
records and file data developed by the Departments of
Environmental Protection and Environmental Management
(e.g., Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, wellhead
protection areas, potential public water supply sites, Out-
standing Resource Waters, wetlands). Information on
existing and potential wastewater problem areas may be
obtained from Board of Health septic system pumping and
repair records, local water table maps, local land use maps,
and Planning Board records on existing and proposed
development sites.
The local boards and RPAs should involve the citizenry in
discussions of wastewater management alternatives and of
the treatment level needed to achieve and maintain a speci-
fied environmental quality under different development
scenarios, so that costs and benefits can be properly weighed
by the community as a whole. Each alternative will carry
with it certain public and/or individual resident costs and
benefits. Understanding these costs and benefits can be key
to obtaining public support for a particular management
scheme.
Technical assistance in developing the sub-area management
plans may be obtained from the RPAs, the DEP Division of
Water Pollution Control, the Massachusetts Bays Program,
the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office, the
EPA's Small Flows Clearinghouse, and the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority (for member municipalities), hi
V-lll
-------
addition, helpful information may be available from EPA's
two regional demonstration projects - the City of Gloucester
and the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve --
on alternative on-site wastewater technologies and other
strategies for minimising the impacts of wastewater on
groundwater and surface water quality.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required at this time.
ESTIMATED COST:
The costs of this action can vary widely depending upon the
level of information available. For municipalities with
computerized assessor's records, digitized parcel information,
and completed water studies, this action could cost under
$50,000. If such information is not available, costs could
exceed $250,000. (Although not as detailed or reliable, the
so-called "MacConnell land use data" could be used in place
of parcel data.)
The cost also is dependent upon the specific resources to be
protected For example, it may cost significantly more to
define and map the recharge area of a nitrogen-sensitive
embayment than to delineate the wellhead protection area
around a single well site.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Currently, funds for the development of local sub-area
management plans must come largely from local revenues.
Technical assistance (and in the case of the Cape Cod
Commission, limited funding) may be available from the
RPAs. Some s.319 (Nonpoint Source Program) funds may
be available on a competitive basis from the DEP. Addi-
tional state funding may be available in the future if proposed
legislation to provide funding for the preparation of Local
Comprehensive Plans passes. A local sub-area management
plan could be part of a Local Comprehensive Plan.
TARGET DATE:
1996-2001.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
V-112
-------
MUNICIPAL ACTON #7B.2:
Municipalities, in cooperation with DEP, should develop and implement regular
inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs for on-site wastewater systems,
RATIONALE:
Improperly operated and maintained septic systems can
pollute groundwater and streams, ponds, and coastal waters.
Such pollution can result in the closure of shellfish beds and
noxious water quality conditions in ponds and coastal waters.
Over the long term, chronic pollution of water resources from
on-site septic systems can force a municipality to construct
costly water and wastewater treatment facilities that would
not have been necessary had the community's septic systems
been properly maintained
Preventive measures, such as a regular septic system inspec-
tion and maintenance (I/M) program can help assure the
proper operation of septic systems and protect environmental
quality and public health. It also provides an opportunity to
educate homeowners about the proper use and disposal of
household chemicals that are harmful to septic systems and
groundwater. An inspection and maintenance program can
be an effective tool for improving the overall quality and
performance of on-site wastewater systems within a given
resource area or in the community as a whole. Depending
upon the nature of the areas in which systems are located,
required upgrades might include denitrifying systems or
community systems where lot size limitations preclude
constructing conventional systems to code.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
A septic system I/M program may be conducted by either an
individual community or a group of communities (the latter
by establishing an institutional mechanism for joint manage-
ment and funding, such as a groundwater protection district).
In either case, the I/M program should be conducted in
consultation and cooperation with the Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection (DEP). In some regions, organizing a
program through the wastewater treatment facility or a county
entity may be desirable. Individual programs would gener-
ally be administered by the Board of Health and/or DPW.
Regardless of how a program is organized, each community
would be individually responsible for issuing the appropriate
enforcement orders to homeowners whose systems warrant
pumping, repair, or an upgrade.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
A municipality should decide how it wants to conduct its I/M
program - on its own or in cooperation with other local or
regional governments. The municipality also should evaluate
the capacity of the local or regional wastewater treatment
facility to handle additional septage. Once these are accom-
plished, establishment of an inspection and maintenance
program is a relatively straightforward matter.
The I/M program would notify each homeowner prior to an
inspection, and the homeowner would be expected to expose
the manhole cover of the septic tank or cesspool. The
inspection would involve examining the system for visible
signs of failure, inspecting the tees and depth of the manhole
cover, measuring the thickness of the scum and sludge layers
relative to the volume of the septic tank or cesspool, and
recording the pH. The inspector would be available to
discuss the inspection results with the homeowner and to
provide educational materials on proper system operation and
maintenance.
Within 3 weeks or so of an inspection, a formal findings letter
and a copy of the completed inspection form would be mailed
to the property owner. The notice would state if the system
is in compliance with applicable local and state regulations
or whether pumping or an upgrade is required The local
boards of health would be responsible for implementing
enforcement orders issued as a result of the inspections.
The I/M program staff would maintain a computerized
database of all inspections and pumping data, and this
information would be readily available to local boards of
health and health officers. Inspections would be scheduled
such that each residential system would be examined once
every three years. Commercial systems, such as restaurants
and laundromats, would be inspected more frequently,
perhaps once every 6 months to a year, depending on local
factors.
Other considerations would include current inspection and
maintenance related efforts (e.g., a paper describing I/M
options) by the DEP.
V-113
-------
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
The adoption of a uniform annual fee for all owners of on-site
systems requires special stale legislation. The establishment
of a regional groundwater protection district between or
among municipalities also requires special state legislation.
the Wastewater Management program. At the end of each
fiscal year, any money left in the fund does not revert to the
General Fund but remains available for increased program
staff or services, rate reduction, or for repairs of on-site
systems performed on behalf of an owner experiencing an
emergency or financial hardship.
ESTIMATED COST:
Variable, depending on number of on-site systems and
institutional mechanism selected (i.e., local program vs. share
intermunicipal program).
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Local sources of funds include: property tax revenues,
treatment plant discharge fees, and system user fees. As an
example, under the City of Gloucester's Wastewater Manage-
ment Program, each on-site system owner is charged an
annual fee ("on-site monitoring fee") that appears on the
water bill The collected fees are deposited into an enterprise
fund which is used exclusively for activities associated with
TARGET DATE:
1996-1998.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DEP Division of Water Pollution Control
(617)292-5673
Your Area's Regional Planning Agency
V-114
-------
ACTION #7B3:
Municipalities should employ full-time., professionaHy-trained public health staff to
provide ongoing technical and administrative support to the local Boards of Health,
RATIONALE:
Local Boards of Health have both a broad responsibility and
far-reaching authority to protect the health, safety, and
welfare of a community's residents. Their broad regulatory
authority has thrust them into the forefront of public health
and environmental protection at the local level. Indeed,
Boards of Health can adopt regulations for virtually any
activity that might endanger public health or contaminate the
soil, air, or water, including groundwater. Major oversight
responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
• Regular sanitary inspection of all food handling establish-
ments, schools and day care centers, hospitals, convales-
cent facilities, and nursing homes, summer camps, and
theaters;
• Investigation of all complaints of nuisance or unsanitary
conditions;
• Local enforcement of the state's "Right-To-Rnow" law,
• Siting and regulation of solid waste facilities, including
landfills and recycling centers;
• Review of subdivision and site plans (drainage and waste
disposal considerations);
• Water quality testing of public swimming beaches; and
• Review and permitting of septic system installations and
upgrades (including witnessing of percolation and deep
hole tests).
With respect to the latter responsibility alone, the complexi-
ties and demands of the recently revised Title 5 regulations
are expected to place an extremely heavy burden on many
local health boards, requiring an investment of time and a
technical understanding of on-site systems, including alterna-
tive systems, that are generally not available through a
board's all-volunteer members or a part-time health agent
For this reason, Boards of Health should hire full-time
professionally trained staff (preferably a registered sanitarian
or engineer) who can devote full attention to carrying out the
Boards' multiple environmental and public health mandates.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The Boards of Health, supported by other municipal boards,
would have primary responsibility for this action.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The Board of Health, in consultation with the community's
finance board and chief governing body, would request
approval of an expanded annual operating budget to accom-
modate the new staff position(s). Approval would be by
either town meeting or city council vote, depending on the
local government structure.
The Massachusetts Association of Health Boards, the
Massachusetts Public Health Association, and the Massachu-
setts Municipal Association can offer guidance in developing
job descriptions and advertising the new position(s) to attract
qualified candidates.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost associated with hiring a full-time health agent
(registered sanitarian or engineer) is $35,000 - 40,000 per
year including benefits, overhead, professional membership
fees, travel, and other expenses.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Local revenues and fees from sanitary inspection services.
TARGET DATE:
1996/1997 to hire full-time staff.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Massachusetts Association of Health Boards
(508)643-0234
Massachusetts Public Health Association
(617) 524-66%
Massachusetts Municipal Association
(617)426-7272
V-115
-------
V-116
-------
; COASTAL RPA ACTION #7B.4
Coastal Regional Planning Agencies should establish a Tide 5 and alternative systems
technical assistance program directed to local Boards of Health and health agents,
systems engineers/installers, and homeowners, -
RATIONALE:
In 1994, the Massachusetts Bays Program convened a "focus
group" meeting on the local management of on-site sewage
disposal systems. The purpose of this meeting was to learn
first hand from local Boards of Health and others about the
problems they encounter in administering Tide 5 and the
types of outside assistance that would prove most beneficial
to them.
The participants noted the lack of direct ("hands-on")
technical assistance available to local boards on a regular and
timely basis to help set up inspection and maintenance (I/M)
programs, perform technical reviews of advanced on-site
wastewater treatment systems plans, develop protocols for
local oversight of the operation and maintenance of alterna-
tive wastewater treatment technologies, and provide training
for on-site systems installation and monitoring.
To address this need, it was recommended that the Regional
Planning Agencies establish a direct and ongoing technical
assistance service in each of the coastal regions where on-site
sewage disposal is the dominant or a significant mode of
wastewater management
An excellent model for this latter service is already in place
on Cape Cod. Since April 1994, the Bamstable County
Department of Health and the Environment (BCDHE) has
employed a part-time registered sanitarian, paid for by the
MBP, to provide ongoing technical assistance to Boards of
Health, installers, and others on alternative technologies and
related matters. During this brief period, this individual has:
• developed expertise and compiled a reference library on
alternative systems technologies;
• provided technical assistance to Boards of Health and
engineers in the review of plans for non-proprietary
systems;
• assisted in the installation of a peat system (Cotuit);
• assisted in the monitoring program for a recirculating
sand filter (Bourne);
• developed standardized monitoring requirements for the
provision of performance data on alternative systems; and
• developed fact sheets for Boards of Health, homeowners,
and engineers/installers on composting and recirculating
sand filter systems.
Building on the first year's accomplishments, BCDHE plans
to offer additional services in several other areas as well,
including:
• conducting hands-on training on alternative technologies
with each Board of Health;
• working directly with Boards of Health to adopt standard-
ized monitoring requirements for alternative technologies;
• developing additional fact sheets on peat systems, deter-
mination of system efficiencies, and the denitrification
process; and
• developing and distributing newsletters offering timely
information and advice on on-site systems issues.
From the local perspective, hands-on assistance of this kind
is indispensable and can only be provided by trained person-
nel physically located in or near the communities to be
served. For this reason, it is important that these same
technical services be made available in the other coastal
regions where undertrained and overburdened Boards of
Health are attempting to grapple with a broad range of
difficult on-site sewage systems management problems.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The three RPAs serving the non-sewered coastal communi-
ties of the North and South Shores [Merrimack Valley
Planning Commission (MVPC), Metropolitan Area Planning
Council (MAPC), and Old Colony Planning Council
(OCPC)] would be responsible for providing the direct
technical assistance, training, and educational outreach to
local Boards of Health, health agents, on-site systems
engineers/installers, and homeowners. As mentioned above,
Cape Cod communities are already offered these services by
the Bamstable County Department of Health and the Envi-
ronment
V-117
-------
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The three coastal RPAs should adopt the successful model
program established by the Bamstable County Department of
Health and the Environment
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost to the coastal RPAs of providing ongoing technical
assistance to local Boards of Health and others on on-site
systems matters, including alternative technologies, is
expected to be about $25,000 - $35,000/RPA per year. This
would support the part-time position (approximately 20
hrsAvk) of a trained specialist (e.g., environmental engineer
or registered sanitarian) to provide ongoing professional
assistance to the non-sewered coastal communities on the
North and South Shores.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Potential funding sources include Section 319 (nonpoint
source) funds and RPA matching funds.
TARGET DATE:
Due to the scope and immediacy of on-site system problems
and needs in many of the region's coastal communities,
planning for the RPA technical assistance services should
begin as soon as possible, with full implementation proposed
for 1996/1997.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Your Area's Regional Planning Agency:
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
(508)374-0519
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
(617)451-2770
Old Colony Planning Council
(508)583-1833
V-118
-------
DEP ACTION
The Department of Environmental Protection should evaluate and build upon the
centralized statewide repository for testing information on alternative technologies, to
be established as part of the Buzzards Bay Brojecfs two-year Environmental Technol-
ogy Initiative Project.
RATIONALE
Keeping informed about the efficiency and site-specific
applicability of on-site alternative technologies poses a
special challenge to local officials administering Title 5.
Boards of health and other community representatives have
identified the need for a centralized bureau or service that
they can consult for reliable, up-to-date information and
advice on evaluating and choosing appropriate alternative
technologies to protect nitrogen-sensitive embayments and
groundwater.
To address this problem, a state/local focus group convened
in 1994 by the Massachusetts Bays Program recommended
that the state (preferably DEP) establish a central clearing-
house for all relevant information on alternative technologies.
The information to be collected should be comprehensive,
up-to-date, and easily accessible (i.e., user friendly). More-
over, to the extent possible, the clearinghouse should be
linked electronically to other data sources, researchers and
users (e.g.( the National Small Flows Clearinghouse at West
Virginia University, Waquoit Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve) to facilitate information transfer and use.
hi the summer of 1995, the Buzzards Bay National Estuary
Project, in collaboration with Bamstable County Department
of Health and the Environment (BCDHE), the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, and Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve, was awarded an EPA Environ-
mental Technology Initiative (ETI) grant for $459,000. The
funding will support a two-year project involving the devel-
opment of a testing and demonstration facility for alternative
design systems in the Buzzards Bay area. The project will
provide a centralized testing facility which will demonstrate
the technologies to local boards of health and system design
professionals. The project will also provide a centralized
statewide repository for testing information on alternative
technologies, which will help encourage their use and
acceptance regionally and perhaps even nationally. This
project can serve as a model for the DEP alternative technol-
ogies clearinghouse recommended by our local focus group
participants.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
During the two-year ETI project, the Bamstable County
Health and Environment Department will serve as the
statewide repository for testing information on alternative
technologies. The information will be available both elec-
tronically and in hard-copy format At the conclusion of the
project, DEP should evaluate the effectiveness of and demand
for a centralized clearinghouse, and should accept the
responsibility for maintaining the service statewide.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
DEP/DWPC should work closely with the Buzzards Bay
Project and the other ETI partners throughout the two-year
project At the conclusion of the project, DEP should con-
vene a small working group of representative "stakeholders"
to help evaluate the effectiveness of the types of information
provided by the ETI project's statewide repository of testing
information and the delivery system used.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
The overall cost of DEP's establishing and maintaining a
central clearinghouse of on-site systems technologies is yet to
be determined. Evaluation of the level of effort necessary to
maintain the ETI project's centralized statewide repository for
testing information should help determine the cost of a long-
term centralized clearinghouse.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
Potential funding sources include: DEP's annual operating
budget and Section 319 (nonpoint source) funds.
V-119
-------
TARGET DATE;
The ETI model project will begin in 1996 and conclude in
1998. DEP evaluation of the clearinghouse function will take
place throughout the project, with a follow-up DEP imple-
mentation strategy in place at the conclusion of the project.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DEP Division of Water Pollution Control
(617) 292-5673
V-120
-------
7C. ACTION PLAN
FOR
DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT
NOTE TO THE READER: THE FORMAT OF THIS PLAN DOES NOT FOLLOW THE FORMAT OF THE OTHER ACTION
PLANS, AS THE BASIS FOR THE DECENTRALIZED ACTIONS IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT. UPON COMPLETION OF THIS
WORK, AS DESCRIBED IN THIS PLAN, MORE SPECIFIC ACTIONS WILL BERECOMMENDED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS
BAYSPROGRAM.
BACKGROUND
As described in the previous Action Plans (Managing
Centralized Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Managing
On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems), the disposal and subse-
quent treatment of wastewater in most communities and
regions of Massachusetts occurs via either centralized
sewage treatment plants or standard design on-site sewage
disposal systems (OSDSs). While each method employs a
range of technologies, the methods themselves can possibly
create impacts or otherwise be limiting.
The possible effects of centralized systems are summarized
as follows:
• hydrologic imbalances in watersheds where water use is
far upstream from its ultimate discharge as treated effluent;
• end-of-pipe controls are the norm and are more expensive
than a pollution prevention approach;
• land is opened for development which might not have
been otherwise developable, and which may contain or is
protective of sensitive natural resources; and
• eutrophication of receiving waters, due to nutrient
enrichment of the effluent
The potential impacts of standard design OSDSs are summa-
rized as follows:
• contamination by bacteria, viruses, and/or nutrients of
downgradient or downstream receiving water, resulting in
shellfish bed closures and eutrophication; and
• inadequate inspection and maintenance, which are critical
to optimal OSDS functioning.
Recognizing that these methods work best in specific and
somewhat limited situations, the Ad Hoc Task Force for
Decentralized Wastewater Management (the "Task Force")
began meeting several years ago to explore wastewater
management methods which fall "in between" centralized
treatment and standard design OSDSs. These decentralized
methods can include package treatment plants; waste
grinder/STEP systems; innovative/alternative OSDSs; and/or
management districts to oversee the regular operation and
maintenance of these technologies. The Task Force consists
of representatives from the MBP, Massachusetts DEP,
coastal communities, wastewater engineers, and a number of
non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Similarly, the
Task Force has sought funding and support from a number of
sources; grantors include the MBP and EP A's Environmental
Technologies Initiative (ETI). Finally, in exploring and
articulating decentralized methods, a principal goal of the
Task Force has been to insure that its efforts complement and
otherwise fit with the existing permitting and financing
frameworks which apply to centralized systems and standard
design OSDSs. As previously noted, these two methods
currently in use in Massachusetts for managing wastewater
will continue to be viable options for managing wastewater
in many areas.
The following sections describe the Task Force's efforts in
greater detail, including expected benefits, progress to date,
remaining work, and recommended actions.
DESCRIPTION:
A decentralized approach to wastewater management can
include a range of methods to collect and treat wastewater, as
well as to manage these methods. The decentralized ap-
proach provides a municipality (ies) with the ability to
address environmental and health concerns with technologi-
cal and management systems specific to those concerns. For
example, portions of a community currently serviced by
standard design OSDSs may continue using those technolo-
gies, while more densely developed areas of the community
may be serviced by a collection and treatment system.
Further, all of the community or only portions of it may be
V-121
-------
serviced by a management district that has the responsibility
for inspection and maintenance of the systems, and for
assessing fees to pay for these services. This contrasts with
the centralized approach in which the community may
identify specific environmental and health concerns; how-
ever, one wastewater treatment facility is usually constructed
to address these concerns, with the entire municipality
sewered to transport all or most of its wastewater to that one
facility. The Task Force recognizes that when choosing
among wastewater management options, municipalities
should give careful consideration to current and future growth
management strategies, based on their community's natural
resource capacities and the local commitment to achieve and
maintain a certain minimum level of environmental quality.
Decisions about growth management and development will
influence what wastewater treatment solutions are viable,
desirable, allowable, and environmentally appropriate within
a particular community.
To date, the Task Force has funded the development of two
major "white papers" on the needs assessment and manage-
ment aspects of the decentralized approach, hi addition, the
Task Force held a major regional conference in December,
199S, whose goal was to provide attendees the opportunity to
hear national experts speak on the assessment, management,
and siting/design aspects of the decentralized approach. The
following subsections characterize the papers and summarize
the conference outcomes; further efforts planned by the Task
Force are described in the "Work to be Completed" section.
Needs Assessment and Evaluation of Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
As articulated in this paper, the goal of assessment and
evaluation should be the production of a comprehensive
"Facilities and Management Plan" (FMP). The FMP consid-
ers the physical, social, economic, environmental, and other
related characteristics in making decisions regarding the
construction, operation, maintenance, and financing of a
wastewater management system for the study area. The
components of the process leading to adoption of the FMP
are summarized as follows:
• development of a plan of study, to guide the efforts by
parties responsible for the FMP, including local officials,
federal and state regulators, regional representatives, and
the affected public;
• assessment of wastewater treatment needs, which is a
major and thorough evaluation of the study area's demo-
graphic, environmental (e.g., geology, soils, water
resources, etc.), and infrastructure (e.g., wastewater
treatment) conditions - existing and future;
• development and screening of wastewater treatment
options for the study area, addressing various technolo-
gies, technological and administrative considerations, and
screening of criteria such as regulatory, management,
environmental, and financial; and
• detailed evaluation of options and development of a plan
for the study area, assessing the criteria from the previous
step, and recommending a plan and its components.
Managing Wastewater: Prospects in Massachusetts for
a Decentralized Approach
The white paper for management of decentralized wastewater
technologies describes the issues and elements applicable to
this aspect of the decentralized approach, hi particular, once
a community has accepted its FMP, it can use these manage-
ment approaches to facilitate the operation and maintenance
of the selected decentralized technologies. Accordingly, the
potential utility for these management approaches in Massa-
chusetts is also discussed. The following bulleted items
summarize the major considerations related to management
of decentralized technologies in Massachusetts:
• a wastewater management entity may take several differ-
ent forms, such as an administrative or governmental
body, and it may be public and/or private;
• a management entity will have financial responsibilities
(e.g., administration of capital and operating costs) and
regulatory responsibilities, such as permit monitoring,
inspection, pumping, maintenance/repair, record keeping,
and enforcement;
• in selecting a management entity, considerations relate to
both the outcomes of the FMP (e.g., demographics,
location of sensitive areas) and institutional issues, such
as political acceptability and accountability to members
of the management entity; and
• statutory, especially that legislation does not exist to
enable management of wastewater technologies.
Managing Small-Scale, Alternative and On-She Waste-
water Systems: Opportunities, Problems, and Responsi-
bilities.
This conference was held in Worcester, Massachusetts on
December 1 and 2, 1995, and featured both national and
regional experts in the field of decentralized wastewater
management. The over 200 attendees (local officials, non-
profits, regulators, and designers) were provided with the
opportunity for large and small group discussions of decen-
tralized wastewater management solutions. These discus-
sions identified the following major needs in Massachusetts:
• continued communication and coordination among
regulators, communities, and designers, especially
regarding the need for broad enabling legislation. (Many
felt the conference was just a start to communication);
V-122
-------
• technical assistance, particularly to communities, by a
neutral (i.e., non-regulatory) third party, and
• a "trail blazer" community or organization to overcome
existing barriers by establishing some type of wastewater
management district, within current state law.
Overall, Conference attendees supported the decentralized
approach, and encouraged the Task Force to pursue fulfill-
ment of the needs identified above, since attainment of these
is critical to the success of decentralized wastewater tech-
niques and, ultimately, to improved environmental protection.
EXPECTED BENEFITS
The advantages to adopting a decentralized approach to
wastewater management include financial, environmental,
and social benefits.
With respect to the environmental advantages of a decentral-
ized approach, a community can identify its sensitive natural
resources and utilize technologies appropriate for the needs
of those areas. For example, a coastal area adjacent to an
embayment which may be prone to eutrophication should
employ nitrogen-reducing techniques rather than use standard
design OSDSs, which can create unacceptable nitrogen loads
to receiving waters.
Social benefits of a decentralized approach include increased
responsibility for those who own a wastewater treatment
structure, since they may be required to regularly maintain
certain components, participate in governance of the manage-
ment entity, or even pay increased costs. Often with either
centralized or standard design OSDSs, an "out-of-sight, out-
of-mind" mentality exists on the part of the owner.
Financial benefits result when communities can apply more
resource-intensive management techniques to those areas
which require it (e.g., downtown areas with high density/poor
soils and a high rate of OSDS failure), while applying more
standard techniques in other areas. This is in contrast to a
centralized collection and treatment system which would
apply to a much larger area at a much higher overall cost
PROGRESS TO DATE
As previously described, the Task Force has succeeded in
bringing together all levels of government, consultants, and
NGOs in developing a decentralized approach to wastewater
management This approach will provide wastewater
treatment and management alternatives to those widely used
in Massachusetts at present: centralized collection/treatment
and standard design OSDSs. In its current form, the decen-
tralized approach includes two white papers regarding the
assessment and management aspects of the approach, as well
as the major regional conference held in December 1995.
WORK TO BE COMPLETED
Upon completion of the two white papers and the conference,
the Task Force is planning three additional efforts to support
the decentralized approach. First, two more papers will be
written: one to outline site design and engineering consider-
ations for decentralized systems, and another to review the
conditions under which management entities around the
country are held accountable for the performance of OSDSs.
Second, an Executive Summary of all four papers will be
written and widely distributed Third, extensive followup is
planned, in the form of workshops to be held across the state
for local officials and consultants.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
The following recommendated actions should be considered
both general and preliminary. The MBP intends to continue
supporting the development and implementation of this
approach and plans to review these recommendations, with
the responsible agency, to insure their utility and appropriate-
ness.
• The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) should evaluate their existing permitting and
financing programs in order to identify opportunities for
the inclusion of decentralized methods;
• The Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs (EOEA) should assess current laws and propose
changes to the Legislature where needed to enable
decentralized management approaches;
• The Massachusetts DEP should foster decentralized
approaches through their ongoing work with communities
and consultants in managing wastewater, and
• Communities should consider decentralized methods in
municipal or area-wide wastewater planning, encouraging
citizens, local officials, and consultants to become
involved.
V-123
-------
V-124
-------
chapter V
Managing Boat
Wastes and Marina
Pollution
-------
ACTION PLAN #8
MANAGING BOAT WASTES AND MARINA POLLUTION
Tens of thousands of commercial and recreational boats ply
the waters of Massachusetts Bays. Discharges of untreated
or minimally treated sanitary wastes from these marine craft
can be a locally significant source of pathogens in the Bays
system. The chemicals used to deodorize and disinfect this
sewage — alcohol, formaldehyde, zinc and ammonium salts,
and chlorine - also degrade marine water quality.
Boat heads (toilets) can either be installed or uninstalled.
Uninstalled heads (otherwise referred to as porta-potties),
most often used on boats between 18 and 26 feet, are typi-
cally self-contained units with a holding capacity of two to
five gallons. The head simply stores waste until the boat
returns to its slip, where the head can easily be carried off the
boat and emptied into a toilet. Unfortunately, these heads can
also be easily (and illegally) emptied overboard.
Installed marine heads, which are not removable, are regu-
lated by the U.S. Coast Guard under the terms of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(FWPCAA). Federal regulations require installed heads to
be serviced by one of three types of marine sanitation devices
(MSDs). Type I and Type H MSDs both macerate and
disinfect waste with chemical disinfectants, although the
Type n device provides better treatment of fecal coliform and
suspended solids. Type ffl MSDs are holding tanks that
allow waste to be stored and released away from shore.
These systems typically use formaldehyde, alcohol, or both to
deodorize waste while it is stored in the holding tank. Boats
larger than 65 feet must use either a Type H or Type ffl
MSD.
Through Title 5 of the State Sanitary Code, the Massachu-
setts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
prohibits direct discharges of sewage from portable heads
into any marine or fresh water. The Coast Guard permits
direct discharges from Type I and Type n MSDs in coastal
waters, but prohibits discharges from Type in MSDs in
marine waters within three miles of shore.
Unfortunately, illegal discharges from all types of marine
heads commonly occur in nearshore waters and harbors.
Neither DEP nor the Coast Guard has the personnel to
adequately enforce their existing discharge regulations.
Boaters with uninstalled heads, thinking it inconvenient to
cany the head from the boat to an onshore toilet, often dump
their waste overboard. Boaters with installed heads often do
not want to invest the time and effort to get the boat to a
marina's pump-out facility. Although the Commonwealth's
Chapter 91 regulations give DEP's Division of Wetlands and
Waterways (DWW) authority to develop design standards for
pump-out facilities at all marinas, DWW has not strictly
enforced annual permit requirements and many mqrina.s do
not have these facilities. Siting pump-out facilities can be
problematic, since few marinas are tied into sewer systems
and DEP policy prohibits the discharging of boat waste into
a septic system.
Even those marinas that do have pump-out facilities report
that the facilities are seldom used Many boaters simply find
it more convenient and less expensive to discharge their
waste directly into nearshore waters. Apparently, they do not
think that boat wastes seriously degrade water quality, or
believe that their own incremental addition is too small to be
significant
While a boat's sewage may seem insignificant, the cumulative
wastes from many boats may be a significant source of
contamination in parts of Massachusetts Bays. However,
because of the intermittent, transient, and sometimes covert
nature of these discharges, the overall impact of boat wastes
to the Bays system is difficult to assess. Generally, the
impact tends to be site-specific, although pathogens and
chemical disinfectants from boat discharges almost certainly
impair water quality to some degree throughout large parts of
the Bays system. The greatest impacts occur in embayments
and other poorly flushed areas with low dilution.
The Massachusetts Bays Program has launched an initiative
to educate boaters about the effects of sewage discharges on
water quality in the Bays. While education is helpful, it is not
enough. Federal, state, and municipal officials must find
effective ways to prevent or minimize boat sewage discharges
into Massachusetts Bays. Toward this end, the Federal Clean
Vessel Act of 1992 established an opportunity for states to
set up grant programs for the construction, renovation,
operation, and maintenance of boat pump-out and waste
reception facilities at both public and private marinas. CZM
V-125
-------
and DFWELE (through its Division of Marine Fisheries
[DMF]) completed a needs assessment and developed a plan
for the state program according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) guidelines. Proposals for funding have
been solicited from coastal communities and approximately
$1 million has been released for project construction and
implementation.
At the same time, there is a need to control non-sewage
contaminants that are generated "land-side" at boatyards and
marinas. In particular, stormwater runoff from impervious
areas can be a significant water quality concern. Because
activities in these areas include the regular transport and
launching of boats, and the servicing of hulls and other boat
components, runoff containing oil and grease, metals, paint,
and other pollutants has the potential to seriously degrade
coastal waters. In recognition of this, CZM and DEP are
collaborating on the development of guidance documents that
will specifically help marinas and harbormasters to imple-
ment the Chapter 91 requirements regarding control of non-
point source pollution.
The following recommended actions support these initiatives
and provide die framework for more effective management of
boat wastes and marina runoff within the Massachusetts Bays
region.
V-126
-------
MUNICIPAL ACTION
Municipalities should work cooperatively with neighboring communities, private
boatyards and marmas» and state agencies (DFWELE and C2M) to establish, promote,
and maintain Boat Pump-out Programs in targeted embayment areas.
RATIONALE:
According to the Division of Marine Fisheries, sewage from
boats is discharged regularly into the nearshore waters of
Massachusetts Bays. This sewage, together with the chemi-
cals used to deodorize and disinfect it, degrades water quality
and contributes to the closure of shellfish beds and swimming
beaches. Insufficient pump-out facilities are available to
boaters to remedy this problem, and the use of these facilities
is currently very low. The reasons for this include inconve-
nience, cost, and inadequate education and enforcement
Until boat pump-out facilities are available to the boating
public at convenient locations and at low or no cost, the
problem of unauthorized boat waste discharges is likely to
continue.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Local Harbormasters, Boards of Health, and Shellfish
Wardens would share much of the responsibility for this
action. Yacht club, boatyard, and marina owners are respon-
sible in the case of privately-sited facilities.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Establishment of a successful Boat Pump-out Program can
be a significant undertaking demanding the full commitment
of the Harbormaster, Board of Health, and Shellfish Warden.
It requires a comprehensive approach involving equal parts
facilities siting and operation, public education, and enforce-
ment It also requires the technical and financial assistance
of several state and federal agencies. Toward this end,
DFWELE is offering federal pass-through grants to selected
municipalities, yacht clubs, boatyards, and marinas to
establish Boat Pump-out Programs along the coast
DFWELE and CZM have compiled a detailed list of targeted
embayments and their individual pump-out needs, based on
a survey of existing pump-out facilities, intensity of boat
traffic, tidal flushing conditions, presence of marine sanctuar-
ies, proximity to shellfish harvesting areas, and other factors.
Municipalities, boatyards, and marinas have been invited to
apply for these grants. Grant applications proposing the
establishment of mobile, waterbome pump-out facilities,
rather than fixed shoreside units, are favored. This is based
in part on the successful use of pump-out boats in a number
of harbors in the state, and on the utility and economy of
providing pump-out facilities that can be shared by multiple
municipalities and/or marinas.
Guidance in establishing an effective local or embayment-
level Boat Pump-out Program is available from DFWELE,
CZM,andDEP.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required. However, in the case of
shoreside facilities, several permits and/or licenses will be
necessary. For example, sewer connections and/or exten-
sions require a permit from the appropriate DEP Regional
Service Center. Holding tanks also require DEP approval, as
well as a "Disposal Works Construction Permit" from the
local Board of Health.
Installation of a pump-out facility also requires authorization
from DEP's Waterways Regulation Program under Massa-
chusetts General Law Chapter 91. This program reviews
waterfront construction in or over public waterways and on
filled tidelands. A pump-out facility established on a previ-
ously licensed site will be considered a minor modification
and will not require the submittal of a waterways application
if the work is limited to the existing footprint of the licensed
facility. Construction of a pump-out facility on an unlicensed
site will require an application review by the Waterways
Regulation Program.
Construction of a shoreside boat pump-out facility also
requires some level of review by the local Conservation
Commission under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection
Act (WPA), and if applicable, under a local wetlands protec-
tion bylaw. Although most work associated with pump-out
facilities will take place within protected wetland resource
areas or their buffer zones, installation of these facilities will
generally not impact resource areas because the facilities will
be constructed on existing wharfs, piers, or docks.
ESTIMATED COST:
Boat Pump-out Program costs can vary widely depending on
the types of facilities employed, area serviced (i.e., size of
harbor and volume of sewage collected), staffing require-
V-127
-------
ments, and ultimate disposal costs.
As an example, DFWELE has estimated the following costs
for pump-out facilities proposed for Salem Sound (Marble-
head, Salem, and Beverly Harbors):
TARGET DATE:
1996/1997. This is a medium to high priority action from a
water quality standpoint and should be implemented by
targeted municipalities and marinas as soon as federal grant
funds permit
mation that identifies the number and location of recreational
boats with type HI MSDs in Massachusetts during the
boating season, as well as the location of existing pump-out
and waste reception facilities. These grants also provide up
to 75% funding for the construction of new pump-out and
waste reception facilities and for a statewide boater education
program. To date, CVA grants have resulted in the place-
ment of over SO new pump-out facilities in the coastal waters
of Massachusetts. However, according to the DFWELE,
there is only one more year of funding left in the CVA grants
program.
Pump-out Units for Sa-
lem Sound (Proposed)
3 pump-out boats
3 shoreside pump-out
stations (one with tank,
two connected to sewer
lines)
Cost($)
75,000
(1)11,000
(2)10,000
Operation
and Mainte-
nance ($)
2,400
5,000
4,000
Waste
Reception
Units
2
floating
units
Cost($)
5,000
Operation
and
Maintenance
($)
1,000
Total by
Embayment(s)
111,000
16,000
24,000
151,000
Most of the cost is the one-time cost of purchasing the pump-
out boats and related equipment The costs of staffing and
waste disposal are essential when calculating grant amounts,
as these can be used as in-kind expenses.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Section 5604 of the Clean Vessel Act (CVA) authorizes the
Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, through the
DFWELE, to provide grants to coastal and inland states.
These grants are be used to develop and refine survey infor-
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DFWELE Division of Marine Fisheries
(617)727-3193
Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
(617)727-9530
DEP Division of Wetlands and Waterways
(617)292-5695
V-128
-------
ACTION m jt$
Municipalities, wifli assistance from CZM and DEP, should require private boatyards
and mannas to implement effective stonnwater runoff control Strategies which include
the use of pollution prevention measures and the proper design and maintenance of hull
servicing areas.
RATIONALE:
Stormwater runoff occurs from launching ramps, parking
lots, and other impervious areas associated with boatyards
and marinas. Because activities occurring in these areas
include the transport and launching of boats, parking for
boaters, and maintenance areas for servicing hulls and other
boat components, runoff from these impervious areas may
contain oil and grease, metals, paint, and other pollutants
which can degrade coastal waters.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Local Harbor Commissions, Harbormasters, and Conserva-
tion Commissions, with guidance from CZM and DEP, would
generally be responsible for assuring implementation of this
action. EOEA's Office of Technical Assistance (OTA) can
provide technical assistance and outreach to boatyard and
marina operators.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Chapter 91 regulations require that all existing marinas and
boatyards, and any expansions to same, provide adequate
facilities for trapping oil and grease, sediment, and paint
resulting as by-products from boat servicing, repairs, and
construction to prevent discharge to adjacent surface waters
[310CMR9.39]. These facilities must be described in the
application for a Chapter 91 license.
The original statute for Chapter 91 allows the DEP Water-
ways Program to issue annual marina licenses, although DEP
does not presently do so. This mechanism could serve to
require Stormwater controls for boat maintenance areas
through the licensing process. Such a mechanism should not
be necessary, however, because the regulations link the
licenses and permits to all other environmental programs and
requirements [310 CMR 9.33] and all the requirements are
already covered
All of the practices listed in CZMs s.6217 guidance as
options for controlling Stormwater could be a part of any
manna's efforts to meet the license requirements. The DEP
Office of Watershed Management, through it s.319 Nonpoint
Source Program, is developing an Urban Best Management
Practices for Massachusetts, which will provide technical
details and design recommendations for acceptable stonn-
water control practices. The guidance also provides perfor-
mance standards that must be met, including standards for
reducing annual loadings of total suspended solids by 80
percent The guidance does not mandate the implementation
of specific practices, however. All of the DEP performance
standards have been established to be consistent with CZM*s
s.6217 management measure requirements, and the develop-
ment of this document is being closely coordinated with CZM
and other agencies.
The EPA General Stormwater Permit applies only to certain
marinas with point source discharges of Stormwater, even
though the operations and conditions might otherwise be
similar to marinas that have overland runoff conditions.
Although not covered by any of the management measures or
suggested practices, flooding during high water conditions
has the potential to contribute to water quality degradation
from contaminants used in marina and boatyard operations.
Many marinas and boatyards are located in areas that are
flood-prone during spring tide and storm events. Guidance
from a CZM-coordinated Flood Plan Task Force has at-
tempted to minimize the potential for pollutant contributions
from activities in the coastal flood plain. These standards
will be adopted into the marina guidance document on
stonnwater controls currently being prepared by CZM.
Adequate statutory authority exists to implement marina
stonnwater runoff controls. To improve implementation,
CZM will include information hi its marina guidance on
stonnwater controls and will reference the DEP Urban BMP
Manual, In addition to coordinating with agency staff, CZM
and OTA will provide technical assistance and outreach to
marinas on Stormwater control efforts. Through a Transpor-
tation Bond Bill passed by the Massachusetts legislature,
CZM has established a small grants program (the Coastal
Pollution Remediation Program) to help communities address
Stormwater runoff from roads, highways, bridges, and
marinas. This program began during 1995 and can provide
financial assistance to implement Stormwater controls at
marina facilities. It is not anticipated that the Waterways
V-129
-------
Program will need to use its authority to issue formal annual
marina licenses, although this authority will be used to
encourage mannas to develop pollution control plans to
avoid the necessity of requiring an annual Chapter 91 license.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost of implementing and enforcing boatyard/marina
stormwater runoff control strategies locally will vary depend-
ing on the number, size, and character of the marina opera-
tions within the community.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
DEP s.319 Nonpoint Source funds and CZM Coastal
Pollutant Remediation (CPR) funds.
TARGET DATE(s):
1996/1997 to develop and issue nonpoint source control
guidance for marina operators.
2002 to bring marinas into compliance with site-specific
pollution control plans.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DEP/OWM Nonpoint Source Program
(617)292-5500
CZM Coastal Nonpoint Program
(617)727-9530
EOEA Office of Technical Assistance for
Toxics Use Reduction (OTA)
(617) 727-3260
V-130
-------
chapter V
Managing Dredging
and Dredged
Materials Disposal
-------
ACTION PLAN #9
MANAGING DREDGING AND
DREDGED MATERIALS DISPOSAL
Massachusetts has a strong maritime tradition. Wherever the
shore provides adequate protection from the turbulence of the
open ocean, one is likely to find boats. Harbors up and down
the Massachusetts Bays coast ~ from Plum Island Sound to
Provincetown Harbor - support commercial and recreational
navigation. The smaller embayments may harbor fishing
boats and pleasure craft, while larger ports frequently receive
large tankers and barges. All of this navigation contributes
to the economic well-being of the region and provides
recreational opportunities for the region's residents.
Most harbors receive freshwater inflow from one or more
tributaries, all of which carry loads of suspended sediment
Where a tributary reaches the still water of an embayment, it
slows and drops this sediment load. Over time, the accumu-
lated sediment can obstruct navigation channels. To prevent
serious impediments to navigation, periodic dredging may be
necessary to clear the sediment from these channels.
Although some dredging projects are designed to create new
navigation channels, most dredging in Massachusetts is
maintenance dredging, designed to merely retain the width
and/or depth of an existing channel. Two dredging methods
— hydraulic and mechanical ~ are commonly used to remove
marine sediments. Hydraulic dredging uses a centrifugal
pump to pick up a slurry of sediment and water, which is then
transported through a pipeline directly to a nearby beach or
to a barge which will carry it to some other nearshore
disposal site. Hydraulic dredging is employed primarily
when the dredged material is to be used for beach nourish-
ment or dune creation. Mechanical dredging must be used
when the sediments in question cannot be used for beach
nourishment or dune creation. Large bucket scoops or
shovels lift material from the ocean floor and place it in a
barge or scow. The material is then usually transported to an
offshore disposal site and deposited by opening doors on the
bottom of the vessel, or is placed upland for dewatering and
disposal.
Not surprisingly, removal of marine sediments can have
adverse impacts on marine organisms, especially in areas
where water circulation is limited and where bottom sedi-
ments are rich in organic matter. Most obviously, dredging
removes the organisms which live in and on the sediments
being dredged Dependent marine species may be adversely
impacted if such removal significantly reduces the diversity
of species or disrupts food webs in the project area. Dredg-
ing also increases turbidity in and around the project area,
and may trigger the release of toxics which have accumulated
in the disturbed sediments. In sensitive marine environments,
such as estuaries or salt marshes, these changes may exceed
the tolerance levels of resident organisms. For instance,
suspended sediment in the water column can block the
sunlight necessary for photosynthesis in marine plants and
algae, and can clog the gills and siphons offish, molluscs,
and other marine fauna. The effects may be limited to
individual organisms or may encompass an entire local
population or ecosystem.
Of course, once sediments are removed from the ocean floor,
they must then be relocated somewhere else. Disposal of
marine sediments often poses its own set of environmental
problems. In some instances, dredged material can be used
beneficially - for instance, to cap a landfill or to nourish a
beach. Dredged material that has no beneficial use due to
contamination, for example, must be dumped at an ocean
disposal site or shipped to a landfill. Because land-based
disposal is typically many times more expensive than ocean
disposal, and often presents greater environmental risks,
ocean disposal is usually the preferred disposal option. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently
designated an open water disposal site in the deep water of
Massachusetts Bay (see Massachusetts Bays Disposal Site
(MBDS) discussion in Chapter IV). The MBDS is currently
designated for the disposal of only uncontaminated dredged
material. There is also an undesignated disposal site in Cape
Cod Bay.
V-131
-------
The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
share responsibility for all dredged materials management
The ACOE issues permits for individual disposal actions,
which must conform with the Ocean Dumping Criteria set
forth in 40 CFR Part 227. The EPA has authority to veto an
ACOE permit, and is also responsible for site monitoring.
Over the past several years, surveys at the Massachusetts Bay
Disposal Site (MBDS) have been conducted to determine the
composition, distribution, and movement of disposed sedi-
ments, food chain interactions in and around the site, and
bioaccumulation of contaminants in selected bentbic species.
By 1997, EPA will develop a long-term management plan for
all of its open water disposal sites, including the MBDS.
Unfortunately, not all marine sediments are appropriate for
ocean disposal. The same tributaries which deliver sedi-
ments to a coastal embayment also deliver a wide array of
industrial pollutants. Because urban harbors and ports act as
catchbasins for these pollutants, their sediments are often
highly contaminated If these sediments are dredged and then
reintroduced to a clean site, the contaminants may have a
severe impact on marine biota
The disposal of contaminated sediments therefore poses an
especially thorny set of problems. In some cases, the contam-
inated sediments may be "capped" with clean sediments to
prevent bioaccumulation. However, capping has not yet been
conducted in water as deep as that found at the Massachusetts
Bay Disposal Site. Until the capping technique has been
effectively demonstrated in deep water, and the legality of
such an approach has been established, EPA has prohibited
all contaminated sediments from that site.
It has been estimated that port dredging projects in the
Massachusetts Bays region will generate at least IS million
cubic yards of dredged material in the next fifty years. Much
of that material will be heavily contaminated. Long-range
planning is necessary to ensure that affordable and environ-
mentally sound disposal options are available. Under the
supervision of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Envi-
ronmental Affairs (EOEA), the Massachusetts Office of
Coastal Zone Management (CZM), and the New England
Division of the ACOE recently collaborated on a dredged
materials management study. The study report, a draft of
which is due in 1996, is a positive first step to balancing the
economic benefits and environmental risks of dredging
projects in Massachusetts Bays.
The future of port dredging in Massachusetts Bays will also
be shaped by an ongoing federal initiative to coordinate and
simplify the administration of the more than 60 laws and
executive orders regulating port dredging. Currently, as
many as six federal agencies participate with state and local.
authorities in the permitting of a port dredging project hi
January 1994, the Department of Transportation's Maritime
Administration (MARAD) convened an Interagency Working
Group on the Dredging Process. A major goal of this
Working Group will be to articulate a national policy on port
dredging and simplify the existing regulatory framework.
V-132
-------
ACOE ACTION #9.lJ
The Army Corps of Engineers, in coordination with EPA and other appropriate federal
and state agencies, should continue to monitor dredged material disposal sites in the
Massachusetts Bays region and to initiate the planning necessary to begin a capping
demonstration project at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. *
RATIONALE:
The environmental aspects for disposal of dredged material
have been regulated since the passage of both the Clean
Water Act and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctu-
ary Act Criteria for determining the suitability of dredged
material for open water disposal have been established.
Certain sites such as the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
(MBDS) and the Cape Cod Disposal Site have been desig-
nated for dredged material disposal. In order to determine
the impact of dredged material disposal on the aquatic
environment, the New England Division of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE) instituted the Disposal Area
Monitoring System (DAMOS) in 1977 to monitor physical,
chemical, and biological changes from dredged material
disposal. However, no established dredged material disposal
sites exist for the disposal of dredged material determined to
be unsuitable for unconfined open water disposal. Accord-
ingly, research to determine if capping at the MBDS is
feasible - technically, environmentally, legally, and financially
- should be encouraged.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The ACOE will be responsible for continued implementation
of the DAMOS program and for initiating the coordination
and planning necessary to begin a capping demonstration
project at the MBDS. Coordination with appropriate federal
and state agencies, as well as solicitation of input from
environmental advocacy groups and others, will be under-
taken.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
$1,700,000 (includes monitoring for the next ten years and a
capping demonstration at the MBDS).
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
The ACOE's DAMOS program, as well as other appropriate
federal agencies (e.g., EPA) and state agencies.
TARGET DATE:
Coordination can begin immediately.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
ACOE Planning Directorate
(617)647-8231
ACOE Regulatory Division
(617)647-8291
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The ACOE will begin coordination with appropriate agencies
and groups to determine the criteria necessary to demonstrate
capping at the MBDS. In addition, the DAMOS program
will continue to monitor the MBDS to determine impacts
from dredged material disposal.
V-133
-------
V-134
-------
UQEA ACTION
Hie Executive Office of Environmental Affairs should coordinate the development of a
comprehensive Dredging and Dredged Materials Disposal Plan to improve and
maintain access to the Commonwealth's ports, harbors, and channels, and to minimize
adverse impacts to the marine environment. '
RATIONALE:
The haibors and ports of Boston are New England's gateways
to overseas markets, providing the opportunity to strengthen
our economic ties to foreign countries. The Commonwealth's
smaller waterways are valuable for commercial and recre-
ational purposes as well They are a focal point for cargo and
tourist traffic and, thus, are generators of jobs and economic
growth for the region. In order for these gateways to reach
their Hill potential, they must be easily accessible to shippers.
Unfortunately, many area ports and harbors are not deep
enough to accommodate the large modern vessels that must
traverse them.
For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and
the Massachusetts Port Authority have determined that
Boston Harbor is approximately five feet too shallow to
accommodate today's cargo ships. Dredging the Harbor
would prevent tidal delays, maintain the flow of ships and
cargo, and substantially reduce transportation costs.
However, several challenges are associated with dredging
and the disposal of dredged materials. For example, dredging
can not only disrupt aquatic life, but may also allow contami-
nants to filter into and degrade surrounding waters. The
impact of dredging activity, therefore, must be minimized
Another challenge is finding suitable disposal sites for clean
and contaminated materials, a task all the more complex for
Boston Harbor because of the sheer volume of recoverable
material^ In the Inner Harbor alone, a volume of 3.3 million
cubic yards of material needs to be dredged and disposed of
safely, 1.3 million cubic yards of which is contaminated.
Related dredging and dredged materials disposal problems
exist elsewhere along the Massachusetts coast. Because
these problems entail a variety of environmental and eco-
nomic issues, Massachusetts is in the process of developing
a comprehensive Dredging and Dredged Materials Disposal
Plan for all state ports and harbors.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) is the lead
agent for this action, and is coordinating the efforts of the
Department of Environmental Management (DEM), the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and the
Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law
Enforcement (DFWELE).
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The Dredging and Dredged Materials Disposal Plan will be
developed and implemented as follows:
1. Volume Projections. Projections of the volume of
dredged material that will be generated over the next SO
years are being prepared by the ACOE based on the need
for dredging to maintain shipping channels. This effort is
being conducted in conjunction with DEM and CZM
under an ACOE study.
2. Site Identification and Permitting. EOEA will use the
projections of future dredged material generation, as well
as the projections for the Boston Harbor Dredging
Project, to identify and permit disposal sites. The EOEA
Dredging Work Group will evaluate upland, nearshore,
and ocean sites as potential disposal areas.
3. Site Selection. EOEA will decide whether to site state-
sanctioned disposal areas on a regional basis or to
develop criteria for proponents' use in siting project-
specific disposal areas on an ad hoc basis. If EOEA
decides to site state-sanctioned disposal sites, EOEA will
proceed with site selection through the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) process. Federal
roles in both site selection and permitting are established
under both the Clean Water and Ocean Dumping Acts,
and are carried out by the ACOE and the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA).
V-135
-------
4. Project Prioritization. EOEA will develop a method for
prioritizing dredging projects in order to more efficiently
allocate state resources. The EOEA Dredging Work
Group will investigate expanding the traditional economic
cost/benefit analysis to include the value of natural
resources affected by dredging projects.
5. Disposal Regulations. DEP is currently developing new
regulations that will govern the disposal of dredged
material With the exception of the limited disposal now
permitted in state waters under 314 CMR 9.00, dredged
material disposal is being regulated by DEP on a case-by-
case basis. The suitability of dredged materials for ocean
disposal at the MBDS will continue to be evaluated in
accordance with the USEPA Green Book under the
regulatory auspices of the federal Ocean Dumping Act
(40 CFR 220-228).
6. Project Guidelines. EOEA is currently developing
guidelines to help project proponents understand what
permits will be required and what programs are available
for their dredging and disposal activities. The guidelines
will provide the framework for future DEP regulations.
7. Financing Plan. EOEA will develop a plan to finance the
siting and management of state-approved disposal areas,
if the policy for state-approved disposal sites is pursued.
Since such costs are substantial ($250,000 for the re-
cently designated Cape Cod Disposal Site, not including
ongoing monitoring), creative financing mechanisms will
need to be considered. One option may be a revolving
fund based on user fees for individual disposal actions.
ESTIMATED COST:
Undetermined as yet
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
The 1996 Seaport Bond contains language authorizing $5 -
$ 10 million for the scientific and planning studies necessary
to develop the comprehensive dredging plan. Other potential
funding sources include state agency accounts and user fees.
TARGET DATE:
A draft Dredging and Dredged Materials Disposal Plan is
due in 1996.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Coastal Zone Management Office
(617) 727-9530, exL 403
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required. The authority to promulgate
new regulations governing dredging and dredged material
disposal currently exists under MGL Chapter 21 A, section
14. The DEP will use this authority to develop new regula-
tions, as stipulated in the law's rule-making process.
V-136
-------
chapter V
Reducing Beach
Debris and Marine
Floa tables
-------
ACTION PLAN #10
REDUCING BEACH DEBRIS AND MARINE FLOATABLES
The beaches and nearshore waters of Massachusetts and
Cape Cod Bays attract tens of thousands of bathers, hikers,
boaters, and fishermen every year. This places these areas
among the region's most important aesthetic, economic, and
recreational resources.
Unfortunately, unsightly beach and marine debris detract
from the full use and enjoyment of these resources. Like
other coastal areas in the Commonwealth, the beaches and
nearshore waters of the Massachusetts Bays region are fouled
by a broad array of litter, including cigarette filters; glass and
styrofoam pieces; plastic lids, straws, and wrappers; food
bags; discarded fishing gear, tampon applicators; and metal
beverage cans. The exact sources of this debris are often
difficult to pinpoint Some of it enters the marine environ-
ment from commercial and recreational fishing vessels.
However, much of the debris appears to come from land-side
sources. Local beachgoers, in particular, are a major source
of beach debris. Other land-side sources include storm
drains, sewage treatment plants, and combined sewer
overflows. Once land-side debris reaches the coastal waters,
the wind, tides, and currents of the Bays system generally
keep it on or near shore.
Local economies which rely on coastal tourism suffer when
beaches become cluttered with water-borne litter. Fishermen
and other boaters lose thousands of dollars in fishing time and
mechanical repairs when floatable debris wraps around
propellers and propeller shafts. But debris is not only an
eyesore and an inconvenience ~ it also can pose a serious
threat to marine organisms. Fish, birds, marine mammals^
and turtles all can ingest or become entangled in floatable
debris, often with dire consequences. Plastics, which
consistently account for about two-thirds of all the debris
collected on Massachusetts beaches, pose a particularly
serious threat to marine organisms. An animal tangled in
plastic debris can strangle, suffocate, or exhaust itself. Large
pieces of ingested plastic can cause death by blocking the
animal's digestive tract
To ensure that Massachusetts beaches and nearshore waters
become and remain clean enough for the humans and wildlife
that depend on them, state and local officials must work in
concert to reduce beach debris and marine floatables. The
following action will provide a positive first step in that
direction.
PERCENT COMPOSITION OF MASSACHUSETTS' BEACH DEBRIS
62.37 Plastic
7.71 Metal
3.77 Wood
10.56 Glass
2.9 Rubber
Debris Type
MASSACHUSETTS' 1993 DIRTY DOZEN
Total Number Percent of Total
Reported Debris Collected
1. Cigarette butts 61,259
2. Plastic pieces 10366
3. Plastic food bags 10,206
4. Glass pieces 9,923
5. Foamed plastic pieces 9,367
6. Paper pieces 7,667
7. Plastic caps/lids 6,859
8. Plastic straws 6,819
9. Plastic rope 4,521
10. Lumber 3,479
11. Foamed plastic cups 3,292
12. Metal beverage cans 2,924
TOTAL 136,682
Source: COASTSWEEP1993, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office
31.66
5.36
5.28
5.13
4.84
3.96
3.55
3.52
2.34
1.80
1.70
1.51
70.64
V-137
-------
V-138
-------
MUNICIPAL ACTION #104*
Coastal municipalities should work cooperatively with the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Office (CZM), neighboring communities, and waterfront users to design
and implement Beach and Marine Debris Reduction Programs,
RATIONALE:
Beach and marine debris poses a significant health threat to
marine organisms, impairs recreational uses of the shore, and
may hamper the economies of coastal communities which
rely on tourism. Environmental, aesthetic, and economic
concerns in Massachusetts Bays necessitate a comprehensive
program which will identify sources of beach and marine
debris and implement measures to reduce its impact on the
marine environment.
Some successful beach and marine debris reduction pro-
grams have already been implemented in the United States
and in Canada. In many West coast ports, for example,
commercial dock operators have found that recycling can
reduce the costs associated with disposal of marine refuse. In
Halifax, Nova Scotia, the Maritime Fishermen's Union began
a "Ship to Shore" trash campaign to educate commercial
fishermen about the impacts of marine debris and to encour-
age them to bring their trash to port. Most recently, Portland,
Maine launched a pilot program to serve as a model for
future marine debris reduction projects in the Gulf of Maine.
The problem of beach and marine debris has not yet reached
crisis proportions in the Massachusetts Bays region, in part
because of existing clean-up efforts. At the end of each
summer, for instance, the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Office (CZM) coordinates an annual COAST-
SWEEP campaign during which thousands of volunteers turn
out to remove debris from Massachusetts beaches. A few
communities in the Bays region, such as Marblehead, have
organized their own spring cleanups to supplement CZMs
COASTSSVEEP.
While these cleanup efforts help preserve the aesthetic
integrity of Massachusetts'coastline, they are only a start An
effective debris reduction strategy must focus on preventing
debris from reaching the shore as well as removing the debris
which already exists. A few isolated debris reduction
programs are now being established in the Massachusetts
Bays region. Provincetown, for example, has worked
cooperatively with CZM and others to develop a comprehen-
sive local debris reduction program. (See Strategies to
Reduce Marine Debris - Provincetown, MA, Provincetown
Marine Debris Task Force, 1994.) Among other things, this
program is setting up a fishing net recycling program to
encourage fisherman to return damaged gear to port rather
than throwing it overboard.
Of course, marine debris circulates on ocean currents and
tides, and debris which originates in one town may eventually
end up on the shores of another. Because the problem
transcends municipal boundaries, isolated debris reduction
programs will not alone be effective. To ensure that beach
and marine debris does not impair the traditional uses of the
shoreline or endanger marine wildlife, all coastal communi-
ties throughout the Bays region should take steps to reduce
beach and marine debris.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Coastal communities will have to initiate their own beach and
marine debris reduction programs. In most cases, the success
of these programs will depend on an enthusiastic municipal
coordinator, perhaps from the town's Community Develop-
ment Office or Public Works Department. The municipal
coordinator should work collaboratively with commercial and
recreational users of the waterfront, neighboring communi-
ties, and CZM to devise and implement a comprehensive
debris reduction program.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
1. Form a local Beach and Marine Debris Task Force. The
first and most obvious step is to convene the stakeholders
who share an interest in reducing beach and marine
debris. Interested parties may include:
Local officials (e.g., harbormasters, beach managers);
Wharf owners;
Fishermen/fishing trade association representatives;
Recreational boaters;
Environmental advocacy groups;
Cargo transport companies and other commercial
users;
Waste management experts;
Chamber of Commerce representative; and
Officials from appropriate state and federal agencies
(CZM, DEP, Massport, Coast Guard).
V-139
-------
Formal letters of invitation should be sent to the appropri-
ate people at least one month before the first scheduled
meeting of the Task Force. It is essential that the Task
Force include experts on marine vessel operations, waste
management and disposal, and public outreach. If
adequate funding is available, the city or town should
consider hiring a project coordinator to oversee the
project
2. Assess the existing situation. Before it can devise an
effective debris reduction program, the Task Force must
first determine the volume and sources of beach and
marine debris, and evaluate existing disposal programs.
Initial assessment surveys will help provide the founda-
tion for an effective marine debris reduction strategy, and
will also establish a baseline by which to evaluate the
program's effectiveness.
3. Design a debris prevention/collection/disposal strategy.
Once waste disposal problems have been identified and
prioritized, the Task Force should evaluate options to
address those problems. Specific strategies might include
placing trash bins on wharves; providing separate collec-
tion bins to facilitate recycling; establishing a port-wide
disposal site; providing used oil recycling containers;
organizing volunteer clean-up efforts; and/or reducing the
use of disposable products and plastics along the water-
front.
4. Promote public awareness. The success of a beach debris
reduction program will depend to a large degree on the
public's acceptance of the program's objectives and
methods. Therefore it is essential to educate the public
about the impact of beach debris, proper recycling and
disposal methods, and how to reduce the use of dispos-
able products which typically become marine debris.
Depending on the available funding, the Task Force may
decide to distribute brochures or flyers, organize work-
shops for targeted user groups, or contact local media.
5. Implementation and on-going evaluation. Using the
initial assessment survey as a baseline, the Task Force or
project coordinator should track the aesthetic, economic
and other material benefits of the project Careful evalua-
tion will suggest how the program might be refined and,
by establishing evidence of the program's effectiveness,
may generate additional support and funding.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost of a beach and marine debris reduction program will
vary according to the extent of the debris problem and the
nature of the actions which are required to address it The
initial assessment and design of the program should generally
be accomplished at relatively low cost to the city or town.
Implementation costs may be more substantial, although a
coastal community should be able to support these costs.
Considerable savings may be realized by recruiting volun-
teers or, if the local Task Force decides to hire a project
coordinator, by procuring the services of a graduate student
seeking experience in environmental policy or waste manage-
ment
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
Start-up funds for a beach and marine debris reduction
program must generally originate as appropriations from a
municipal budget In order to be successfully implemented,
the program must become self-supporting after a short time.
Implementation funds could possibly be raised through
creative partnerships with waterfront users and charitable
foundations. For instance, stakeholder corporations, includ-
ing waste management specialists, might be persuaded to
contribute free services to the project Similarly, community
groups may "adopt" specific waterfront sites and assume
responsibility for stewardship of these sites.
TARGET DATE:
1997. It should take approximately six to nine months to
assemble a local Task Force and design a beach and marine
debris reduction program that is tailored to a community's
specific needs. Implementation of such a program would be
ongoing, but could possibly begin as early as 1998.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office
(617)727-9530
Center for Marine Conservation
(202)429-5609
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
V-140
-------
chapter V
protecting
Nitrogen-Sensitive
Embayments
-------
ACTION PLAN #11
MANAGING NITROGEN-SENSITIVE EMBAYMENTS
Nitrogen is important plant nutrient in coastal waters,
necessary for the proper growth and reproduction of individ-
ual organisms and for the general productivity of the Bays
ecosystem. Excessive nitrogen, however, may stimulate an
undesirable explosion of algal growth or "bloom" that might
otherwise not occur. (Note: some "blooms" are naturalty-
occurring; for example, we observe a "spring bloom" and a
"summer bloom" in Massachusetts Bay every year.) Major
algal blooms can dramatically alter the conditions in a coastal
embayment and thereby disrupt its natural ecology. They
may, for instance, limit the penetration of sunlight and disrupt
the photosynthetic processes of other marine flora. Or, as
they decompose, they may deplete dissolved oxygen in the
water column^ killing fish and other fauna These cumulative
adverse impacts caused by an increase in nitrogen are often
referred to as coastal "eutrophication" or "nutrient enrich-
ment"
Nitrogen is conveyed to Massachusetts Bays coastal waters
by various pathways, including ocean water inflow, sewage
outfalls, groundwater flow, atmospheric deposition, and
stormwater runoff. A study sponsored by the Massachusetts
Bays Program indicated that point source discharges account
for somewhere between 43 and 66 percent of the total
nitrogen entering the Bays (Sources and Loadings of
Pollutants to the Massachusetts Bays, Menzie-Cura and
Associates, 1991). Ocean water inflow, river discharges,
atmopheric deposition, and runoff also contribute significant
nitrogen loadings. In unsewered areas, including large parts
of the Upper North Shore, the South Shore, and Cape Cod,
groundwater contaminated by poorly maintained septic
systems may be the most significant source of nitrogen to
nearshore waters.
The relative impact of various nitrogen sources in any
embayment depends largely on land use patterns in the
surrounding drainage basin. Volume, flushing time, bathy-
metry, and water quality all determine the nitrogen loadings
a particular embayment can absorb without becoming
eutrophic. hi general, the effects of nitrogen loading are
localized around the point of nitrogen discharge. Most of the
serious effects of nitrogen loading occur in shallow,
nearshore embayments.
In order to ensure the health of nearshore waters and the
living resources they support, specific actions need to be
taken to identify nitrogen-sensitive embayments and limit
nitrogen loadings. An effective management strategy will
combine restrictions on the types and patterns of develop-
ment and the use of denitrification technologies.
The following recommended actions are a positive step
toward reducing or preventing nitrogen pollution in the Bays'
coastal waters and groundwater.
V-141
-------
V-142
-------
DEP ACTION #11.1:
The Department of Environmental Protection should strengthen Massachusetts Water
Quality Standards to enhance and protect nitrogen'sensitive coastal embayments.
RATIONALE:
Excessive fertilization (high nitrogen loading) can impair the
quality of coastal waters and the living resources they
support Shallow, poorly flushed embayments with propor-
tionately large watersheds are especially at risk. When
overloaded with nitrogen, these waters can suffer depressed
oxygen levels, nuisance growth of algae and other aquatic
vegetation, and the decline or loss of eelgrass beds.
Contributing to the problem of nitrogen-enrichment are a
variety of point and nonpoint pollution sources, including
wastewater treatment plants, septic systems, urban and
agricultural runoff, and even atmospheric deposition. While
no single source may itself be problematic, the cumulative
nitrogen loadings from many sources can exceed an em-
bavment's critical loading limit The current Massachusetts
Water Quality' Standards are not adequate to protect
nitrogen-sensitive coastal waters from excessive nitrogen
inputs. Therefore, the DEP should amend the Massachusetts
Water Quality Standards to include embayment-specific
nitrogen-loading limits that will protect these sensitive
embayments from the cumulative impacts of both point and
nonpoint sources of pollution. Any proposed changes to the
Massachusetts Water Quality Standards must be reviewed
and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
DEFs Division of Water Pollution Control will have primary
responsibility for this action. Formal designation of nitrogen-
sensitive embayments and nitrogen loading limits will be
proposed by DEP with information and guidance provided by
the Regional Planning Agencies, municipalities, and the yet-
to-be-formed interagency work-ing group (made up of state
and federal agency representatives and marine scientists).
While DEP will designate the embayments at risk, much of
the responsibility for implementing measures to protect these
waters will ultimately fall on the particular embayment (and
surrounding watershed) communities. Accordingly, an
outreach effort designed to educate and gain the support of
local officials will be an important part of this action.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
DEP will begin to designate nitrogen-sensitive embayments
in the 1998 revisions to the Massachusetts Water Quality
Standards. Because of the significant management and cost
implications associated with such designations, it is impera-
tive that the designations have as sound a scientific basis as
possible. To accomplish this, DEP will work closely with the
Regional Planning Agencies, municipalities, and the inter-
agency working group (see RPA/DEP/Municipal Action
#11.2). Based on information provided by these groups,
DEP will identify those embayments predicted to be at risk
for designation as nitrogen-sensitive and will set critical
loading limits.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
This action requires amending the Massachusetts Water
Quality Standards to include critical loading limits for
nitrogen-sensitive embayments.
ESTIMATED COST:
This action can be implemented by existing DEP staff.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
DEP's annual operating budget (for staff time).
TARGET DATE:
Initial proposal(s) for designating nitrogen-sensitive em-
bayments -1998 revisions to Massachusetts Water Quality
Standards.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DEP Division of Water Pollution Control
(617)292-5673
V-143
-------
V-144
-------
RPA/DEP/MIPNIOPAL ACTION
Ihe Regional Planning Agencies, in collaboration with the Department ofB&vironmental
Protection and municipalities, should expand upon current Massachusetts Bays Program
efforts to identify nitrogen-sensitive embayments., determine critical loading rates* and
recommend actions to manage nitrogen ,so as to prevent or reduce excessive nitrogen
loading to coastal waters and groundwater. .
RATIONALE:
Coastal eutrophication is an ecological response to the
accumulation of high nutrient concentrations in an em-
bayment or nearshore area. Environmental effects of eutro-
phication include degradation of water and sediment quality,
loss of submerged aquatic vegetation, shellfish habitat and, in
extreme cases, fish kills. Elevated nutrient levels (especially
nitrogen) in marine waters can lead to excessive algal
growth, which in turn can lead to depletion of dissolved
oxygen, adversely affecting the organisms that live and grow
in an embayment Anoxia (i.e., the absence of oxygen) is the
most extreme endpoint of nutrient enrichment, but there are
other concerns as well. Increased algal growth also can
cause a reduction in water clarity, which in turn can affect the
distribution and abundance of aquatic organisms and cause
changes in species composition. Die-off of algal blooms can
result in increased organic matter deposition to bottom
sediments, depleting sediment oxygen concentrations and
adversely affecting benthic organisms and submerged plants.
The processes controlling coastal eutrophication are com-
plex, and the specific factors contributing to the eutrophica-
tion potential can be variable among sites. The eutrophic
status of coastal embayments depends on many factors,
primarily nitrogen loading, flushing rates, and the biological
productivity of an embayment The sensitivity of an
embayment to nitrogen loading depends on a combination of
biological, physical, and chemical processes, both on land
and in the water column. This complexity makes it difficult
to accurately predict the level of nitrogen loading that will
cause a specific embayment to become eutrophic. Nonethe-
less, it is important to develop a methodology to determine
the potential for embayments to become eutrophic because of
the detrimental impacts that can occur. For these reasons, the
Department of Environmental Protection's recently promul-
gated Title 5 revisions address the importance of protecting
nitrogen-sensitive waters (including groundwater), and the
Massachusetts Bays Program has developed a measurable
goal to identify embayments at risk of eutrophication.
Several efforts are underway to develop nitrogen manage-
ment plans for those embayments in Massachusetts and Cape
Cod which may have a high potential for becoming eutrophic.
Nitrogen loading is seen as the critical parameter to control
since it is the primary variable affecting algal biomass and
productivity, and because a significant amount of the loading
is from anthropogenic sources (e.g., lawn fertilizers and
septic systems). Reduced loadings of nitrogen can be
achieved through proper land management and wastewater
management practices.
In March 1995, the Massachusetts Bays Program convened
a working group to review work that has been undertaken in
other parts of the state and to help take the first steps in
applying this information to the embayments in the Massa-
chusetts and Cape Cod Bays region. The participants in the
working group include scientists from the University of
Massachusetts, representatives of the Massachusetts Bays
Program and Buzzards Bay Project, Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management Office, and the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protectioa Based on the recommendations
of this group, the Massachusetts Bays Program has funded a
first-tier analysis project This project will catalogue existing
flushing information (or estimate flushing rates where data
are not available), delineate zones of contribution for nitrogen
to selected embayments along the coast, determine nitrogen
sources, estimate loading based on land-use categories, and
calculate oceanic nitrogen loading to the embayments. The
results of this project, due in March 1996, will be a first
approximation of the coastal embayments in Massachusetts
and Cape Cod Bays that are likely to be at risk of eutrophica-
tion.
To date, most of the efforts to define nitrogen loading to
Massachusetts' embayments have occurred on Buzzards Bay
and Cape Cod These areas, compared with areas north of
the Cape, are thought to be more susceptible to eutrophica-
tion due to the predominance of well-drained glacial soils,
heavy reliance on individual on-site sewage disposal systems,
and lower tidal range and flushing rates.
The Buzzards Bay Project has been at the forefront in
developing a methodology and criteria to identify nitrogen
management areas in the Buzzards Bay region (BBP, 1994).
The Cape Cod Commission has been applying a similar
methodology while assisting with the collection of informa-
tion with region-wide implications under the Waquoit Bay
V-145
-------
National Estuarine Research Reserve Land Margin Ecosys-
tem Research Project (WBNERR-LMER). Nitrogen loading
assessments have been completed for a number of water-
sheds, but correlation of observed effects with nitrogen
loading rates has been somewhat limited. In general, the
methodology begins with the delineation of an embayment
watershed. This is followed by a nitrogen loading assessment
of existing and potential future land uses within the water-
shed. The loading rates determined in this way are then
compared with a critical loading rate that has been deter-
mined for the embayment as a result of a flushing study.
Eutrophication indices have been developed for the Buzzards
Bay and Cape Cod embayments. These indices are used to
help set priorities for allocating resources to address nitrogen
management issues.
Through efforts at WBNERR, a computer model has been
developed incorporating the three methodologies used on the
Cape to determine nitrogen loading and nitrogen management
areas. These models have been developed specifically for
permeable glacial soils and do not consider overland flow
from areas underlain by bedrock or from large urban areas.
While modifications may need to be made if these models are
to be applied to other areas in Massachusetts, they provide an
excellent starting point for other regions in Massachusetts
mat need to begin developing priorities for nitrogen manage-
ment
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The Regional Planning Agencies' technical staff, in coopera-
tion with the DEP and local departments and boards (Plan-
ning Boards, Conservation Commissions, Boards of Health)
would share responsibility for this action. Technical and
financial support could be provided by the DEP through its
watershed management and nonpoint source programs.
Additional technical support, including training of RPA and
municipal personnel, could be provided by the Buzzards Bay
Project, the Cape Cod Commission, and WBNERR. Imple-
mentation of nitrogen control measures would be largely a
local responsibility, to be achieved through actions by Town
Meeting/City Council vote and promulgation of land use and
health regulations by the local Planning Boards, Conservation
Commissions, and Boards of Health.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Using the general approach developed by the Cape Cod
Commission, Buzzards Bay Project, and Waquoit Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve, the Regional Planning
Agencies, DEP, and municipalities should collaborate on the
following implementation strategy:
1. Review results of the Massachusetts Bay Program-
funded project to rank embayments at risk of eutrophica-
tion; target embayments identified as potentially sensitive
to nutrients.
2. Determine flushing rate of each estuaiy/embayment and
subembayment. Where flushing rate has not been
defined, collect necessary data and determine the flush-
ing rate for each potentially sensitive estuary/ embayment
and subembayment.
3. Define subwatersheds to the more poorly flushed por-
tions of the selected estuaries/embayments, as necessary.
4. Work with the MBP working group to identify appropri-
ate indicators of eutrophication, such as dissolved
oxygen levels, extent of algae and other aquatic plants,
concentrations of chlorophyll-a in the water column, and
depth of light penetration; develop a process to deter-
mine critical nitrogen loading rates.
5. Estimate and compare critical loading rates to cumula-
tive nitrogen loads from both existing and projected
("build-out") development scenarios, based on current
zoning.
6. Identify and implement appropriate management strate-
gies, including both preventive and remedial actions as
necessary, for each estuaiy/embayment (or portions
thereof) deemed to be at risk of eutrophication.
Public education and participation will be essential through-
out mis process, and the RPAs and the municipalities should
establish working committees around each estuary/em-
bayment. As needed, these committees should invite the
participation of representatives from other municipalities
who have already begun to implement specific nitrogen-
management actions - for example, the Buzzards Bay towns
of Bourne, Carver, and Plymouth, which have rezoned the
recharge area of Buttermilk Bay to limit nitrogen loading to
that estuary.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
No legislation is required at this time; however, ultimately,
stricter local zoning and land use regulations may be required
in the recharge areas of waters determined to be nitrogen-
sensitive.
V-146
-------
ESTIMATED COST:
Based on Cape Cod Commission estimates, total costs per
estuaiy/embayment could range between $90,000 -
$200,000. If current (1990) MacConnell land use data are
not available for an embayment area, the costs of obtaining
these data could range from $10,000 - $20,000.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Potential funding sources include DEP 319 (nonpoint source)
grant funds and local property tax revenues.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Massachusetts Bays Program
(617)727-9530
Buzzards Bay Project
(508) 748-3600
Cape Cod Commission
(508) 362-3828
WBNERR-LMER
(508) 457-0495
TARGET DATE:
MBP, in conjunction with DEP and CZM, will begin identify-
ing and prioritizing nitrogen-sensitive embayments in
1996/1997. The development and implementation of
appropriate local and areawide nitrogen management
measures should begin in 1997/1998.
V-147
-------
V-148
-------
chapter V
Enhancing Public
Access and the
Working
Waterfront
-------
ACTION PLAN #12
ENHANCING PUBLIC ACCESS AND
THE WORKING WATERFRONT
The Massachusetts Bays Program is concerned with the
effect humans have on the sea, but it is also concerned with
the effect that the sea has on humans. Few would argue that
the sea has a mysterious power to invigorate our souls and
refresh our spirits. Massachusetts Bays has a particularly
diverse and beautiful shoreline, encompassing rocky head-
lands, sandy beaches, and just about every coastal landform
in between. The shoreline is among the region's most
important economic and recreational resources. It is hardly
surprising, then, that people want to visit the coast for
recreation and relaxation -- or that oceanfront property is
among the region's most valuable real estate.
Nobody owns the ocean, of course; but individuals do own
shorefront property and can use the rights of ownership to
restrict public access to the shoreline. The tension between
private property rights and public access to the waterfront is
as old as the Commonwealth itself. Although the settlers who
founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony brought with them
from England a strong tradition of private property rights,
their legal tradition tempered those property rights by
recognizing that some resources — such as air and water —
were held in common by all people. The idea that certain
resources are owned in common, often called the Public
Trust Doctrine, actually dates back to Roman law. The
emperor Justinian codified the doctrine in 529 A.D. by
declaring: "By natural law itself these things are the
common property of all: air, running water, the sea, and
with it the shores of the sea." In 1641, when the Massachu-
setts Bay colonists adopted a Colonial Ordinance to guaran-
tee public access to the colony's Great Ponds, they codified
the Public Trust Doctrine for the first time in America.
Subsequent amendments to the Colonial Ordinance extended
private land ownership to the low tide line, but expressly
reserved the public rights of "fishing, fowling, and naviga-
tion" in the intertidal zone. At the time, these three activities
represented the only significant public uses of the foreshore.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts still reserves a public
easement for purposes of "fishing, fowling, and navigation"
between the high and low water marks. But today, of course,
the public engages in a much wider array of recreational
activities. Some shorefront recreation, such as swimming,
jogging, and kite-flying, are active. Other recreational uses,
such as beachcombing, birdwatching, sunbathing, or simply
gazing at the distant horizon, are more passive. Whatever
activity attracts people to the shore, it is clear that the lure of
the sea is strong, and that people La ever greater numbers are
turning to the sea's edge for a respite from our fast-paced,
complex society. The Massachusetts Bays watershed
averages more than 5400 people per square mile. More than
three quarters of the state's population lives within an hour's
drive of the coast. Crowding and conflicting uses of the
shorefront have heightened the age-old tension between
public access and private ownership.
Although the Commonwealth has more than 1,500 miles of
shoreline, only 363 miles are owned by and accessible to the
public. The remaining shoreline is privately owned and
unavailable for public use except for the narrow purposes of
"fishing, fowling, and navigation" within the intertidal zone -
and even these purposes are often difficult to pursue. For
example, recreational fishing access and opportunities have
declined markedly in recent years, especially in the Metropol-
itan Boston area. Increasing population on the coast along
with associated changes in waterfront development and use
have severely limited the options of the average angler. The
Massachusetts Public Access Board has attempted to address
this problem in recent years by constructing and repairing
boat ramps in the Bays region. While these efforts are to be
applauded, far greater support is needed. Little progress has
been made, for example, in establishing shorefront access
sites for anglers desiring to fish from shore. Recreational
fishing piers and other public waterfront sites are needed to
enhance these opportunities.
Beach access is also a problem. On any hot summer week-
end, the demand for sandy public beaches within two hours
of Boston is likely to exceed the supply. Those with trans-
portation may travel to more remote beaches on the North
and South Shores, or on Cape Cod. But many beach parking
lots fill up before 10:00 am, effectively excluding those who
V-149
-------
live beyond a certain distance or whose leisure time comes
later in the day. Access is further restricted by communities
which establish quotas on the number of out-of-town cars or
which set exorbitant parking fees for non-residents.
While recreational pressures mount, development in coastal
communities has further impeded public access to the shore.
Waterfront development in coastal towns continues to inhibit
both physical and visual access to the sea. Many coastal
communities have lost historic rights of way. 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 access points
have been lost through transfers of ownership. In other
instances, abutting property owners have intentionally
extended their lawns or driveways over a public way,
deterring public use of the accessway by making it indistin-
guishable from their own property.
While some communities have responded positively to
encroachment on recorded town ways by posting signs or
constructing boardwalks, other communities simply maintain
a list of local accessways at the town hall. Residents of
coastal communities often prefer this approach, since posting
signs may attract unwelcome visitors and add to existing
problems of cramped parking, vandalism, and litter.
Because coastal communities do not always seem able or
willing to enhance public access to the shore, the Common-
wealth recently launched its own initiative to establish the
right of public passage along the intertidal zone. Many states
have already established this right. California, for example,
amended its constitution to make its beaches public in 1873.
Texas opened its coast to the public in 1959, and Oregon
followed suit as a result of a State Supreme Court ruling in
1969. Most recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court
recognized public recreational rights on the foreshore, and
even on the dry sand above the high tide line. The goal of the
Massachusetts initiative is to establish the right of public
passage along the high tide line. Since the right of passage
would "take" one stick from the landowner's traditional
bundle of property rights, the state may be required to
compensate landowners under the "just compensation" clause
of the Fifth Amendment
The Commonwealth's Department of Environmental Man-
agement has recently launched a Coastal Access Program
whose goal is to promote the general public's access to the
coast The program's two main components are the Sea Path
Program and the Coastal Access Small Grants Program.
Based on the statutory mandate of legislation adopted in
1991, UK Sea Path Program's goal is to acquire legal rigfats-
of-way along the intertidal zone for the public to walk, hike,
and stroll during daylight hours. In almost all other coastal
states, the intertidal zone is held in the public trust and is the
moral and legal foundation for many of the public's coastal
access rights. Though a number of shoreline landowners
allow the public to use the intertidal zone for a variety of
recreational purposes, many assert their private property
rights by actively excluding such public use. Sea Path rights-
of-way can either guarantee for the future the public's right to
walk in areas where informal access is currently allowed, or
they can potentially open up new areas to walkers. The
Program is designed to work with local partners (e.g.,
citizens, public officials, nonprofits, and shoreline landown-
ers) to identify potential sites, negotiate with landowners,
develop management strategies, and acquire rights-of-way.
The Sea Path Program is complemented by the Coastal
Access Small Grants Program, which has been established to
support and inspire "coastal access" projects conducted by
municipalities, nonprofits, and regional entities. The pro-
gram's goals are defined more broadly than the Sea Path
Program, and generally fall into the four categories of: 1)
planning and establishing new coastal pathways or access
points; 2) reclaiming historic rights-of-way, 3) enhancing
existing coastal access facilities; and 4) conducting associ-
ated educational/outreach initiatives. The program helps tie
together fragmented but complementary efforts into a unified,
coastwide movement towards increased and enhanced public
access to the coast
Another major access initiative spurred by the recent water
quality improvements to Boston Harbor is the proposed
Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. The
Boston Harbor Islands represent the last frontier of recre-
ational open space in coastal Massachusetts. No other place
in the United States has so many islands - offering so much
untapped opportunity - so close to a major city. This could
soon change with the passage of federal legislation that would
create a Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area.
The legislation calls for the 50 square miles of Boston
Harbor, currently a 31 -island state park, to be managed by
the National Park Service under cooperative agreements with
state, local, and private owners. The recreation area plan
would allow some islands to remain pristine and others to be
developed recreationally. Plans include improved public
access to the islands, using new or restored piers, visitor
orientation and environmental education centers, educational
programs, and year-round rangers to manage the islands and
facilitate their enjoyment by the public.
Of course, recreationists are not the only people concerned
about access to the coast Access to the waterfront is also
essential to marine-dependent commercial and industrial
users. Commercial fishing, cargo shipping, boat yards, and
ferry services all contribute to the "working waterfront" - a
legacy of the Bay State's longstanding maritime tradition and
a major component of the region's economy. Ports have
special industrial needs at the waterfront, including piers and
berths, off-loading and warehouse space, fuel storage
facilities, dredged shipping channels, and deep-water turning
basins. However, marine-dependent industries are facing
increasing competition for limited waterfront space. Al-
though recreational uses account for some of this competi-
V-150
-------
tion, the more serious threat comes from non-marine-depend-
ent uses of the waterfront such as residential development,
hotels and restaurants, office buildings, and shops. En-
croachment of non-marine-dependent uses into Designated
Port Areas (DPAs) can impair a port's primary maritime
functions. These kinds of conflicts are occurring in Desig-
nated Port Areas all along the Massachusetts Bays coast
Resolving these conflicts will not be easy. Nevertheless,
some guidelines have emerged from the State Legislature's
changes to Chapter 91, the Public Waterfront Act. Updated
waterways regulations promulgated in 1990 contain numer-
ous initiatives to enhance the state's stewardship of coastal
waterways by:
• Ensuring that the immediate •waterfront is used primarily
for water-dependent uses;
• Supporting public/private partnerships to revitalize the
•waterfront;
• Providing public access for use and enjoyment of the
waterfront;
• Strengthening state programs for shoreline conservation
and utilization;
• Strengthening local controls and encouraging harbor
planning; and
• Ensuring accountability to public interests.
These initiatives demonstrate the state's commitment to
putting its waterfront to the highest and best use. But, of
course, not all coastal areas can - or should ~ accommodate
human uses. Encroachment on sensitive coastal habitats,
such as eelgrass beds and sand dunes, must be carefully
managed to avoid adverse effects on commercially and
ecologically important fish and wildlife populations.
As more and more people compete for the limited Massachu-
setts shorefront, human uses will need to be simultaneously
enhanced and managed to protect the coastal environment.
Only rational planning and a keen awareness of the long-term
public interest will ensure that our coastal heritage is pre-
served for the generations to come. The following recom-
mended actions are a starting point for achieving this.
V-151
-------
V-152
-------
MUNICIPAL ACTION
Municipalities should develop and implement Municipal Harbor Plans which; 1)
promote marine-dependent waterfront uses, 2) enhance public access to the water, and
3) protect habitat of shellfish and other Jiving resources.
RATIONALE:
Shoreline property is among the most economically valuable
real estate in the Massachusetts Bays region. Economic
pressures have brought dramatic changes in the use of the
shoreline. Intensive residential development has limited
access to beaches and shellfishing areas. Water-dependent
uses such as boatyards and marinas which generally provide
facilities for the fishing industry are being displaced by non-
water-dependent uses such as restaurants, condominiums,
and offices. As the traditional working waterfronts are
replaced by such uses, the historic maritime character of
these areas is lost, along with important economic and
recreational opportunities.
With nearly 50 percent of the citizens of Massachusetts living
within five miles of the coast, pressures along or near the
shoreline consume much of the time and attention of munici-
pal boards and planners. Indeed, the task of reviewing and
permitting development proposals alone can be almost
overwhelming, and affords little opportunity for sound,
proactive coastal planning. By completing a Municipal
Harbor Plan, a community establishes a mechanism for
addressing major land-side and water-side issues - many of
which may be in conflict - in a thoughtful and coherent
manner.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Harbor commissions, harbor committees, or other core
working groups will be responsible for this action. Such
groups should represent the diverse interests of the water-
front, and include local officials (selectmen, planners,
harbormasters, etc.), agencies with jurisdictional interests in
the waterfront (port authority, redevelopment authority, etc.),
waterfront businesses and land owners, and recreational
users. Planning and advisory assistance, along with inventory
data and maps, are available from CZM and the Regional
Planning Agencies.
Key issues to be addressed include: 1) designation of
"working waterfront" overlay zones to ensure the preserva-
tion of boatyards and other traditional maritime uses; 2)
development of a public access strategy, including accompa-
nying guidelines mat will indicate how any future Chapter 91
licensing projects should contribute to the implementation of
the strategy when meeting their associated access benefits
requirements; 3) establishment of watershed zoning to
protect sensitive coastal resources and minimize use conflicts
on the water, 4) designation of federal No Discharge Areas
(NBAs) to minimize boat waste impacts on shellfish harvest-
ing areas; 5) adoption of strict design and construction
standards to minimize impacts to public safety and the
economy resulting from coastal storms; and 6) identification
of the plan's recommended implementation measures that the
community proposes for substitution or amplification of the
state waterways regulations.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The harbor planning process should be an open, interactive
process that invites the participation and input of diverse
sectors of the community. CZM has developed harbor
planning regulations (301 CMR 23.00) and guidelines
(Harbor Planning Guidelines, May 1988) to help communi-
ties through this process and the process of gaining state
approval for their Municipal Harbor Plans. Consistency of
the local plans with the Harbor Planning Guidelines, CZM
policies, and the state's tidelands policies, objectives, and
associated waterways regulations are the principal standards
for stale approval of the plans. Development of a Request for
a Scope explaining how the Harbor Planning Guidelines will
be applied is the first critical step of the planning process.
Upon CZMs issuance of a Scope, communities may begin
the plan development process. While particular waterfront
issues identified in the Scope may vary from one harbor to
another, communities should adhere to the same planning
process as follows:
Form Core Planning Group
1
Develop Community Participation Program (ongoing)
I
Define Harbor Boundaries
1
Inventory, Map, and Analyze Existing Harbor Conditions
and Trends (ongoing)
i
* Identify and Prioritize Issues
V-153
-------
* Establish Vision, Goals and Objectives
1
Develop Policies
I
* Analyze and Select Action Alternatives
i
Prepare Draft Harbor Plan
1
Hold Public Workshops
1
Prepare Final Harbor Plan
1
Submit Municipal Harbor Plan to CZM for Approval
J
Implement fo& Municipal Harbor Plan (ongoing)
* denotes key points for holding community meetings and
soliciting public comment
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
Development of a Municipal Harbor Plan will not require
new legislation. However, implementation of the plan will
likely require some legislative changes locally, including
amendments to the zoning bylaw and building code, and new
or revised waterways regulations.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
CZM offers communities matching funds through its Harbor
Planning Grant Program (HPGP). HPGP funds are reserved
for the development of plans that are submitted for state
approval in accordance with the harbor planning regulations.
TARGET DATE:
19% -1999. A Municipal Harbor Plan is an integral part
of a community's overall planning program and may require
several years or more to complete. (Implementation of the
plan is, of course, an ongoing process.) Accordingly,
communities should begin the harbor planning process as
soon as possible.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
CZM Harbor Planning Program
(617)727-9530
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost of developing & Municipal Harbor Plan can vary
widely, depending on harbor or embayment area size,
patterns of development and use, and complexity of issues.
Comprehensive plans for large, intensively-used harbors with
multiple competing interests can cost $100,000 or more.
However, the average cost for a plan is much lower at about
$25,000 -$30,000.
V-154
-------
ACHON
Hie Coastal Zone Management Office should enhance the Designated Port Area (DPA)
program with new planning and promotional initiatives. _
RATIONALE:
More than IS years ago, the Commonwealth adopted a
common sense policy for accommodating marine industrial
development - Le., development that depends on proximity to
a waterway for either the transportation of goods/ passengers
or the withdrawal/discharge of large volumes of process
water. The basic premise was this: it makes good environ-
mental and economic sense to steer new and expanded water-
dependent industrial use into harbor areas that have already
been altered dramatically - at public expense - to meet the
special infrastructure and operational requirements of water-
related commerce. Accordingly, in consultation with munici-
pal planners and leaders of the marine business community,
CZM identified 12 specific Designated Port Areas (DP As) as
the primary "host" sites to meet both the foreseeable and
unanticipated space needs of the maritime commerce and
industry.
Designated Port Areas
*1. Gloucester
*2. Salem Harbor
*3. Beverly Harbor
*4. Lynn
*5. Mystic River
*6. Chelsea Creek
*7. East Boston
*8. South Boston
*9. Weymouth Fore River
*10. Plymouth Cordage Park
11. NewBedford-Fairhaven
12. Mt Hope Bay
*Denotes location within Massachusetts Bays Region
Although each of the 12 DPAs is unique in certain ways, all
are characterized by the presence of three types of infrastruc-
ture mat are fimHamental to the viability of maritime pursuits.
These are:
• a waterway and associated waterfront that have been
developed for commercial navigation;
• backland space that is conducive in both physical configu-
ration and use character to the siting of industrial facilities
and operations; and
• land-based transportation and public utility services
appropriate for general industrial purposes.
The limited supply of areas having this special combination
of attributes has diminished steadily over the years as a result
of irretrievable conversion of land to nonindustrial and
nonwater-dependent uses. This trend should be halted
because such uses have far more siting options than marine
industry, and because the cost of replacing port infrastructure
has become prohibitively high in both monetary and environ-
mental terms. The most efficient and politically acceptable
way for Massachusetts to maximize future development
opportunities in the maritime sector of the economy is to
preserve what remains of its industrialized coast, which lies
predominantly within the DPAs. These areas are among the
Commonwealth's most endangered economic habitats, and
they should be accorded the highest level of regulatory
protection at both the state and local levels.
Since 1979 the waterways (Ch. 91) regulations promulgated
by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) have
sought to prevent development activity that is likely to have
an exclusionary effect upon maritime commerce in DP As. hi
1990 those regulations were strengthened to categorically
prohibit certain uses such as housing, hotel, and recreational
boating facilities; but flexibility was also provided in the case
of nonwater-dependent industrial and commercial uses,
which may be licensed in a DP A only if there is no significant
alteration to the predominantly "working" character of the
area and if the project offers some form of support to existing
or prospective maritime uses. For this strategy of flexible
protectionism to be effective, it should be applied in the
context of a master plan for each DPA — developed locally
but subject to state review and approval - in which specific
arrangements are set forth to both preserve key sites for
maritime development and achieve a compatible mix of
supporting uses. Unfortunately, in many communities the
DPAs are still relatively unplanned and zoning ordinances
applicable to the working waterfront pre-date the 1990
improvements to the waterways regulations, resulting in the
potential for significant inconsistency between state and local
controls. Accordingly, it is important for the state to encour-
age sound DPA planning at the municipal level by offering
significantly more technical and financial assistance than has
been available in recent years.
V-155
-------
In addition to developing a stronger planning basis for
regulatory decisions, state policy on the use of DPAs should
be enhanced with a vigorous effort to promote water-depend-
ent industrial enterprise. Although the DPAs are officially
listed as priority areas for state and federal funding, over the
years such financial assistance has been limited to a few
relatively small grants awarded under CZMs Coastal Facili-
ties Improvement Program (CFTP). Further, this program has
not been funded since 1988 and even then did not assign
preference to infrastructure improvements in DPAs (other
than allowing a somewhat higher per-project expenditure).
This grants program should be revitalized to support DPA
interests in a more vigorous manner, and CZM should work
closely with the state's economic development agencies to
ensure that DPA property owners and businesses benefit as
much as possible from existing assistance programs. Among
the programs that seem most applicable to DPA industries
are:
• the Water-related Use Fund of the Massachusetts Indus-
trial Finance Agency;
• the Econcmic Opportunity Target Area and Tax Increment
Financing Programs of the Massachusetts Office of
Business Development (MOBD), undertaken pursuant to
the Economic Development Incentive legislation (Ch. 19)
enacted in 1993; and
• the Local Partnerships for Economic Development Pro-
gram within the Executive Office of Communities and
Development (which also offers grants both for planning
studies and actual development projects, with funding from
a variety of sources such as the Commonwealth's Commu-
nity Development Block Grant allocation).
Finally, CZM should collaborate with these and other
agencies, particularly Massport and local port and harbor
authorities, to identify new initiatives to encourage and
support maritime business development within DPAs. This
should occur in the context of the Governor's new seaport
action plan which, in turn, is based on the October 1994
report of a special Port Commission convened to develop an
integrated, statewide port development strategy. The plan's
recommended strategy was designed to capitalize upon the
new opportunities the state's ports present in today's global
economy, opportunities that are expected to grow with the
completion of NAFTA, GATT, and potential new trade
agreements. As the Governor stated: "We can make the
decision to respond aggressively... [by "Choosing to Com-
pete" with a port development strategy]..., or we can sit back
and watch one of our prize resources fade away."
The plan recommended S3 actions to be carried out on a five-
year timetable, and the Governor has acted immediately on
the plan's primary recommendations by:
• Signing an executive order establishing a Seaport Council
to provide for ongoing coordinated decision-making on
port planning, development, and marketing, and the
infrastructure essential to keeping the state's ports compet-
itive - i.e., dredged navigation channels, and efficient rail
and truck access and intennodal connections.
• Filing a $300 million seaport bond bill to provide the
capital funding necessary to implement the recommended
port-related projects, including $110 million to bring
double stack trains closer to the Port of Boston, $100
million for dredging, $45 million for public port facilities,
$20 million for a fisheries development program, $10
million for a Seaport Economic Development Fund, and
$3 million for port planning.
The seaport action program is important. Many of its goals ~
port planning and infrastructure improvement, and mainte-
nance of our navigation channels — are central to the mission
of CZM.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
CZM should assume lead responsibility for this action,
insofar as it represents an extension of the DPA and Harbor
Planning Programs already being implemented by that
agency. Even so, the effort should be conceived as a joint
venture with significant cooperation and support provided by
DEP, Massport, the Executive Offices of Economic Affairs
and Communities and Development, and local economic
development agencies within the respective DPA communi-
ties.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
In order to stimulate the development of DPA master plans,
CZM should work toward the goal of offering substantial
grant funds to coastal municipalities for this purpose.
Certainly one avenue to pursue is to encourage and facilitate
applications for planning grants submitted to other state
agencies; however, the primary task should be to enhance in-
house programming at CZM in order to ensure greater
predictability and maximum impact Fortunately, the Seaport
Bond earmarks DPA communities as a primary target
audience for a special $5 million round of harbor planning
grants and proposes to reduce the required local match to 20
percent
To further promote maritime business development in DPAs,
the Seaport Bond includes $45 million in planning grants
through CFIP for public port facilities primarily in DPAs
(with local match reduced to 20 percent). Also, the Bond
provides for the implementation of a statewide program that
provides a real and lasting solution to statewide dredged
materials management. The proposed DPA Dredging
Program provides the Secretary of Environmental Affairs
with the means to take a leading and proactive role in
maritime economic development in Designated Port Areas
V-156
-------
through the responsible environmental management of
contaminated sediments. The proposal provides CZM with
$10 million for the preparation of a state DPA Dredging
Plan, including Environmental Impact Reports, the identifica-
tion of long term disposal sites, and economic analysis for
dredging projects in all of the state's DPAs.
Greater interagency coordination will be an essential element
of this implementation strategy. Accordingly, CZM should
be an active participant in all deliberations of the Seaport
Council, and should coordinate fully with representatives of
DEP, DEM, Massport, MOBD, and other state agencies with
relevant planning and development expertise.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:
As noted above, some funding would be derived from a
variety of existing planning and economic development
programs, but the primary source would be the five-year
Seaport Bond.
TARGET DATE:
Initial steps toward development of a DPA Plan-
ning/Promotion Program should be given high priority within
CZM during the 1996-1997 fiscal year.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
Long-term funding of CZM harbor planning grants to
municipalities will depend on the Seaport Bond recently
passed by the Legislature.
ESTIMATED COST:
Full and effective implementation of this action over a five-
year timetable will require approximately two full-time staff
at CZM to coordinate with the Seaport Council, administer
planning and construction grants, and provide technical a
assistance to municipalities. The estimated cost of such
personnel is approximately $1.5 million. As identified in the
Seaport Bond, CFTP funds for infrastructure grants to DPA
municipalities total $45 million, while grants for local
development of DPA master plans and management of the
plan development process total $3 million.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Coastal Zone Management Office
(617)727-9530
V-157
-------
V-158
-------
CZM ACTION
The Coastal Zone Management Office should establish a new technical assistance
program to accelerate municipal efforts to identity and legally reclaim historic rights-of*
way to the sea. _
RATIONALE:
In days of yore when the Massachusetts population relied
heavily upon the sea for food and transportation, and when a
network of pathways leading to and along the shore was an
essential part of the coastal life-support system, most
sborefront communities took steps to establish public rights-
of-way to the sea. These public ways were written into the
deeds of private property owners, often when the land was
first platted, in order to secure for all citizens the perpetual
benefit of access to the water's edge. Many of these historic
town ways subsequently disappeared from private land deeds
as transfers of ownership took place in the absence of
municipal vigilance and accurate record-keeping, even in
cases where public use continued without interruption. Other
accessways are still "on the books" but are hidden and
unknown, even to local residents, as a result of deliberate
concealment by abutting property owners who have become
expert in the dubious art of access concealment.
The importance of locating and legally reclaiming town ways
is not always apparent in cases where activity patterns have
shifted to other locations or uses. For example, the demand
for an accessway for fishing purposes may have declined
temporarily due to deterioration in a locale's water quality.
However, town ways are seldom truly obsolete. For example,
certain nearshore waters where shellfishing is currently
prohibited have seen a dramatic rise in windsurfing, ocean
kayaking, and use of other light watercraft — all requiring
access to safer, more sheltered launching sites than are
provided at public motorboat ramps. Similarly, with
waterfront strolling an ever-popular pastime, historic
footpaths could be joined with newly-acquired public rights-
of-way to form coastal trail networks for pedestrian use and
enjoyment in previously unapproachable areas. Finally,
unlike other approaches to obtaining shoreline access for the
public, the process of reclaiming and preserving historic
rights-of-way is generally straightforward and relatively
inexpensive (except of course, where litigation is required to
settle a contested case).
This is not to say that it is a trivial matter to reestablish and
protect public rights-of-way. One threshold impediment is
attitudinal in nature, insofar as some communities have a
longstanding political tradition of avoiding confrontation with
influential owners of waterfront property, a tradition
commonly supported by nearby residents who already know
where the neighborhood ways to the sea are and prefer to
keep the information to themselves. And even with the moral
support of community leaders and citizens-at-large, an
effective rights reclamation program cannot be developed
without at least some assistance from legal professionals on
a fee-for-service basis. Moreover, a cadre of volunteers must
be available to carry out the painstaking research that is often
needed to support negotiations with affected property owners
as well as litigation that may be necessary to resolve
continuing disputes.
Reclaiming historic rights-of-way is a considerable challenge,
and to date municipalities have been left almost completely
on their own to tackle it. Indeed, only a handful of
communities have succeeded to any significant degree (e.g.,
Rockport and Gloucester). Therefore, it is essential that the
state begin taking a more active role in facilitating local
access reclamation efforts, by developing the capability to
provide substantial and ongoing technical assistance.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
In keeping with its history of encouraging and supporting
public access initiatives at all levels of government, CZM
should assume lead responsibility for this action.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
This action should be implemented in two phases, beginning
with the mobilization of a variety of support resources for
municipal use. Key elements to be pursued in this first phase
would include: preparation of case histories and an
educational video to tell the story of the success achieved in
Rockport and Gloucester, preparation of a practitioner's
handbook with "how to" guidance on carrying out the legal
and other tasks commonly required to reclaim historic rights;
development of a lawyer network/referral service to assist
municipalities in obtaining professional assistance on a pro
bono basis; and completion of a series of "incubator"
workshops in all regions of the coast to promote campaigns
for rights-of-way reclamation and to provide initial training
for campaign participants.
V-159
-------
In the second phase, CZM should develop a permanent
outreach capability by creating a staff position for a "special
counsel for public access." This attorney would provide
ongoing technical assistance to municipal access programs as
well as facilitation services to help resolve user-owner
disputes, in cases where litigation might be avoided through
objective third-party intervention. Complaints that could be
referred to the special counsel include those of members of
the public who feel they have been inappropriately excluded
from public accessways, together with those of aggrieved
property owners who seek to ensure that public access occurs
in a manner that recognizes the legitimacy of their own
interests as well Finally, it should be the responsibility of the
access attorney to develop and maintain a "Register of
Protected Coastal Rights-of-Way" for purposes of keeping
track of all shoreline access entitlements that have been
secured for the public as a result of municipal reclamation
programs, as well as by various programs of regulation and
acquisition being carried out by other agencies within the
CZM network.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Funds for the enhancement of coastal access programs are
available to CZM under the Section 309 portion of its annual
budget, and such funds should be assigned to this action.
TARGET DATE:
Phase One should be completed during FY 1996; Phase Two
should be initiated in the following fiscal year.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Coastal Zone Management Office
(617)727-9530
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
The cost of implementing the first phase of this action over
the period of one fiscal year is estimated to be $85,000. This
would cover the salary of a full-time contract person,
expenses for production of resource and training materials,
and the costs of presenting a series of educational workshops
coastwide. Subsequent annual expenditures associated with
a permanent ombudsman position would be approximately
the same.
V-160
-------
CZM ACTION #12.4:
lie Coastal Zone Management Office (CZM), in collaboration with the Department of
Environmental Management and MassGIS, should prepare and distribute a statewide
Coastal Access Guide to facilitate public access to the shoreline,
RATIONALE:
Many coastal states ~ including neighboring Rhode Island -
have published handsome and informative access guides to
public recreational faculties along the entire state shoreline.
La the mid-SOs, the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Office began a comprehensive effort of this kind, resulting in
the publication of guidebooks for two regions (Boston
Harbor and the North Shore); but funding limitations did not
allow the project to extend to other areas of the coast and,
with the passage of time, the original guides are now both out
of date and out of print
In the absence of a statewide access document, individual
agencies have attempted to fill the informational gap by
producing a variety of maps, booklets, and brochures
describing their own facilities. A leading example of this is
the guide to state boat launching ramps compiled by the
Public Access Board within DFWELE (Public Access to the
Waters of Massachusetts, undated). As a group, however,
these assorted materials are not sufficiently plentiful or up to
date, do not synthesize all relevant information for the coastal
zone specifically, and are distributed in what might be called
a passive manner (i.e., only in response to phone inquiries or
walk-in requests at various field locations). Here again, deep
cuts in the state budget have had a devastating effect hi
1991, for example, all public information staff positions were
eliminated from the state's primary parks agency, the DEM
Division of Forests and Parks.
Despite these fiscal constraints, several important strides
have been made in recent years which indicate that the time
has come to renew efforts to prepare a statewide coastal
access guide. First, in 1990, DEM completed a
comprehensive inventory of publicly-owned land along the
coastline, which characterized each site not only in terms of
ownership (federal, state, local, and non-profit), but also
according to fees charged, parking facilities provided, and
other attributes affecting availability to the public at large.
Second, in 1992, DEM initiated a follow-up effort to
incorporate these and other data on protected coastal open
space into the Massachusetts Geographic Information System
(MassGIS). In the not very distant future, this system is
scheduled to be upgraded by including the database
developed for the most recent State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan (SCORP). When these complementary
efforts are complete, it should be a relatively straightforward
matter to produce a high quality shoreline access guide based
on up to date map products and attribute information directly
retrievable from the GIS.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Having successfully undertaken similar projects in the past,
CZM should assume lead responsibility for this action, with
support from DEM and MassGIS in the area of database
development
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Implementation of the access guide project should satisfy the
following four objectives:
• the guide should include as many sites as possible that are
owned by federal, state, and local governments and are
suitable for recreation, both active and passive (i.e.,
beaches, parks, scenic and conservation areas, public
piers, and town landings); properties held by nonprofit
land trusts that are available for public use and enjoyment
also should be included where feasible and appropriate;
• the maps should be carefully designed so as to facilitate
"getting there," by showing connections from the regional
highway system and public transportation as well as by
naming selected local roadways and landmarks in a way
that allows routes to the shoreline to be plotted with a
minirpnm of confusion; ideally, the guide should be the
only map document the public needs to obtain accurate
directions to the properties in question;
• the maps should be accompanied by site-specific
information describing allowed and restricted activities,
facilities provided and fees charged, type and availability
of parking, and any other attributes of relevance to
potential users in deciding whether to visit the site; and
• the guide should be user-friendly in a physical sense (i.e.,
it should be sized to fit easily in a glove compartment or
jacket pocket, have pages that lie flat when opened to a
particular map, and be constructed of durable material.)
As a final note, it is important that a serious effort be made to
V-161
-------
ensure that the guide be kept in print, be updated
periodically, and be distributed widely. This may require
some form of "turn-key" arrangement whereby ongoing
responsibility for publication and distribution of the guide is
transferred to another organization, such as the state
university press or a private producer of recreational
literature.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
Legislation is not required
ESTIMATED COST:
$150,000. The cost of preparing a three-part access guide
for the entire shoreline of Massachusetts is estimated to be at
least $100,000, exclusive of printing costs which would be
approximately $50,000 for an initial printing of 10,000
copies.
TARGET DATE:
The first volume of the public access guide (The
Massachusetts COAST GUIDE, Access to Public Open
Spaces Along the Shoreline, Greater Boston Harbor and the
North Shore) was published during the summer of 1995.
Other volumes should follow as soon thereafter as possible
as the necessary GIS information becomes available.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Coastal Zone Management Office
(617) 727-9530
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
The Massachusetts Bays Program has already committed
$15,000 to this project and another $55,000 has been
allocated through the CZM and DEM budgets. Other sources
within EOEA need to be identified to cover the remainder of
the estimated project cost
V-162
-------
EOEA ACTION #12.5:
The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, in collaboration with coastal
municipalities, should develop and implement snAccess-Via-Trails program to enhance
public access along the coast
RATIONALE:
In the 20 years or so since public access to the coast was first
identified as a critical issue for the Commonwealth, the
amount of tidal shoreline in government or quasi-government
ownership has increased from 265 to 363 miles, which is
approximately one-quarter of the total frontage in the state.
Despite this substantial accomplishment in land acquisition,
however, it is evident that the goal of having a coast that is
truly "open to the general public" remains elusive and largely
unfulfilled in Massachusetts, as strong legal and political
traditions still beget extensive exclusion on the roughly 1,000
miles of shoreline not under public control. Perhaps the most
telling indicator of our acute need for better coastal access is
that a majority of Massachusetts residents do not visit the
coast on a yearly basis, despite the fact that so much of the
population (86 percent) lives in counties either entirely or
substantially within 50 miles of the sea.
If we are to meaningfully expand public access opportunities,
Massachusetts cannot continue to rely exclusively on the
conventional approach of acquiring more public parks and
conservation lands at the water's edge. Such an approach is
not only costly, but is also slow to achieve results. To
quicken the pace of access enhancement, the state should
give equal, or greater, attention to obtaining rights-of-way
and other small-scale, dispersed access entitlements that do
not require outright ownership of waterfront acreage. As
proposed recently by the CZM Office, the organizing concept
for such an effort should be that of the "coastal hiking trail,"
consisting of interconnected pathways running along the
shoreline as well as to and along near-shore roadways. The
portions of the trail crossing private property would be open
to public passage by virtue of easements, permit conditions,
ard other legal/regulatory means. Also, points of origination
would be located at small public parking lots or where on-
street parking is available; or, to obviate the need to use a car
at all, the trails could become part of a network of inland
walking and bike paths connected, in turn, to nearby bus
routes and rail stations. Leading examples of this approach
include the proposed Bike-to-the-Sea route between Maiden
and Revere Beach, and the Rails-to-Trails route being
planned in Newburyport
With proper layout and careful attention to management
issues, public use of such trails could occur in a manner that
respects the privacy and other interests of waterfront property
owners. Although the volume of foot traffic on any one trail
would be expected to be relatively low, development of a
number of trails in each community would make the shoreline
far more approachable in the aggregate, with a relatively low
expenditure of public funds. Another advantage of this
innovative acquisition technique is that parking facilities, if
needed at all, would be limited in size and could be located
away from the immediate shoreline, further reducing costs
and allowing for greater siting flexibility to avoid adverse
environmental impacts.
The "access-via-trails" concept is very much in keeping with
recent access-related developments in both the legislature
and certain EOEA agencies. For example,
• the Chapter 91 Regulations of the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) now require that public
lateral access be allowed along the water's edge whenever
a private pier or other structure extends into
Commonwealth tidelands (Le., below the low water mark);
• a complementary effort to open up the intertidal zone has
been authorized by the legislature in the form of a statute
directing the Department of Environmental Management
(DEM) to initiate eminent domain proceedings to purchase
"strolling" rights for the public during daylight hours; and
• the state's Public Access Board - an entity that has
heretofore concentrated on the construction of state boat
ramps - has the statutory authority to "designate locations
of public access to great ponds and other waters within the
Commonwealth and locations of trails and paths
for...hiking...or other uses..." and to "construct
such...parking areas...trails...and related facilities as may
be designated by the Board...".
These existing state programs could, and should, be knit
together in a coherent way to implement the concept of a
coastal trails network, a process that would complement
actions taken at the municipal level to reclaim historic rights-
of-way.
V-163
-------
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
DEM is the logical agency to assume lead responsibility for
this action, insofar as it represents an extension of programs
already being implemented by that agency (e.g., developing
trails in general and acquiring intertidal strolling rights in
particular). Significant cooperation and support for the
action should also be provided by municipal planners as well
as CZM, DEP, and the Public Access Board.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The basic tasks that should be carried out to implement this
action are as follows:
• Develop a set of guidelines for selecting priority segments
of the shoreline and potential properties for easement
acquisition and development of associated infrastructure
(parking, signage, information materials, etc.); this will
require, among other things, that a geographic database be
established to identify opportunities for Unking existing
public recreation facilities and nearby public thoroughfares
and pedestrian rights-of-way,
« Establish a list of high priority trail projects to be carried
out when adequate funds become available;
• Develop and field-test a set of management guidelines to
balance use versus conservation and public versus private
interests in a variety of circumstances where public trail
easements are secured on private shorefront property, this
should build on existing land management guidelines
developed in recent years by the EOEA Interagency Land
Committee.
Recognizing that effective management is key to the success
of any trails program, a special effort should be made to enlist
the assistance of local residents and organization in providing
grassroots management services, such as through adopt-a-
trail projects and other comparable arrangements.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
Long-term funding of this program can be achieved under the
Open Space Bond recently approved by the Legislature.
ESTIMATED COST:
A two-year effort to establish and properly staff the program
is estimated to cost approximately $85,000 per year.
Subsequent expenditures would include the salary of at least
one full-time staff person, together with capital costs that will
vary depending on the number of projects carried out each
year.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Funds for the two-year startup phase, as well as for actual
trail planning and development on an ongoing basis, will
require a commitment of state monies from the Open Space
Bond.
TARGET DATE:
A coastal trails program should be ready for full-scale
operation by the end of fiscal year 1997.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Department of Environment Management
(617)727-3180
V-164
-------
chapter V
Planning for a
Shifting Shoreline
-------
ACTION PLAN #13
PLANNING FOR A SHIFTING SHORELINE
Nature is never completely static. The earth and its resident
organisms are constantly changing and evolving. Because
humans can actually see biological systems change, we are
used to thinking of them as dynamic —individual organisms
mature and die, populations rise and fall, entire ecosystems
change and evolve. Geological features such as land masses,
rivers, and shorelines are also dynamic, even though the rate
of change is so slow that for practical purposes humans
usually act as if these features were immutable. They are not
In fact, as recently as the last ice age (a mere blink on the
geological time scale), the southeastern Massachusetts land
mass extended seaward to the area now bounded by Block
Island, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, and George's Bank.
The shoreline of the Massachusetts Bays region is still
shifting. Like all shorelines, it is constantly being shaped and
reshaped by natural forces -- currents and tides, fluctuations
in sea level, storm erosion, shifts of barrier materials, and
other phenomena. In some instances, changes to the coastal
landform are best measured on a human scale rather than a
geological scale. A barrier beach, for instance, can form and
dissipate in a single human lifetime. Sea level rise plays an
important role in shoreline change. Tidal data collected over
the last century indicate that global sea level has been rising
at an average rate of approximately 0.3-0.5 feet per century.
Locally, however, relative sea level has been rising at about
twice that rate. Sea level rise may accelerate dramatically
within the next 100 years as a result of global wanning,
causing loss of uplands and wetlands, increased flooding,
saltwater intrusion, and elevated groundwater tables.
Engineering can sometimes prevent, or at least slow, a
natural shift in the shoreline. Sea walls, dikes, and floodgates
may hold back rising sea levels or deflect eroding storm
waves, hi many cases, however, the engineering "solution"
merely creates a new set of problems, hi some instances,
deferential retreat - rather than determined resistance — may
be the best response to a shifting shoreline.
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office (CZM)
recently became one of the few agencies to address the issue
of shifting shorelines by adopting a policy that requires
developers in the 100-year floodplain to consider and plan for
the effects of sea level rise. However, sea-level rise has not
been completely addressed at the policy and management
level, perhaps because the scientific basis for predicting the
effects of global warming is uncertain.
However, even if the magnitude and timing of future
shoreline shifts are uncertain, the fact that shorelines migrate
is incontrovertible. Where development encroaches on
unstable coastal landforms, property is certain to be
threatened when the shoreline shifts from beneath it
Because an environmentally sound approach to shifting
shorelines may at times conflict with the interests of
oceanfront property owners, equity, property rights, and other
social and legal issues will undoubtedly play a large role in
management strategies for the shifting shorelines in the
Massachusetts Bays region. A rational management plan,
however, will give as much credence ~ or more -- to existing
scientific information which indicates that certain coastal
areas are simply not suitable for development The challenge
will be to integrate social and scientific issues into an
equitable and environmentally responsible management plan.
The following recommended actions are a starting point for
achieving this.
V-165
-------
V-166
-------
MUNICIPAL ACTION #134:
Municipalities should adopt and implement strict developmentfredeyelopmenlstandards
within EEMA A and V flood hazard zones and other areas subject to coastal flooding.,
erosion, and relative sea level rise.
RATIONALE:
Shoreline development can pose major environmental,
economic, and public safety risks. The demand for
waterfront properly has resulted in inappropriate
development in numerous high hazard areas - atop eroding
coastal banks, adjacent to wetlands, on barrier beaches, and
within floodplains. Such development has destabilized banks
and dunes, accelerating problems of erosion and
sedimentation. It costs the public millions of dollars annually
in storm damage reconstruction, and threatens to impede the
natural landward migration of essential tidal flats and
wetlands as sea level rises relative to the land.
Although each coastal community has an evacuation plan,
and local and state regulations limit some development in
hazard areas, many communities have not adopted
sufficiently strict construction and reconstruction standards to
prevent the same types of development, and damage, from
occurring in the future.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
A number of local authorities would be involved in this
action, although primary responsibility would rest with the
Planning Board, Board of Health, Conservation Commission,
and local code enforcement officers (e.g., Health Agent,
Building Inspector). Assistance is available from OEM's
Flood Hazard Management Program, CZM, and the Regional
Planning Agencies.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
A core working group composed of representatives from the
above boards should evaluate the adequacy of the
community's existing regulations based on model
performance standards for construction/reconstruction in high
hazard areas, including areas subject to relative sea level rise.
The performance standards should cover a broad range of
building site, size, and setback considerations. Examples of
performance standards include:
• Except as specified to the contrary, no development or
redevelopment shall be permitted in FEMA "A " and "V
flood zones. Easting structures may be reconstructed or
renovated provided there is no increase in floor area or
intensity of use. As an exception, "where there is no
feasible alternative, water-dependent structures and uses
may be permitted subject to the approval of all permitting
authorities.
• Development and redevelopment on or within 100 feet
landward of a coastal bank or dune shall be designed to
have no adverse effect on the height, stability, or the use
of the bank or dune as a natural sediment source. In
areas where banks or dunes are eroding, the setback for
all new buildings and septic systems to the top of the
coastal bank or dune crest shall be at least 30 times the
average annual erosion rate of the bank or dune. This
rate shall be determined by averaging the erosion over
the previous 30-year period at a minimum. In instances
where shoreline erosion rates are indicative of bank/dune
erosion rates, CZM shoreline change maps may be used
in determining the setback.
Among other things, performance standards should address
those portions of the 100-foot buffer zone from a vegetated
resource area that would be affected by a likely shift in
shorelines, and should incorporate the best available
shoreline, erosion, and sea level rise data. In particular, such
standards should prohibit the construction of sea walls,
revetments, and groins in order to allow for the occurrence of
natural wetland and sediment migration processes.
According to Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and CZM officials, all "critical" facilities (e.g.,
wastewater treatment facilities, power generating facilities,
hospitals, emergency response facilities) should be elevated
or floodproofed to the 500-year flood elevation. Actual
experience around the country and here in Massachusetts
(e.g., Humarock in Scituate) has shown that the mapped 100-
year flood elevation is not always correct, and severe storms
may exceed that elevation.
While the 500-year flood elevation is not actually specified in
Federal Executive Order 11988, the intent to plan or
reconstruct critical facilities to a higher level of protection
permeates the E.O. A sound reason for choosing the 500-
year flood elevation is that it is calculated and published in all
community Flood Insurance Studies and thus is readily
available. The published 500-year flood elevation does not
V-167
-------
include wave height; however, a critical facility should not be
located in a Velocity zone where a wave height calculation
would be needed. If a critical facility already exists in a
Velocity zone, the 500-year elevation including wave height
should be calculated, and that subsequent height should be
used for floodproofing and elevation criteria.
With respect to sea level rise, a one-foot relative sea level
rise should be considered in all planning and construction in
FEMA-mapped A-zones; however, a 2-foot relative sea level
rise should be used in all Velocity zones.
For more detailed information and assistance regarding
performance standards for development activities in coastal
hazard areas, contact CZM and DEM'S Flood Hazard
Management Program.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
Implementation of this action will require amending existing
municipal development/redevelopment regulations to
incorporate stricter performance standards in high hazard
coastal areas.
ESTIMATED COST:
In general, the cost of developing and adopting stricter
performance standards should be modest Model
performance standards for high hazard areas are available
from CZM, DEM, and the Regional Planning Agencies.
These model standards can either be adopted in their present
form or modified to reflect specific local needs.
The cost of delineating high hazard areas, including lands
subject to sea level rise, on local assessor's maps is estimated
to be $1,500 - $2,500 per community.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
TARGET DATE:
1996/1997. This is a high priority action from a public
safety, environmental, and economic standpoint and should
be implemented as soon as possible.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
(617)727-9530
DEM Flood Hazard Management Program
(617)727-3267
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
V-168
-------
DEM ACTION #13.2:
The Department of Environmental Management should assist eommunitK
development of effective floddplain Management Regulations.
in the:
RATIONALE:
Floodplains serve as a natural means of flood control by
absorbing and retaining water during periods of excessive
precipitation and runoff. Inappropriate development in
floodplains can threaten public health and safety, destroy or
degrade important riverine habitat, and impair water quality.
By providing information and "hands-on" technical assistance
on floodplain management to communities, the State's Flood
Hazard Management Program can help communities guard
against financial losses due to flooding while protecting
public safety and natural resources.
As a requirement for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP), communities must adopt locally
enforceable floodplain zoning bylaws to regulate
development activity in the 100-year floodplain. Local
floodplain bylaws that do not meet FEMA's minimum
standards for floodplain management can jeopardize a
community's continued participation in the NFIP.
Participating communities also must adhere to several state
regulations that in some instances are more restrictive than
the federal guidelines. These include: 1) State Building Code
(780 CMR 2102.0, "Flood Resistant Construction"); 2)
Wetlands Protection Act Regulations (310 CMR 10.00); and
3) State Environmental Code, Title 5 (310 CMR 15.00). In
order to ensure community compliance, OEM's Flood Hazard
Management Program staff will review local floodplain
bylaws and recommend changes consistent with prescribed
NFIP and state regulatory standards.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
OEM's Flood Hazard Management Program (FHMP) staff
will be responsible for this action.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
In order to promote the sound use of floodplains and to help
safeguard Massachusetts residents against possible losses to
life, health, and property due to flooding, DEM:
• maintains a reference file of current Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRMs) which identity known flood hazard areas in
Massachusetts communities. These maps help public
officials and citizens identify flood-prone areas and learn
of the risks local flooding may pose;
• conducts Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and
Community Assistance Contacts (CACs) with municipal
officials to provide information and assistance on local
floodplain management;
• distributes the State Building Code design regulations for
floodplains (780 CMR 2102.0) and FEMA manuals of
appropriate floodplain construction techniques to
minimize flood damage to those structures permitted in the
floodplain;
• provides information on how to properly evaluate and
floodproof structures already in the floodplain and to
discourage inappropriate structural development; and
• provides model bylaws encouraging communities to join
the National Flood Insurance Program and adopt or update
zoning overlay bylaws to regulate land use in floodplains.
As part of its Community Assistance Visits and Community
Assistance Contacts, OEM's FHMP staff will obtain and
review the floodplain district section of a community's local
bylaws. Based on its findings, DEM will forward specific
recommendations for bylaw changes in follow-up
correspondence to the community. Bylaw development
assistance is a specifically identified task in the FHMP's
Statement of Work, negotiated with FEMA each fiscal year.
Under this task, any community that has received recently
updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps or has requested
technical assistance will be helped with its floodplain
management bylaw.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
When offered under the specific task of "bylaw review," the
estimated cost to DEM of providing technical assistance is
$375 per review. When provided as part of a CAV or CAC,
the cost of assistance is folded into the total cost of that
particular task. In both cases, the assistance is offered free of
V-169
-------
charge to the community.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Funding is available to DEM through the FEMA CAP
program (75% federal, 25% state).
TARGET DATE:
Ongoing.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
DEM Flood Hazard Management Program
(617)727-3267
V-170
-------
chapter V
Managing Local
Land Use and
Growth
-------
ACTION PLAN #14
MANAGING LOCAL LAND USE AND GROWTH
The preceding list of recommended actions clearly suggest
that many beneficial uses of Massachusetts Bays are
threatened by population growth and the appurtenant
development of rural or agricultural land in the Bays'
watershed In order to protect the Commonwealth's coastal
heritage, communities in the Bays' watershed must take
action to manage local land use and growth.
The hire of the sea has attracted many residents to the coast
Approximately 3.8 million people now live in the
Massachusetts Bay drainage basin, and the number is
growing. A disproportionate amount of this growth is
occurring in coastal communities. Between 1970 and 1990,
population on the Upper North Shore grew by 20 percent,
and population on the South Shore increased 57 percent
Residential development on Cape Cod has been particularly
rampant - in that same 20 year period, the Cape's population
nearly doubled ~ from 69,000 to 134,000. The number of
permanent residents in the town of Brewster almost
quadrupled. In all, the amount of land in residential use in
the Massachusetts Bays drainage basin increased by more
than 20 percent
Population growth exacerbates a wide array of environmental
problems, but perhaps nowhere more so than in the coastal
zone. Residential development impacts the Bays in a number
of ways. Impervious surfaces such as roofs, roads, and
driveways increase the volume, velocity, and quality of
stormwater runoff. More people produce more sewage,
which in turn strains sewage treatment plants and contributes
to septic system pollution. And greater populations put
increased pressure on fragile coastal habitat and recreational
resources. These human impacts are especially destructive
in small embayments and other localized areas subject to
intense human activity.
Without effective growth management and land use planning,
regulations and pollution control technologies are likely to be
of limited value. Responsible land use planning is predicated
on the government's broad power to protect and enhance the
health, safety, and welfare of the public.
Traditionally, land use planning and decision making have
been the domain of municipal government. Communities
have available a number of regulatory and nonregulatory
tools with which they can protect coastal resources from the
pressures of growth and development These include but are
not limited to:
• Zoning bylaws and ordinances: Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A (Zoning Act) defines the limit of a
municipality's power to establish zoning districts, hi order
to reap full benefits from zoning ordinances, a community
needs to determine its capacity to absorb future residential
and commercial development. When used in conjunction
with a carrying-capacity/buildout analysis, zoning can
greatly enhance water quality protection.
• Subdivision control: un^iks zoning bylaws, which focus on
land use, the Commonwealth's subdivision regulations
(Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 41) address
engineering concerns associated with new development,
such as street specifications, utility placement, and traffic
patterns. Protecting water quality through subdivision
regulations is therefore more limited than through zoning
bylaws. There are, however, a few channels which should
not be overlooked. For example, Planning Boards can
adopt regulations which mandate on-site stormwater
management or which restrict the application of lawn
fertilizers. Similarly, local Boards of Health have the
authority (under Section 81-U of the Subdivision Control
Law) to negate subdivision plans that pose a significant
risk to public health.
• Buffers and water protection districts: undeveloped land
is generally more permeable and can accommodate
stormwater more readily than developed land. To promote
percolation and natural filtration of stormwater,
communities may mandate a vegetated upland buffer
adjacent to surface waters such as streams and ponds.
Similarly, they may adopt an ordinance or bylaw which
restricts potentially harmful activities near a waterway or
wetland.
V-171
-------
Performance standards: if a certain resource area can
absorb some contaminants without experiencing
unacceptable levels of deterioration, a community may
decide to limit pollutant loadings to that critical level.
Performance standards allow individual development
projects to contribute some pollutant loadings while
ensuring that the cumulative loadings from the surrounding
drainage area do not exceed the area's carrying capacity.
Cluster design: the pattern of residential development in
the Massachusetts Bays region is in some ways as
troubling as its growth. Developers are consistently
avoiding established urban centers in favor of rural or
agricultural land, resulting in suburban sprawl that is more
difficult to mitigate. Cluster design, an alternative to the
standard grid-style development pattern, allows for more
open space and larger buffer zones between residences and
critical resource areas.
• Transfer of ownership: environmentally sensitive land
areas are often best protected when they are publicly
owned. A community may identify some parcels that are
so significant as to warrant outright purchase using
municipal funds. In order to accrue tax savings, the
landowner may sell the land to the community below
market value, or in certain cases, donate the property
outright
• Tax deferments and easements: land taxes are generally
levied against the market value of a developable land
parcel, regardless of the its use. Tax reductions can
prompt land owners to reserve their land as open space.
A land owner may also sell or donate an easement which
restricts the owner's right to develop the land.
The following action provides the basis for a community to
better manage its growth and sensitive environmental
resources.
V-172
-------
MUNICIPAL ACTION #144:
Municipalities should develop and implement Local Comprehensive Plans (LCPS)
which: 1) direct development into areas in the communily capable of absorbing the
impacts of growth and its associated facilities; and 2) preserve and protect the
conimunity's important natural resources.
RATIONALE:
For years, the pattern and pace of development in many
communities has been driven more by "market" conditions
than by well-conceived plans for growth. Too often, local
zoning regulations serve as blueprints for development that
does not sufficiently recognize environmental sensitivities
and constraints. Such development has resulted in the loss
and fragmentation of valuable open space and wildlife
habitat, and the pollution of coastal and inland waters. It also
has destroyed irreplaceable scenic vistas and blocked public
access to important waterfront areas. Further development
can be expected to occur in an insensitive, ad hoc fashion
unless well-conceived, coherent Local Comprehensive Plans
are developed and implemented within the Bays'
communities.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
A Local Planning Committee, under the direction of the
Planning Board, would generally be responsible for this
action. This committee should include representatives from
a variety of local boards (e.g., Selectmen, Health,
Conservation), as well as from the business community and
general public. Planning assistance is available from the
Regional Planning Agencies.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Local comprehensive planning should be an open, interactive
process that invites the participation and input of diverse
sectors of the community. The Cape Cod Commission has
developed guidelines (Local Comprehensive Plan
Guidelines, February 1993) to help Cape communities
through this process, and other Massachusetts Bays
communities can use these guidelines as a model in
developing their own Local Comprehensive Plans. The
guidelines prescribe a straightforward planning process, as
follows:
Designate a Local Planning Committee
i
Assess Available Planning Resources
i
Outline the Planning Process
I
Formulate a Work Program
1
Prepare a Citizen Participation Program
1
Develop a Community Vision and Goals
1
Coordinate with Neighboring Communities
1
Draft the Local Comprehensive Plan (LCP)
1
Hold Public Hearings
1
Complete and Adopt the final LCP
i
Implement the Local Comprehensive Plan
(ongoing)
At a minimum, LCPs should address each of the following
subject areas: land use/growth management; natural
resources (water resources, coastal resources, wetlands, plant
and wildlife habitat); economic development; community
facilities and services (transportation, solid and hazardous
waste management, capital faciuties/infrastructure, energy);
affordable housing; open space and recreation; and historic
preservation/community character.
Other local plans, such as Municipal Harbor Plans certified
by CZM (see Action Plan #12.1) and Open Space Plans
certified by the EOEA Division of Conservation Services
(see Action Plan #3.1), should not be applicative of the LPC,
but, rather, should be a component of, and complement, the
Local Comprehensive Plan.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
Once produced, a Local Comprehensive Plan is adopted by
a vote of town meeting or other local legislative body. In the
case of Cape Cod, the LCP must also be submitted to the
Cape Cod Commission for certification of its consistency
with the Regional Policy Plan. Implementation of the LCP
may require a number of local regulatory changes, including
amendments to the zoning bylaw, and adoption of new or
revised land use regulations, performance standards, and
V-173
-------
building codes.
ESTIMATED COST:
$50,000 - 200,000+. The cost of developing a Local
Comprehensive Plan can vary widely, depending on the
complexity of local growth patterns and development issues,
and the availability of professional staff and qualified
volunteers to perform the work.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Funding and technical assistance for Cape Cod communities
are available from the Cape Cod Commission. At present,
the other Regional Planning Agencies are not able to provide
funds to their member communities, but can offer limited
technical assistance. A bill currently before the Legislature
(the Growing Smart Bill), would provide state funding for
Local Comprehensive Plans.
TARGET DATE:
1996-2001. A Local Comprehensive Plan is the
cornerstone of a community's overall planning and
development initiatives. It is an expression of the
community's vision of its future and a guide to making the
many public and private decisions that shape that future. Its
development is a significant undertaking that may take
several years or more to complete. Accordingly,
communities should begin the local comprehensive planning
process as soon as possible.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Your area's Regional Planning Agency
NRCS Community Assistance Unit
(508) 295-1481
Your County Conservation District
V-174
-------
chapter V
[Enhancing Public
Education and
Participation
-------
ACTION PLAN #15
ENHANCING PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION
ISA. EDUCATING TEACHERS, STUDENTS, AND THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE BAYS
The word "education" means different things to different
people. What follows is a brief definition to help clarify what
the word means in a particular context
FORMAL EDUCATION is education that is highly
organized and usually certified by government authority.
Traditionally, it is divided by grade: kindergarten through
grade 12. hi the past, these grades have been subdivided into
elementary and secondary, with secondary beginning at the
7th grade. More recently, three categories are recognized:
Primary school: kindergarten through grade 4
Middle school: grades 5 through 8
High school: grades 9 through 12.
"Pre-K" refers to schooling prior to kindergarten; i.e.,
nursery school and day care. "Post-secondary" refers to
college and graduate school, and is also considered "formal."
NON-FORMAL EDUCATION refers to educational
services usually provided by non-profit organizations such as
museums, libraries, aquariums, galleries, private sites of
significance, and government agencies (e.g., national and
state parks, historical sites, wildlife refuges, monuments).
These kinds of organizations frequently provide on-site
programs for school groups and the general public. Many are
involved in curriculum development and workshops for
teachers.
There are also non-formal educational resources lying in a
vast, ill-defined area offered by the media: newspapers,
books, magazines, radio, and television. This is the main
source of education for the general public. Further, there are
"adult education" courses offered as non-credit courses by
schools, colleges, and universities (e.g., Elderhostel and
extension services).
Most people regard the concept of education from a "formal"
point of view, but, in fact, most knowledge is imparted
through the non-formal route, and this is particularly true of
matters concerning environmental science and environmental
issues. Environmental education, as such, has only recently
entered the curriculum of public schools where motivated
teachers have taken advantage of its integrating benefits. At
the same time, there are encouraging efforts being made by
the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) and
the Department of Education (DOE) in clarifying the
"Benchmarks of Environmental Literacy" presented by the
Secretary's Advisory Group on Environmental Education
(SAGEE). The Massachusetts Bays Program supports these
state initiatives and encourages the introduction of the
philosophy of the MBP into the classroom.
Meanwhile, the non-formal sector has been quick to
recognize this unfilled niche and has developed some
excellent programs for the public. While the non-formal
sector will continue to provide focused educational
programming, mechanisms must be provided to the public
school systems to develop and enhance the role of
environmental education during the brief period that children
spend in a formal school setting. This is particularly true if
the general population is to be expected to grasp the holistic,
ecosystem-level concepts necessary to understand
complicated Massachusetts Bays issues.
The action plans of the CCMP, therefore, require educational
efforts "aimed at developing a citizenry that is aware of and
concerned about the total environment and its associated
problems and which has the knowledge, attitudes,
motivations, commitments, and skills to work individually
and collectively toward the solution of current problems, as
well as the prevention of new ones" (On the Way To
Environmental Literacy:Report of the Benchmarks for
Environmental Literacy Project of the Secretary's Advisory
Group on Environmental Education).
In each of the Action Plans presented previously, there is a
significant role for a public education/information strategy.
However, the specifics of such a strategy will depend upon
the particular location of the actions to be taken, the
resources available, the education level of the population
involved, the extent of on-going efforts, and the commitment
of the public. A specificity based on so many variables is
obviously beyond the scope of this document, particularly
since, in some cases, there are excellent efforts already in
place.
Nevertheless, the Massachusetts Bays Education Alliance
(MBEA) has developed a series of educational action plan
V-175
-------
strategies, articulated below, which emphasize: 1)
information that is easy to understand and can be applied to
local situations; 2) individual responsibility for pollution of
Massachusetts Bays watersheds and waterways; and 3)
actions each person can take to minimJTe and control
contaminants from reaching surface and groundwaters.
Preventive methods include: developing and distributing
relevant education materials; workshops for public officials,
organizations, and educators; storm drain stenciling projects;
and proper disposal of hazardous materials. Citizens should
know what to look for with respect to polluted water and how
to report water not meeting standards for its designated use.
Toward this end, volunteer citizen groups should be educated
and trained to monitor waterways and report data to
authorities who can verify the data and set appropriate
preventive and remedial actions in motion,
MBEA has developed the following recommendations and
strategies, matched to the Action Plan categories previously
covered. They fall under the general themes of protecting
and enhancing natural resources, reducing or preventing
pollution, managing wastes and human activities, and
planning for shifting shorelines.
Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resources: Before
citizens can take action to protect a vital resource, they must
first know the resource exists and is important to the
community. Each year local papers could publish a listing of
shellfish resources and their yearly economic value to the
community and region, along with potential pollution threats
that might close shellfish areas and what is being done to
keep these areas open. An education booklet might be given
out with shellfish permits, placed in fish markets, and used in
classrooms. This booklet could describe basic concepts
related to shellfish biology, requirements for water quality
and how it is tested, how individual actions and community
decisions create potential pollution that leads to closures, and
what actions are needed to re-open closed shellfish beds and
keep them opea
Protecting and Enhancing Coastal Habitat: An inventory
of coastal habitats with local photographs would help local
Conservation Commissions educate community residents in
the value of local habitats. A sense of pride in keeping these
habitats healthy needs to be nurtured Workshops and field
trips on the biology and economic value of these habitats
would prepare citizens for involvement in the planning,
development, and implementation of bylaws and other
measures for protecting water resources. The use of student
monitoring studies, with reports to the community, would
heighten student understanding of the need and mechanisms
for protecting coastal habitats. For example, local fish runs
could be a focus for research, monitoring, and planning for
protection and maintenance.
Reducing and Preventing Stormwater Pollution:
Educating citizens about the different sources, types, and
effects of pollutants that enter and travel through storm drains
to waterways can lead to changes in personal practices. For
example, storm drain stencilling can alert people to the
consequences of improper disposal of waste products, such
as litter and used motor oil.
Reducing and Preventing Toxic Pollution: In addition to
education, media strategies can help citizens and businesses
understand and develop practices to reduce, reuse, substitute,
store, and properly dispose of toxic wastes. The development
and use of incentives, such as positive publicity for
businesses and awards to schools or students who carry out
successful projects, would magnify and multiply these efforts.
Reducing and Preventing Oil Pollution: Proper disposal of
used oil offers economic and ecological benefits to the
taxpayer. Outreach educators and media specialists can
develop strategies to address the consequences of "what goes
into the ground will probably enter the drinking water
supplies or aquatic habitats." Community leaders and
environmental advocates can provide citizens with
mechanisms to elicit widespread support for community oil
collection and monitoring programs.
Managing Municipal Wastewater: Education strategies are
needed to increase citizen understanding of aquifers and
groundwater, and how these may be affected by on-site
sewage disposal systems. The value of the recent upgrading
of Title 5 regulations, both to the individual and to a
community's water resources, needs to be communicated In
turn, property owners with septic systems should receive
information to enable them to maintain their systems property
and to practice household waste prevention. Everyone needs
education on the understanding of, and need for, alternative
technologies as viable options to replace or upgrade failing
or substandard on-site systems.
With respect to centralized sewage treatment faculties,
existing curricula and outreach materials are available that
describe the character of specific pollutant threats, explain
the responses that have been written into the environmental
regulations, and encourage citizen involvement in, and
support for, enforcement of discharge permits. Engineers
and scientists from local wastewater treatment plants should
be encouraged to cooperate with citizen groups and schools
to provide access to the plants and engage the public in water
testing projects.
Managing Boat Wastes and Marina Pollution: TheMBP
and CZM should continue to distribute timely materials that
give the boater clear instructions on how to properly dispose
of boat wastes. Power squadron courses, marinas, boat
license mailings, and public service announcements can be
the vehicles for disseminating this information. As a means
of promoting public awareness, the volume of properly
collected pump-out effluent that contributes to shellfish bed
openings could be widely broadcast
V-176
-------
Managing Dredging and Dredged Materials Disposal:
CZM should continue to provide print materials to the public,
media, Local Governance Committees, and educators on the
purpose, importance, and need for conducting and monitoring
dredging activity.
Reducing Beach Debris and Marine Fhatables: Everyone
who lives within the Massachusetts Bays watershed can help
reduce shoreline debris and marine floatables. Public
participation programs and outreach materials coordinated by
CZM through the annual statewide "CoastSweep" campaign,
"Sponsor-a-Beach" programs by local schools or youth
groups, municipal recycling projects, and recycling bins
strategically placed on waterfronts all can contribute to
ongoing beach clean-ups.
Managing Nitrogen-Sensitive Embayments: Public
education programs can address the importance of the
nitrogen cycle to all life, and what happens when that cycle
becomes out-of-balance. The consequences of nitrogen-
enrichment are particularly apparent in shallow embayments.
Individual actions that contribute to this imbalance need to be
understood. Proper household and business practices, as
well as the use of alternative technologies, can help limit
nitrogen inputs to the Bays. Organizations and educational
institutions can work collaboratively to promote creative
land-use planning, and to support local bylaws which protect
water quality.
Enhancing Public Access and the Working Waterfront:
The right of public and commercial access to a common
resource where the impacts are controlled can be important
to the economy of an area. It also builds appreciation that
leads to the protection of a natural resource. Hence, an
initiative is underway by CZM and DEM to complete a set of
public access guides (The Massachusetts COAST GUIDE)
to facilitate use and enjoyment of the coast In addition,
improved access to the intertidal zone from Provincetown to
Salisbury, MA is being pursued through the Sea Path
Program at DEM. Environmental educators and
organizations, including the Massachusetts Bays Education
Alliance, can use these initiatives to help provide meaningful
outdoor experiences to students.
Planning for a Shifting Shoreline: This issue has been
neglected at all educational levels due to a lack of consensus
on: 1) the scientific explanations for the causes of coastal
processes leading to erosion and accretion, and 2) how best
to address the rights of those directly affected The public
needs to be better informed about the scientific aspects of
erosion, sedimentation, and sea level change, as well as the
impacts of engineered solutions versus letting nature "take its
course." Enhanced public education could improve
community and state responses to storm events, influence
community long range planning strategies and the issuance of
building permits, and heighten the public's understanding of
the 100-year flood zone and related flood insurance rate maps
and premiums.
Managing Local Land Use and Growth: Education
programs can be developed that increase the public's
understanding of local bylaws and regulations which serve
the common good by promoting the economic and ecological
sustainability of our rich and diverse Massachusetts Bays
resources.
Following are some generalized statements of environmental
literacy developed by the Massachusetts Bays Education
Alliance. They apply to both the previous recommendations
and strategies, as well as to the education action plans
relating to the Massachusetts Bays.
• People should understand the role of the Massachusetts
Bays in the economy and in the environmental health of the
individual, the municipality, the watershed and region, the
state, and New England.
• People should have a basic understanding of the hydrology
of watershed systems, particularly the role of surface water
and groundwater inputs to the Bays.
• People should understand that water and wastewater
treatment procedures are costlier than preventing
contaminants from entering the surface and groundwaters
in the first place.
• People should understand that a sustainable ecological and
economic environment can be achieved if human activities
and land use practices are properly balanced with the
needs of natural systems.
• People can best have a positive effect on the Bays
environment by thinking globally and acting locally.
• People should understand the premise of the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics, wherein all systems tend toward
disorganization and eventual collapse unless energy is
invested to keep them functioning.
• People should understand what is meant by "pollution",
what its effects are, and what actions individuals can take
to enhance the effectiveness of a particular counteraction.
• People should understand and be capable of using the
political process for the solution of environmental
problems.
• People should understand the concepts of compromise in
the political process with respect to "best management
practices."
• People should be cognizant of the kinds of grass-roots
organizations through which their interest and input can
affect decision-making.
V-177
-------
The following Action Plans developed by the Massachusetts
Bays Education Alliance are an important first step toward
educating the Bays' many citizens - teachers, students, and
general public - about the Bays' resources and their own role
in protecting them.
V-178
-------
DOE ACTION #15A.l:
The Department of Education, ia collaboration with the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, should continue to develop and integrate environmental education
as an important component of the curriculum in the public schools of the Commonwealth,
making broad use of the Benchmarks for Environmental Education developed by the
Secretaries' Advisory Group on Environmental Education (SAGEE),
RATIONALE:
The development and integration of environmental education
into the schools would benefit from coordinated direction and
leadership that recognizes the importance of environmental
literacy to the Commonwealth.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
Massachusetts Department of Education
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
Provide resources, workshops, conferences, fact sheets,
events, and media opportunities to facilitate the
environmental education process for administrators and
teachers.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Massachusetts Department of Education
TARGET DATE:
1996/1997 to develop program; program integration and
implementation ongoing.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
EOEA Education Coordinator
(617) 727-9800, x218
MBEA Coordinator
c/o 1-800-447-BAYS
ESTIMATED COST:
$100,000
V-179
-------
V-180
-------
EOEA ACJ1ON flSA.2:
Hie Executive Office of Environmental Aflairs should continue to work closely with the
Department of Education through the Secretaries* Advisory Group on Environmental
Education (SAGEE) in order to develop a strategy for the implementation of the,
"Benchmarks for Environmental Education", Further, EOEA should continue to place
a priority on the role of environmental education and provide adequate staffing to insure
that appropriate state leadership is maintained.
RATIONALE:
There needs to be a stong voice in the executive branch that
can provide the leadership necessary to focus the already-
present governmental resources on the role of environmental
education on resource sustainability. The Benchmarks for
Environmental Education would provide guidance for
teaching resource protection and enhancement, pollution
reduction, and watershed planning and management This
will provide a framework for using the CCMP Educator's
Resource Guide, MBP research, and fact sheets in
environmental stewardship in both formal and non-formal
education settings.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
EOEA would be responsible for this action.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
• Integrate the Benchmarks for Environmental Education
into the CCMP resource materials, and materials provided
by non-profit and non-government organizations, and
government agencies;
• Integrate into formal and non-formal education the use of
the CCMP Educator's Resource Guide, MBP print
materials, and MBP/EOEA stewardship projects and
programs such as: Shoreline Surveys, CoastSweep, water
quality monitoring, storm drain stencilling, toxics use
reduction and solid waste recycling programs, and SeaPath
support; and
• Coordinate and promote watershed and Bays stewardship
through regional workshops, conferences, events, media,
and policy and regulatory enforcement
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
Staff time for workshops, events, and material production;
and the cost of materials.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
EOEA annual operating budget
TARGET DATE:
1996 to develop strategy.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
EOEA Education Coordinator
(617) 727-9800, x218
MBEA Coordinator
c/o 1-800-447-BAYS
V-181
-------
V-182
-------
EOEA ACTION #15A3:
The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, in cooperation with the Department of
Education,, should continue to develop a grant relationship with the National Science
Foundation and other funding agencies in order to provide technological outreach aimed
at enhancing environmental literacy. The goal is to make resource and curriculum
materials widely accessible and to provide ongoing coordination among the various
members of me education community. The Massachusetts Bays Program represents an
important aspect of the total environmental picture and should play a key role in this
effort, helping to establish a unified voice to speak for environmental education
concerning the Bays region.
RATIONALE:
Coordinated efforts on behalf of environmental education are
needed to strengthen the amount and quality of projects,
materials, and activities available across the Massachusetts
Bays region and the Commonwealth.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
EOEA , MBP, and UMass Extension would share
responsibility for this action.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
• Train teachers and educators how to access information on
the Bays and their watersheds and how to communicate
this information to students and the public; and
• Staff a position to keep Bays-related information current
and accessible.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
$45,000/year.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
UMass Extension; National Science Foundation.
TARGET DATE:
1996
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
EOEA Education Coordinator
(617) 727-9800, x218
MBEA Coordinator
c/o 1-800-447-BAYS
V-183
-------
V-184
-------
EOEA/DOE ACTION 315A.4:
EOEA and DOE should empower exemplaiy teachers, administrators, and/or schools,
who demonstrate the competence, to cany out formal and non-formal environmental
education initiatives that complement the Commonwealth's environmental education
programs.
RATIONALE:
School workers in the environmental "trenches" need to be
recognized and rewarded for their contributions to
environmental education.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
EOEA and DOE would be responsible for this action.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
• Continue the nomination process and the Secretariats'
award ceremony during Earth Week/Month; and
• Provide local press opportunities for each award
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required
ESTIMATED COST:
To be determined
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
EOEA and DOE operating budgets.
TARGET DATE:
1996 and annually thereafter.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
EOEA Education Coordinator
(617) 727-9800, x218
MBEA Coordinator
c/o 1-800-447-BAYS
V-185
-------
V-186
-------
MBEA ACTION 015A.5:
The Massachusetts Bays Education Alliance should continue and expand its current
efforts to build a community of educators who can ably teach about and promote the
protection of the Massachusetts Bays, their shores., and watersheds.
The Massachusetts Bays Education Alliance (MBEA) was
formed in 1993 to help create a community of educators who
can teach students and the public about the Massachusetts
Bays, their shores, and watersheds, and how to responsibly
use and protect these valuable resources.
The following policies agreed to by the MBEA steering
committee can serve as actions to be accomplished under the
aegis of the CCMP:
1. The Alliance should continue to encourage teachers and
their schools to make use of their local watersheds, shores,
and bays as teaching resources, guided by the CCMP and
its Action Plans;
2. The Alliance should continue to focus its efforts on the
educators of the region by promoting marine, coastal, and
freshwater education;
3. The Alliance should continue to encourage innovative
teaching based on the latest research as it relates to the
Massachusetts Bays;
4. The Alliance should continue to facilitate the use of
watersheds, shores, and bays by establishing working
connections among the schools and appropriate local
organizations, agencies, and municipal departments;
5. The Alliance should continue to promote the sharing of
resource materials from the myriad of watershed, shores,
and bays education sources that permeate the region but
which are frequently difficult to locate and access;
6. The Alliance should continue to seek to achieve the goals
of its mission statement in a coherent fashion and on a
sustainable, cost-effective basis across the region of 161
cities and towns that comprise the watersheds of the
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays; and
7. The Alliance should continue to support the State's
educational reform by: 1) serving as a catalyst for school
intervention strategies that integrate new education
initiatives (e.g., PALMS Program) with a watershed,
shores, and Bays-based education focus; 2) facilitating the
use of Massachusetts Bays watershed concepts at a
functional or operational level; and 3) encouraging the
establishment of a full-time Environmental Education
Coordinator position within the Department of Education
to coordinate formal environmental education efforts.
Toward this end, the Massachusetts Bays Education Alliance
is producing a resource guide that will include inter-
disciplinary activities illustrating information from the
CCMP. It will be written to the middle school level (grades
5-9), with suggestions for high school activities as well.
Along with activities, it will feature a listing of MBP Action
Grants and research materials, recommended curricula
developed by host institutions, and helpful references and
other resources characterizing the Bays' watersheds.
The Education Alliance also will contribute to the formation
of partnerships among organizations and institutions with
shared environmental education interests, such as the one
established with U./Massachusetts Extension, Natural
Resources and Environmental Conservation Program, and
those recently formed with U./Massachusetts (Boston) -
Urban Harbors Institute, Graduate School of Education,
Institute for Learning and Teaching, and the Harbor
Explorations Institute.
V-187
-------
V-188
-------
CAN ACTION #15A.6:
The Coastal Advocacy Network should continue to serve as a vehicle for bringing
information to and from the government on environmental issues affecting the Bays, with
a particular emphasis on proposed projects or regulatory changes.
The Coastal Advocacy Netwoik presently serves as the
primary vehicle for bringing information to and from all
levels of government on various environmental issues, with
a particular emphasis on proposed projects or regulatory
changes. The Network's educational approach is open-forum
and informal, serving to educate both citizens and
government on priority, and relatively immediate, issues and
actions affecting the environment
The Coastal Advocacy Network was formed in 1993 in
response to the Massachusetts Bays Program's need to bring
citizen input into the development of the CCMP. The
Network meets monthly to discuss priority issues, many of
which have been brought to the MBP Management
Committee for discussion and possible inclusion in the
CCMP. The so-called "megaprojects", for example, were
developed with the input of the Network through group
meetings and focus group sessions, and consensus was
reached among interested parties as to the language and
action recommendations. The Network will continue to serve
as a vehicle for information exchange among the citizenry
and the government
The Network's mission is as follows:
"Recognizing the Bays as an interconnected ecosystem that
is shared and affected by the communities that surround it,
the Coastal Advocacy Network is dedicated to the protection,
restoration and celebration of the marine and coastal
resources of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Consisting
of local or regional environmental advocacy and educational
non-governmental organizations from the communities
surrounding the Bays, Network members are committed to
improving the understanding and management of
Massachusetts Bays and its constituent ecosystems. The
Network has been formed in order to allow an exchange of
information and ideas among members, to facilitate the
identification and advocacy of issues and priorities that are
shared by all members, and to develop common ground
relative to potentially divisive policy disputes. The Network
operates through a consensus process and is affiliated with
the Massachusetts Bays Program, a local, state, and federal
effort, under the National Estuary Program, focusing
research, planning and education efforts on protection and
enhancement of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays."
V-189
-------
V-190
-------
BUG ACTION «5A.7:
The Massachusetts Bays Business and Users Group (BUG) should continue to provide
a public forum for the exchange of information and ideas on COME development and
implementation among the Bays' business community and resource users.
As its name implies, the Business and Users Group (BUG)
includes representatives of the Bays' diverse business
community (e.g., corporations, consulting firms, trade
associations) and resource users, such as the New England
Aquarium Divers' Club. Since its establishment early in the
Massachusetts Bays Program, the BUG has been an active
participant in the development of the CCMP, providing
regular input on many of the action recommendations
contained in the Plan. The technical expertise contributed by
its business members in such areas as hazardous materials
management (in particular, waste minimization and recy-
cling), and the use of public/private partnerships have helped
to shape various CCMP actions relating to toxic pollution
prevention and control, oil pollution prevention and control,
and stonnwater runoff management At the same time,
BUG's resource user representatives have been strong
advocates for improved public access to the coast, and have
supported various CCMP initiatives, such as the Coastal
Access Guide, that will enhance the public's use and enjoy-
ment of the Bays' bountiful land and water resources (see
Action Plan for Enhancing Public Access and the Working
Waterfront).
As the Massachusetts Bays Program moves from the plan-
ning phase into implementation, it will be important for BUG
representatives to continue to meet and to provide their input
on the broad range of actions recommended in the CCMP.
Many of the complex water quality and habitat problems
articulated in the CCMP call for creative solutions and the
active participation and collective talent of all sectors of the
community, not just government The meetings of the BUG
offer an excellent public forum for exploring and formulating
new and creative environmental management strategies, and
for facilitating the kinds of public/private partnerships that
will be needed to implement those strategies.
V-191
-------
V-192
-------
STUDIES CONSORTIUM ACTION #15A,8t
The Marine Studies Consortium should continue to offer undergraduate marine science
and policy courses; and, through the bi-annual Massachusetts Marine Bavironment
Symposium, bring together diverse marine interests to promote better understanding of
marine policy issues.
The Marine Studies Consortium is a non-profit association of
seventeen colleges, universities, museums, and marine
research institutions whose mission is to educate students and
the public about environmental, political, and social issues
which impact the coastal waters of Massachusetts.
The Consortium promotes a science-based approach to
environmental decision-making through a wide array of
programs, including an undergraduate curriculum in marine
science and policy, local community forums, the bi-annual
Massachusetts Marine Environment Symposium, and
participation in the development of and revisions to the
Commonwealth's water policies.
V-193
-------
V-194
-------
ACTION PLAN #15
ENHANCING PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION
15B. DEVELOPING A STATE NONPOINT SOURCE EDUCATION
AND OUTREACH STRATEGY
Nonpoint source pollution (NFS) occurs when rainwater and
snowmelt run over farm fields, city streets, timber lands,
lawns, and other surfaces. Contaminants, such as soil
sediments, nutrients from fertilizers and sewage, and
chemicals from pesticide use and other sources, are picked
up as the water runs over the ground and through the soil.
The contaminated rainwater and snowmelt ultimately flow
directly into a surface waterbody (such as the ocean, a river,
or a lake), or they seep into groundwater or enter a drainage
system, which eventually carries the contaminants to a
surface waterbody.
When all of these individual pollutant inputs are taken
together, the impacts on coastal waters are staggering. Many
national studies identify NFS pollution as the largest single
factor contributing to coastal water pollution, hi addition,
unlike point source pollution from industrial pipe discharges
and other direct sources, the sources of NFS pollution are
extremely diverse and widespread.
hi the past, the NFS pollution resulting from human activities
and natural processes (such as erosion and plant and animal
decay) was not significant enough to impair the ability of
aquatic ecosystems to handle these contaminants. As human
activities have increased, however, the quantity and diversity
of NFS pollutants entering waterbodies have also increased.
Today, in many areas, the levels of NFS pollution have
adversely affected the health and productivity of coastal
ecosystems, hi addition, NFS pollution can prevent these
waterbodies from meeting water quality standards. Continual
NFS pollution can alter the quality of wildlife habitats, which,
in turn, can reduce species diversity.
NFS pollution affects coastal waters when contaminated rain
water and snow melt run directly into the ocean or into other
coastal waters, such as estuaries and salt marshes. Even rain
and snow that fall many miles inland, however, can impact
coastal waters by carrying NFS pollutants to rivers that
ultimately run to the sea. Consequently, all activities in
coastal watersheds (the geographic areas from which water
drains into coastal waterbodies) can cause coastal NFS
pollution problems. Coastal waters, therefore, are affected by
the activities conducted within a very large land area, hi
Massachusetts, the coastal watershed includes just over half
of the state.
One of the most costly results of coastal NFS pollution in
Massachusetts is shellfish bed closings. More than 90,000
acres are currently closed Over the past fifteen years,
shellfish bed closings have increased dramatically, and many
of these closings appear to be the direct result of NFS
pollution from sources such as septic systems, as well as from
domestic and farm animals. Because they are filter feeders,
shellfish are very sensitive to water pollution. As they feed,
they filter contaminants, as well as bacteria and viruses, out
of the water and often store these substances in their body
tissue. Consequently, shellfish that are contaminated with
bacteria from human and animal wastes pose a serious threat
to human health. If the bacterial count in coastal waters
reaches a certain level (14 colonies per milliliter of water),
shellfish beds must be closed, preventing people from
harvesting the resource.
In addition, Massachusetts Bays Program research estimates
that more than half of the oil and grease that enters the Bays
is from nonpoint sources of pollution.
Clearly, the magnitude of the NFS pollution problem
underscores the need for effective solutions. This ubiquitous
pollution problem also suggests that the permit and
compliance-oriented strategies used with point sources of
pollution will be inadequate when addressing NFS issues. An
effective education and information campaign that draws
upon lessons learned through the Massachusetts Bays
Program will be necessary to raise awareness of the NPS
pollution problem and to empower communities, businesses,
and individuals to take the necessary actions to reduce storm-
water runoff and other types of NPS pollution.
hi recognition of this need, the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Program (s.6217), directed by the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management office (MCZM) with the
assistance of the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), is aggressively pursuing
outreach and technical assistance efforts on NPS issues
throughout the Bays' watersheds. The outreach component
of this approach focuses on raising awareness of NPS issues
and educating the public about the seriousness of the problem
V-195
-------
and available solutions. MCZM staff produce factsheets,
brochures, newsletter articles, and other materials to spread
this message. The purpose of the technical assistance
component is to provide guidance and assistance to local
governments, other state agencies, businesses, and
individuals to assist them with the implementation of NFS
controls, practices, and strategies. This assistance includes
direct support in developing ordinances and regulations,
technical guidance, training, financial incentives,
demonstration projects, and other innovations to protect
coastal water quality. MCZM also coordinates with a variety
of other state agencies to ensure that education, information,
and technical assistance needs on specific issues are met in
the coastal communities.
DEP's Office of Watershed Management (OWM) is also
involved with NPS outreach and technical assistance efforts
statewide. OWM is responsible for implementing the state's
Basin Approach to watershed management. DEP has divided
the state into 27 major watersheds and basins, and assigned
several technical staff people to serve as Basin Teams for
each of these areas. DEP also has divided these basins into
five separate groups. Each year, DEP works with the cities
and towns within one of these groups to develop consistent
and coordinated permitting strategies on point source and
NFS pollution issues. Because the permits are effective for
five years, this creates a continual cycle whereby every five
years DEP returns to review and update all permits within
each watershed
OWM also employs a full-time outreach coordinator and
technical assistance expert for the Basin Approach whose
sole responsibilities are to inform communities and the public
about the Basin Approach and to provide needed technical
assistance to implement strategies. The Basin Teams also
provide extensive technical assistance.
A wide variety of other state agencies also are involved with
NPS outreach and technical assistance on specific topics.
These agencies include:
• The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA),
which coordinates the Watershed Initiative and
implements activities in the Neponset River Watershed, a
model for other river basins throughout the state.
• The Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental
Law Enforcement's Riverways Program, which focuses on
NPS issues that relate to the state's rivers.
• The Department of Food and Agriculture, which looks at
pesticides, soil erosion, fertilizers, and other NPS issues
related to agriculture.
• The Department of Environmental Management, which
focuses on forestry and other land use issues.
• The Metropolitan District Commission's Division of
Watershed Protection, which concentrates its efforts on the
Quabbin Reservoir and the Boston area.
• The Massachusetts Highway Department, which is
involved with NPS pollution control from roads, bridges,
and highways.
• The Massachusetts Bays Program, which provides
education, information, and technical assistance on NPS
issues to the 49 coastal communities along Massachusetts
and Cape Cod Bays, and promotes the implementation of
NPS pollution controls through its Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP).
• The Buzzards Bay Project, which also provides education,
information, and technical assistance on NPS issues and
promotes the implementation of NPS pollution controls
through its CCMP for Buzzards Bay.
All of these agencies serve on the state's Nonpoint Source
Outreach Coordination Committee. Other federal, local, and
non-governmental members of the Committee include:
• University of Massachusetts Extension
• Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource
Conservation Service
• Metropolitan Area Planning Council
• Massachusetts Audubon Society
• Coalition for Buzzards Bay
The purpose of the Committee is to develop mechanisms to
improve coordination among the agencies and organizations
with major roles in NPS outreach and technical assistance
and to identify and capitalize on opportunities for
collaboration. The Committee is chaired by personnel from
EOEA's Division of Conservation Services, State
Commission for Conservation of Soil, Water and Related
Resources.
Clearly, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is positioned
to provide extensive education and technical assistance on a
variety of NPS pollution issues. The challenge for the state
is to focus its energies on priority issues and to coordinate its
efforts to provide adequate coverage, both by topic area and
geography.
The following actions offer the means for meeting this
challenge.
V-196
-------
sx EOEA ACTION
The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs should develop and maintain a
clearinghouse of NFS education, information, and technical assistance materials, as well
as a dataBase of available state NPS materials and programs.
RATIONALE:
A number of state agencies produce education, information,
and technical assistance materials and/or offer programs on
NPS pollution issues. In addition, numerous federal, local,
and non-governmental groups also have NPS information and
programs. Currently, however, no central repository for this
information exists. Individuals looking for materials and
programs on NPS issues must call each agency/organization
individually, a task that is both time consuming and difficult
because the appropriate contacts are often not easily
identified.
An NPS clearinghouse/database would provide the following
benefits:
• Copies of these materials would be available in a single
location, improving research opportunities;
• Individuals would only have to contact one place to
determine what NPS information the state has available;
and
• Ultimately, the database could be made available on-line,
which would allow broader access.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
All of the state agencies with NPS information/programs will
be responsible for providing publications, other materials,
and descriptions of their programs to the project In addition,
major federal, local, and non-governmental groups that opt to
participate also will provide this information. The state's
Nonpoint Source Outreach Coordination Committee will be
responsible for overseeing the effort and will hire an intern to
assemble the materials and create the database.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The state's Nonpoint Source Outreach Coordination
Committee will conduct two separate surveys of state
agencies with NPS responsibilities (and others represented
on the Committee). The first survey will obtain information
about the publications and other materials available on NPS
issues. The second survey will obtain information about the
technical assistance and other NPS programs that are
maintained. The survey information and copies of
publications will be compiled by an intern, hired through the
Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership. The intern will
then develop the clearinghouse library and database.
The library and database will be updated periodically by the
Committee so that information remains current The
Committee also will look into options for marketing the
availability of the clearinghouse/database and making it
available electronically through Internet access.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
The costs of this action will be minimal and will be assumed
by the agencies involved.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
The Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership and DEP will
fund the intern.
TARGET DATE:
1996
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Nonpoint Source Outreach Coordination Committee
The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Division of Conservation Services
State Commission for Conservation of Soil, Water and
Related Resources
(617) 727-9800, ext 235
V-197
-------
V-198
-------
EOEA ACTION #15B.2:
The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs should develop and maintain a matrix,
by topic, of NPS education* infonnation, and technical assistance materials produced by
state agencies and associated organizations.
RATIONALE:
Although a number of state agencies, as well as federal, local,
and non-governmental groups, produce publications and/or
offer programs on NPS pollution issues, no tools exist for
these organizations to identify gaps in available infonnation
or to facilitate opportunities for collaboration. A matrix that
lists the available education, information, and technical
assistance materials and programs by topic covered would
allow the state's Nonpoint Source Outreach Coordination
Committee to:
• Identify topic areas that are not covered so that materials
could be developed to fill these gaps;
• Determine areas where more than one agency/organization
is developing materials or maintaining programs, allowing
these agencies/organizations to collaborate in the future;
and
• Plan future efforts with an eye toward filling informational
gaps and fostering collaboration to improve
products/programs.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
All of the members of the state's Nonpoint Source Outreach
Coordination Committee, along with any other groups that
opt to participate, will be responsible for providing
information to complete the matrix.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The Nonpoint Source Outreach Coordination Committee will
establish a subcommittee that will develop the matrix. The
subcommittee will design a matrix that will list the agencies
and other organizations that are participating and the NPS
topic areas covered. The subcommittee will then take the
information from the surveys used to develop the NPS
clearinghouse/database (see EOEA Action #15B.l) to
complete the matrix. The Committee will periodically update
the matrix to keep it a current and working planning tool.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
The costs of this action will be minimal and will be assumed
by the agencies involved.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Not applicable.
TARGET DATE:
1996
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Nonpoint Source Outreach Coordination Committee
The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Division of Conservation Services
State Commission for Conservation of Soil, Water and
Related Resources
(617) 727-9800, ext. 235
V-199
-------
V-200
-------
EOEA ACTION 315B.3:
the Executive Office of Environmental Aflairs should expand upon Massachusetts Bays
Program efforts and develop a strategy for NFS outreach and technical assistance
statewide mat would coordinate the development and production of NPS education,
information, and technical assistance materials, and provide technical assistance in order
to implement NFS pollution controls. '
RATIONALE:
A strategy for coordination and collaboration of outreach and
technical assistance on NFS issues is necessary because of
the large number of state agencies and federal, local, and
non-governmental organizations involved with these issues.
Currently, there is significant overlap in what these
organizations are trying to accomplish. Also, because these
organizations are faced with time and budget constraints,
coordination and collaboration will allow resources to be
used more widely and efficiently in order to spread a common
message.
The goals of the coordination and collaboration strategy
should be to:
• Identify existing information (see EOEA Actions # 15B. 1
and 15B.2);
• Share agency and organization plans for producing
information to identify and capitalize on opportunities for
collaboration and to eliminate any redundancy of efforts;
• Ensure that NFS messages from the different state
agencies are compatible; and
• Identify other key groups (e.g., federal, local, non-
government) and bring them into the NFS outreach
coordination process.
Coordination requires a significant effort up front to involve
participants in the process and to develop a mutually-
beneficial strategy. Since coordination can reduce duplication
of effort and improve products and programs, the end result
will amply justify the initial investment of time and resources.
RESPONSIBLE AGENT(s):
The state Nonpoint Source Outreach Coordination
Committee will establish a subcommittee to develop the
coordination and collaboration strategy. The full Committee
will review the draft strategy and work to complete the final
strategy. All members of the Committee will be responsible
for implementing the strategy, and the Committee should
expand its membership as more agencies and organizations
are brought into the planning process.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY:
The subcommittee will work together to develop a draft
strategy to meet the goals listed above. The strategy would
outline the necessary steps to ensure coordination and
collaboration, along with the responsibilities of the different
agencies and organizations involved The full Committee
will then review and comment on the draft strategy and work
together to finalize the strategy. The final strategy would be
approved by the Secretary of EOEA and implemented by the
members of the Nonpoint Source Outreach Coordination
Committee and their agencies and organizations.
LEGISLATION REQUIRED:
New legislation is not required.
ESTIMATED COST:
The costs of this action will be minimal and will be assumed
by the agencies involved.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(s):
Not applicable.
TARGET DATE:
1996
FURTHER INFORMATION:
For further information and assistance, contact:
Nonpoint Source Outreach Coordination Committee
The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Division of Conservation Services
State Commission for Conservation of Soil, Water and
Related Resources
(617) 727-9800, ext 235
V-201
-------
V-202
-------
Implementing the CCMP
Throughout the Bays Watershed
-------
Introduction
The Massachusetts Bays area is an estuarine system in
transitioa Increased development along its shores and in
upland watershed areas, coupled with d
-------
"^i:>^;;^;%|: X^PEA^^
Basin
Nashua
Merrimack
Boston Harbor (Mystic, Neponset,
Weymouth & Weir)
Cape Cod
Parker
Ipswich
Shawsheen
Concord
South Coastal
Charles
North Coastal
hedu& for Massachusetts
Assessment
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
19%
19%
1997
1997
Bays Rive/ Basi
Planning
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
19%
19%
1997
1997
1998
1998
rfV'|:^$tfi3p&
Implementation
1995
19%
19%
19%
19%
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
Models for a Regional Approach to
CCMP Implementation: Current Ef-
forts
This section describes: 1) the underlying principles of the
MBP's current efforts to support regional implementation of
the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan; 2)
the implementation of these efforts in three different ways;
and 3) the common characteristics that these efforts share.
The MBP goals and objectives were and are a primary
consideration in planning and carrying out the current
regionally-based CCMP implementation efforts of the MBP.
The MBP Management Conference, which includes wide
representation from federal, state, regional, and local agen-
cies, resource user groups, educators and scientists, and
business and industry, established as the MBP's principal
goal the creation and management of a healthy ecosystem of
living resources, as previously noted Specific objectives
include use of the beaches; availability of uncontaminated
seafood; public access to the waterfront; and protection of
public health and marine habitats. In order to fulfill this goal
and accompanying objectives, the CCMP identifies 15 action
plans (e.g., Action Plan for Reducing and Preventing Storm-
water Pollution; Action Plan for Protecting and Enhancing
Shellfish Resources) which need to be implemented to
improve coastal water quality.
The current efforts of the MBP in supporting regional
implementation of the CCMP can be characterized as models
in three ways:
Utilization of Regional Planning Agencies. The Common-
wealth's Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs) have histori-
cally provided regionally-based technical and planning
assistance to communities and watershed organizations. In
particular, through the RPAs, the MBP provides funds and
staff support to the five Local Governance Committees
(LGCs) geographically located throughout the 49 coastal
communities in the Massachusetts Bays area. Members of
each of the LGCs are appointed by the chief elected officials
of each community. LGC staff currently assist these commu-
nities with pertinent activities such as water quality monitor-
ing, bylaw development, grant writing, and public education
- all with the ultimate goal of implementing CCMP actions.
Using the geographical framework and expertise of the
Commonwealth's RPAs, the LGCs have been successful in
building local capacity to address coastal water quality issues
through a combination of technical assistance,
outreach/education, and implementation approaches.
In a Bays-wide retreat held in January of 19%, the LGCs
convened to explore and define their role in CCMP imple-
mentation, and affirmed their commitment to serve as liaison
between the communities and the MBP, initiating and
facilitating CCMP implementation actions at the local and
regional levels.
Shellfish Bed Restoration Program. Shellfish beds which
are closed to harvesting, either temporarily or permanently,
are an indicator of declining water quality in the Massachu-
setts Bays (and other marine waters). In October of 1993, an
interagency team was formalized, recognizing that the actions
needed to reopen these beds were not the sole responsibility
VI-2
-------
of any one agency, because no one agency has the re-
sources to address the problems. This team includes
representatives of and strong commitment by the MBP,
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Massachu-
setts Department of Environmental Protection, U.S.D.A.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, County Conser-
vation Districts, and municipalities with impacted beds.
The MBP /RPA /LGC framework described previously is
an integral part of the Shellfish Bed Restoration Program
"team" approach, providing the local technical assistance
and community participation key to the success of the
Program.
To date, the coordinated work of the Shellfish Bed Resto-
ration Program (SBRP) team has included securing grant
funding for the identification of stormwater pollution
sources and for mitigation of pollution problems at four of
the 12 priority beds identified by the team. In addition, the
SBRP is credited with the successful reopening of over
400 acres of beds. The team is seeking additional funds to
support remediation measures which could result in the
reopening of additional shellfish beds. Lastly, this effort
also includes a commitment to proactive education and
outreach in order to insure measures which will keep
currently usable, but threatened, beds opea
Participation in the State Watershed Initiative. The
state Watershed Initiative builds upon the state's basin
assessment schedule. For the purposes of assessing water
quality and managing the state's water resources, the
Massachusetts DEP conducts water quality assessment,
planning, and implementation in the state's basins on a
rotating five-year schedule. The Watershed Initiative
expands this approach to create EOEA Basin Teams, made
up of state and federal agency staff, who will perform
watershed-wide water quality and habitat assessments for
use by the Watershed Community Council in watershed
planning. A pilot river basin (the Neponset) was selected
in 1994 to explore and develop the coordinated river basin
management approach. Within the Neponset Basin, local
citizen/community sub-basin "stream teams" were devel-
oped to perform shoreline surveys and other local assess-
ments and to help develop action plans for each segment of
the river. The Massachusetts Bays Program assisted in the
development of the estuarine sub-basin plan. The results
of citizen efforts and the EOEA Basin Team for the
Neponset are being combined to create a watershed man-
agement plan for the Neponset Basin.
The watershed management process, adapted from the
Neponset model, is seen as consisting of a series of four
steps, each building on the other and carried out in an
ongoing fashion by the Watershed Community Council,
Stream Teams, EOEA Basin Teams, municipal gov-
ernments, and businesses. The steps are: outreach,
education, and technical assistance; resource assessment;
should be targeted for dedicated funding (refer to latter
water resources planning; and plan implementation (includ-
ing permitting, compliance, and enforcement). Through
these steps, watershed stakeholders would collaborate in the
identification of environmental problems, and in the develop-
ment of Subwatershed Action Plans and Watershed Action
Plans. The Action Plans would describe protection and
restoration measures, assign responsibilities for these
measures, and set forth a schedule for implementation.
In summary, the utilization of the Regional Planning Agencies,
the Shellfish Bed Restoration Program, and the state Watershed
Initiative can be partially or fully characterized by a number of
desirable factors for a regional approach. These were identified
at both the "Models" conference and a follow-up Planning
Meeting held in June, 1994. These factors include:
• application of an appropriate geographical scak for the
actions to be taken and the problems to be solved;
• use of existing structures and organizations, to avoid redun-
dancy and the creation of a new bureaucracy;
• enhanced coordination;
• use of a decentralized structure from an organizational
perspective;
• coordination with ongoing statewide efforts to create viable
regional organizations;
• financial support from dedicated sources of funding or
project-specific grants;
• adoption of proactive/education/technical assistance
attributes;
• a high degree of active and committed public participation
and representation; and
• participation in and support of ongoing and future resource-
based planning and monitoring.
A Regional Approach to CCMP Imple-
mentation: Future Efforts
This section describes the position of the Massachusetts Bays
Program regarding regional implementation of the Comprehen-
sive Conservation and Management Plan for the Bays, through
consideration of current efforts and by listing recommendations
for future efforts:
• The MBP believes that the MBP/RPA/LGC Technical
Assistance Team model described in the previous section
should be institutionalized to ensure future CCMP implemen-
tation. This cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship
portions of this section) and legislative recognition.
VI-3
-------
• The interagency technical assistance team approach
developed for the Shellfish Bed Restoration Program
should be applied to other "teams" which will be created to
implement various CCMP actions, such as those relating
to stonnwater management, toxics control, and protecting
nutrient sensitive embayments.
• Further, the MBP believes that the MBP/RPA/LGC model
and technical team approach should be extended into the
Massachusetts Bays drainage area (i.e., outside the 49
coastal communities), in order to be comprehensive in its
efforts to improve and manage coastal water quality on a
watershed basis. This could be accomplished through
coordination of the existing coastally-based Local Gover-
nance Committees with the multi-town planning commit-
tees which currently exist within the RPA geographic
areas, serving the Bays' watershed communities. Since
these multi-town committees are typically general purpose,
they could enhance their productivity with a specific
agenda of CCMP implementation activities or possibly
serve as the "umbrella" for a CCMP-specific subcommittee
within that multi-town planning committee.
• Finally, by organizing these committees around issues on
a subwatershed/watershed basis, they could serve as a key
component of the Massachusetts Watershed Initiative.
This initiative involves coordinating the efforts of multiple
state agencies, communities, and citizen organizations to
improve water quality planning and management The
technical assistance component of the MBP/RPA/LGC
model could also serve to support implementation of the
state's Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Plan.
Funding and Implementation
• Dedicated funding for continuing and expanding the
RPA/LGC and Watershed Initiative models into the
Massachusetts Bays watershed can be obtained through
sources which could include federal funds targeted to
CCMP priorities in program guidances; state bond funds
(e.g., the Open Space Bond); a small percentage of
appropriate state agency operating budgets; the State
Revolving Fund; the proposed Clean Water Act provision
for watershed planning; the Intermodal Surface Transpor-
tation Efficiency Act, which links transportation improve-
ments with water quality implementation; or through
establishment of a non-profit organization.
• For proposed federal projects in the Bays'watershed which
have the potential to impact the Bays, the Massachusetts
Bays Program should request Federal Consistency proce-
dures by the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Office, with comments to be provided by the Massachu-
setts Bays Program (see full discussion in Appendix F).
• The regional approach to CCMP implementation also
should be utilized to assist with implementation of the
Commonwealth's Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Plan (also known as the "6217" program). Under §6217 of
the federal Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments,
the Massachusetts CZM program is required to develop and
implement a NFS Control Plan, which contains many of the
same coastal water quality management and improvement
measures as the CCMP (e.g., stonnwater management). The
guidance for development of the NFS Control Plan includes
the requirement to develop enforceable measures for
controlling nonpoint sources of pollution.
• The regional approach also should be used to support the
development and implementation of watershed plans within
the river basins which drain into the Bays, an approach
strongly supported by EOEA and currently being piloted in
the Neponset River Basin as part of the Massachusetts
Watershed Initiative.
For purposes of assessing water quality and managing the
state's water resources, the EOEA Basin Teams undertake
water quality and habitat assessment, planning, and imple-
mentation in the state's major river basins on a rotating five-
year schedule. As individual river basins in the Massachu-
setts Bays watershed go through the EOEA basin schedule,
members of the MBP/RPA/LGC Technical Assistance Team
will actively participate, providing ongoing support and
guidance to Bays watershed communities. Initial steps to
coordinate the coastal MBP/RPA/ LGC program with the
EOEA basin teams are already underway.
Management Conference Structure and Role
• During the spring of 1996, the MBP Management Commit-
tee will begin to define in detail the post-CCMP processes
which will be used to: review and update CCMP policy,
goals, and objectives; approve annual workplans; and guide
and closely monitor implementation, including the progress
of the cooperative MBP/RPA /LGC Technical Assistance
Teams.
• As a result of a Bays-wide retreat held in January, 19%, the
LGCs have already affirmed their commitment to continue to
serve as liaison between the communities and the Massachu-
setts Bays Program, initiating, prioritizing, and facilitating
CCMP implementation actions at the local and regional
levels. Specific LGC workplans defining implementation
and monitoring strategies will be developed over the spring
and summer.
• The other MBP advisory committees (e.g., Technical
Advisory Committee) also will meet over the spring and
summer to detail their future roles in CCMP implementation
and monitoring.
• Following approval of the CCMP, the Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management Office will continue to provide leadership
to the Management Conference. MBP staff, funded by the
VI-4
-------
National Estuary Program, will continue to provide
guidance and technical assistance as the MBP moves into
the implementation phase.
Implementation Priorities
The CCMP Action Plans reflect the overall priorities of the
Management Conference. In turn, regional and community
implementation of the CCMP will reflect the diverse environ-
mental needs and priorities of the extensive Massachusetts
Bays coastal area. For example, while Cape Cod communi-
ties confront groundwater pollution as a priority concern,
stormwater runoff is a serious concern for Salem Sound
communities. The geological, socioeconomic, and environ-
mental diversity of the Massachusetts Bays region will be
reflected in the regional and community implementation
priorities and strategies developed within and by the LGCs.
Commitment to Implementation
The action recommendations in the CCMP represent five
years of coordinated planning within and among the partici-
pating agencies and communities. As a result, they represent
the priorities and commitments of the participants.
All four of the coastal Regional Planning Agencies have
signed a resolution of support for, and commitment to,
implementation of the CCMP. In December of 1995, LGC
community representatives and MBP/RPA/LGC technical
assistance staff began a series of ongoing meetings with the
chief elected officials of the Massachusetts Bays' coastal
communities. As a result of these meetings, many of the coastal
communities have signed a formal resolution of support for the
CCMP, which includes a voluntary commitment to implement
the municipal actions appropriate to each community. In
addition, each of the state and federal agencies has signed a
letter committing to implement the CCMP action recommenda-
tions addressed to that agency. All of these documents are
included in Appendix L.
Taking Legislative Action
Implementation of a number of CCMP recommendations will
either depend upon, or would be facilitated by, certain legisla-
tive actions at the state and local levels. The following chart
presents a preliminary list of recommended actions in the
CCMP for which legislative action is either required or would
be an important source of supporting funds. The need for
legislation (existing and improved) to support CCMP imple-
mentation at both the state and local levels is documented in the
Bowen (1993) report Please refer to the Base Programs
Analysis (Appendix E) for further explanation of this report and
its results and conclusions.
Action Plan Recommendations
Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resources
Local Shellfish Management Plans
Interagency Shellfish Bed Restoration Program
Protecting and Enhancing Coastal Habitat
Municipal Riverfront District Designations
DEM acquisition of prime coastal properties
Legislative Action
State legislation to establish Shellfish Management Grants
Program
Future bond authorization; EOEA budget line item as part
of Coastal Resource Restoration and Monitoring
Town Meeting/City Council adoption
Future capital bond authorization
VI-5
-------
Action Plan Recommendations
Reducing and Preventing Stormwater Pollution
Municipal Stormwater management regulations
Municipal mitigation of Stormwater pollution
Reducing and Preventing Toxic Pollution
Legislative Action
Planning Board adoption
State enabling legislation for Stormwater utility districts and
associated fees
Municipal hazardous materials, UST, floor drain regula- Board of Health adoption
tions
Managing On-Sfte Sewage Disposal Systems
Municipal cm-site sewage systems inspection and main- State legislation for uniform annual I/M fee for on-site
tenance (I/M) programs systems owners
Planning for a Shifting Shoreline
Municipal floodplain management regulations
Managing Local Land Use and Growth
Local Comprehensive Plans (LCPs)
Implementing the CCMP
Funding support for MBP/RPA/LGC technical assis-
tance to municipalities
Monitoring Water Quality
Coastwide Marine Monitoring Plan implementation
Town Meeting/City Council adoption
Pass state land use and growth management legislation, then
pass a funding mechanism; Town Meeting/City Council
adoption of plans
EOEA budget line item as part of Coastal Resource Resto-
ration and Monitoring
EOEA budget line item as part of Coastal Resource Resto-
ration and Monitoring
VI-6
-------
F
inancing the CCMP
-------
Introduction
Early in its 5-year comprehensive planning efforts, the
Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) recognized the need to
identify sources of financial assistance and revenues to
support implementation of this CCMP. In particular, the
CCMP identifies priority problems facing the Massachusetts
and Cape Cod Bays, setting forth a number of actions for
local, state, regional, and federal agencies to implement in
order to solve these problems and improve water quality in
the Bays, hi a time of decreasing funding for environmental
projects and increasing competition for remaining funds,
detailed and sound financial information is a necessity for
successful implementation of CCMP actions. Accordingly,
the MBP contracted with Northbridge Environmental
Management Consultants to inventory and compile this
information. In December 1994, Northbridge produced a
report entitled, Financing the Massachusetts Bays CCMP:
Federal, State, and Local Funding Sources and Mecha-
nisms (Financing Report, for short), with appendices and
supplemental information added in early 1995.
The purpose of this chapter of the CCMP is to describe and
summarize the contents of the Financing Report* A com-
plete copy of the Financing Report can be requested from
your Regional Planning Agency office or the Massachusetts
Bays Program office. Further assistance with grant applica-
tions or other financial questions can be obtained from your
community's representative to the Massachusetts Bays
Program Local Governance Committee, or the staff to that
Committee housed at your Regional Planning Agency office.
Financing Report Contents
Introduction. This section of the Financing Report de-
scribes and distinguishes among several fiscal options to
support CCMP implementation: grants, revenue sources, and
financing mechanisms. The first two categories provide or
otherwise generate funds which can pay for the initiatives of
the CCMP without borrowing, while the third provides a
framework for managing the timing or collection of cash
flows, but does not in and of itself generate cash.
Grants. As previously noted, grants are an option to pay for
CCMP-related initiatives without borrowing, and this section
of the Financing Report focusses on those grants that are
available from either the state or federal government The
distinction is made between grants managed by federal
agencies versus those administered by state agencies, even
though the state grant source is often federal money. The
reader is introduced to the report's format for this section - a
table for each grant which provides program objectives and
description, eligibility requirements, available funds, con-
tacts, and examples of use. Additional narrative information
includes the fact that while the report catalogs numerous
grant programs, the funds are often sought after by many
competing interests; also included are private foundation
grants. (The appendices of the Financing Report include an
introduction to these sources.) Finally, the majority of this
section is comprised of the tabular summaries of 45 federal
grant programs and 20 state grant programs. Federal
programs include those managed by the Department of the
Interior, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (technical assistance
only), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. State
grants are those managed by the Executive Office of Environ-
mental Affairs, the Executive Office of Transportation and
Construction, and the Executive Office of Communities and
Development, among others.
Revenues. As with grants, revenues can provide a source of
funding to finance CCMP implementation without borrowing,
but differ in that they are collected by a government agency
and pooled for public purposes: This seetienef the Ffrmne*
ing Report describes ax types of revenues, using both •
tabular format similar to the grants approach and case
studies. These six revenue categories are: taxes (e.g., boat
excise, real estate transfer); fees (e.g., beach, boat mooring);
betterments (i.e., assessments for capital property improve-
ments); permit/licensing fees (e.g., shellfish license,
wetlands permit); fines, penalties, mandates, laws, regula-
tions; and voluntary contributions (e.g., corporate sponsor-
ship, tax form check-off).
Financing Mechanisms. These financing methods can be
used either to collect revenues (previously described) or to
manage the timing of cash flows. While these mechanisms
typically do not generate their own sources of funds, a few
(e.g., low interest loans) combine the collection and timing
features with aspects of revenue sources because they can
provide a subsidy that reduces project cost just as a grant can.
For those financing mechanisms which are directly related to
a specific revenue source, the framework of the mechanism
is described in this section of the Financing Report, while the
revenue is described in the previous section. The report
details two types of financing mechanisms in a combination
of narrative text and case studies. These financing mecha-
nisms are: 1) special districts, which include enterprise
VH-1
-------
funds (accounting to closely correlate expenses/revenues of
a project), utility districts, water and wastewater authorities,
storm and surface water utilities, betterment districts; and 2)
bonds and loans, which include the state revolving loan fund
program.
Appendices. The Financing Report contains several
appendices: 1) Grants from Private Foundations; 2) Munici-
pal (CCMP) Actions and Potential Funding Sources matrix;
and 3) Municipal Actions Costs: Watershed-wide Costs for
Implementing Massachusetts Bays CCMP Municipal
Actions.
VH-2
-------
onitoring CCMP Implementation
-------
11 f f ____^___________ ____„ __^_^_ II
Introduction
The Massachusetts Bays estuary (i.e., Massachusetts Bay and
Cape Cod Bay), its shoreline, and its watersheds have
historically been utilized for a wide range of commercial,
industrial, residential, recreational, and agricultural activities
and uses. In support of these activities and uses, the overall
goal of the MBP is the preservation and management of a
healthy ecosystem of living resources, useable by the public.
The MBP intends to achieve this goal through implementa-
tion of the Action Plans, and numerous other commitments,
in this CCMP for the Bays. In order to determine whether
and to what degree this goal has been achieved, both "scien-
tific" (e.g., water quality) and "management" monitoring will
be undertaken by the MBP.
Monitoring the effectiveness of CCMP actions will be an
important role of the MBP staff and Management Conference
as the Program moves into the implementation phase.
Success will be measured through improvements in environ-
mental quality and by tracking implementation of manage-
ment actions. This will be accomplished through measuring
pre-determined environmental parameters (e.g., pathogen
concentrations at shellfish beds), and formulating a system to
monitor the management actions adopted by communities.
Details of monitoring frequency and reporting will be
developed by MBP staff with assistance from the Manage-
ment Committee, Local Governance Committees, and other
advisory committees in the spring and summer of 1996.
Scientific Monitoring
Since 1990, the Massachusetts Bays Program has supported
scientific research and management processes designed to
improve marine environmental quality. Research has focused
on the physical processes mat affect distribution and transport
of constituents in the Massachusetts Bays region, the quantifi-
cation of sources of contaminants such as polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and the effects of contami-
nants on living resources. In addition, through the Mini-Bays
Program, the MBP has funded three projects to provide in-
depth analysis of embayments and their watersheds, each
with unique natural attributes and different management
needs. Through these projects, the MBP has been able to
develop priority issues on which to focus its management
efforts and to develop measurable goals for the Massachu-
setts Bays as a whole.
The Massachusetts Bays Program Monitoring Plan is
designed to measure the effectiveness of the management
actions taken as part of the CCMP. Fifteen Action Plans
describing activities affecting or contributing to the priority
problems in the Bays are presented in the CCMP. Nutrients,
pathogens, toxic contaminants, and habitats have been
identified as topics requiring focused and immediate attention
due to the extensive occurrence of contaminants in coastal
Massachusetts, as well as the environmental and economic
consequences of habitat degradation caused by these contam-
inants. Because of the need to lessen the environmental
impact caused by nutrients, pathogens and toxicants, measur-
able goals were developed for these topics and are discussed
briefly in the following section. These measurable goals form
the basis for one component of the monitoring plan, which is
designed to measure the success of CCMP management
actions. The first-tier monitoring activities associated with
the measurable goals will be implemented this year. Long-
term monitoring questions have been developed based on
MBP-funded research projects, the Mini-Bays projects, and
the need for special studies to accompany any long-term
monitoring program.
In addition, a draft coastwide monitoring plan is under
development by the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Office, which is currently seeking funding for imple-
mentation of the plan. An integrated approach to monitoring
programs for the Commonwealth's marine waters is desired,
and both the MBP's and the state's monitoring plans have
been developed concurrently. However, in order to assess
the success of CCMP implementation within a short time
period (1-2 years) and within the available funding, the
MBFs current monitoring program focuses on the Program's
four measurable goals (see below). The state's monitoring
plan focuses on collection of baseline data in specific em-
bayments, long-term data collection, and ecosystem model-
ling. Monitoring results to date from the MBP will help
formulate specific monitoring questions for the state. Data
from all activities will be made available to both programs,
and every effort will be made to coordinate monitoring and
data collection.
The MBP marine monitoring program is also coordinated, to
the extent possible, with marine and watershed monitoring
efforts by other programs and agencies, including the Massa-
chusetts Department of Environmental Protection's Office of
Watershed Management (DEP/OWM), the Division of
Marine Fisheries (DMF), and citizen groups. These parallel
environmental monitoring efforts by agencies and citizen
groups will allow the MBP to track improvements in the
Bays due to CCMP implementation beyond the current
funding. For example, a large-scale monitoring program is
currently conducted by the Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority (MWRA) to determine baseline conditions before
sewage effluent is discharged to the Bays. In addition,
Vffl-1
-------
agencies (e.g., DMF) collect data as part of their routine
operations that can be used by the MBP, while citizen groups
are monitoring coastal waters and performing shoreline
surveys throughout Massachusetts. Implementation of
CCMPactionsfundedbyEPA'ss.319and 104(b)(3) grants,
state CPR grants, and federal ISTEA funds, among others,
will each include a monitoring component, which will be
evaluated by MBP staff as data become available.
The MBP Monitoring Plan does not include specific informa-
tion about station location, QA/QC objectives, and monitor-
ing parameters because these details often evolve during the
proposal development and selection process. Proponents of
projects involving scientific data collection are required to
submit a Quality Assurance and Project Plan (QAPP) for
review and approval by MBP and EPA staff. AUQAPPsare
available through the MBP office. All draft reports are peer
reviewed and comments are incorporated into the final
document These steps ensure that high quality, scientifically
valid data are collected and reported For more information,
please refer to the Data Management discussion at the end of
this Chapter.
To the extent possible, the MBP Management Conference
and staff will track scientific monitoring efforts and manage-
ment achievements. Based on the availability of funds,
reports will be released on a regular basis. The schedule for
review and reporting will be developed through the spring
and summer of 19%.
Measurable Goals
The four topics for which measurable goals have been
developed were chosen as issues requiring scientific and
management attention throughout the Massachusetts Bays
(and, in particular, through this CCMP's Action Plans).
Measurable goals were developed for the four issue areas by
the MBP Measurable Goals Committee, and these form the
cornerstone of the Monitoring Plan. The Technical Advisory
Committee (TAG) has approved the goals and refined them
as necessary based on the development of the Monitoring
Plan. The goals will continue to be refined as new informa-
tion and resources become available. Monitoring and data
collection by other agencies will allow the MBP to continue
to track environmental improvement resulting from CCMP
implementation when MBP monitoring funds are no longer
available. For example, the Department of Environmental
Protection will provide sampling and analysis to verify the
ranking of embayments at risk of eutrophication as part of
their efforts to include nutrient criteria in the State's water
quality standards. The Division of Marine Fisheries routinely
monitors shellfish beds for pathogen concentrations to
determine whether harvesting can occur. Toxic contaminant
monitoring in the Bays ecosystem is accomplished in several
ways by different agencies, including the MWRA and EOEA
Office of Technical Assistance. Marine habitats are studied
and monitored by several agencies, such as DMF, the
Wetlands Restoration and Banking Program, EPA, as well as
by certain non-profit groups such as the Massachusetts
Audubon Society.
The first-tier monitoring and assessment activities are already
underway, under the guidance of the MBP staff scientist with
assistance from the TAG. The Management Committee, with
input from its advisory committees, will decide upon a
process for guiding future monitoring efforts. It is anticipated
that MBP staff will continue to track the progress of monitor-
ing activities. Over the next six months the advisory commit-
tees will explore their role in tracking changes in water and
habitat quality. The details of this process will be worked out
with these committees during the spring and summer of
19%.
Nutrients
Excess nutrient inputs to coastal waters can cause water
quality degradation through eutrophication, low dissolved
oxygen levels, changes in community structure, and habitat
loss.
Measurable Goal: Identify embayments at risk of eutrophi-
cation.
Pathogens
Improper treatment and disposal of human wastes (or other
sources of pathogens) in the marine environment pose a risk
to human health through contamination of shellfish beds and
swimming beaches. The closure of shellfish beds due to
pathogen contamination results in substantial economic loss
to a number of coastal communities.
Measurable Goal: Re-open 12 shellfish beds closed due to
pathogen contamination from nonpoint sources of pollution.
Toxic Contaminants
Toxic substances in coastal waters and sediments may be
present at levels that cause contamination, adversely impact
living resources, and further degrade the coastal environment
These effects may result in significant economic loss through
a decline in harvestable fish stocks and tourism, and through
the need for expensive alternatives for disposal of dredged
material.
Measurable Goal: Quantify the reduction in loadings from
targeted toxicant sources contributing to an identified habitat
location and monitor improvement in selected biological
indicators - e.g., reduce body burdens of toxic contaminants
in biological resources below levels of demonstrable popula-
tion effects.
Vffl-2
-------
Habitats
Loss of habitat such as coastal wetlands and anadromous fish
runs reduces important nursery and breeding grounds for
many species of marine animals, including commercial and
recreational species. The loss of these resources creates
economic hardship through lost revenue from decreased
tourism and reduction or elimination of local fisheries
businesses. In addition, loss of habitat can impair water
quality and impinge upon other valued coastal amenities,
such as bathing beaches and aquaculture facilities.
Measurable Goals:
• Restore 12 coastal wetland areas that have been adversely
impacted due to restricted saltwater flow.
• Monitor and report the number of acres of coastal
wetlands every five years to ensure no net loss of
wetlands.
• Work with the Division of Marine Fisheries to provide an
updated list of the locations and condition of anadromous
fish runs. Based on the inventory, restore and monitor 5
anadromous fish runs.
• Define the critical habitat for 5 to 10 important species
and monitor habitat conditions suitable for these selected
species.
Mini-Bays Program
The Mini-Bays Program provided the opportunity to perform
in-depth analysis of three embayments: Plum Island Sound,
Weymouth Fore River Estuary, and Wellfleet Harbor. Each
embayment project has a different focus because the loca-
tions, environmental conditions, and management challenges
of each embayment are unique. Extensive baseline informa-
tion is available for the Mini-Bays sites, and management
activities have been implemented in the sub-watersheds,
providing the opportunity to develop monitoring plans to
evaluate management actions over the long-term.
Potential hypotheses for the long-term monitoring projects
for the Mini-Bays Program follow:
Phim bland Sound: What are the relative contributions of
pathogens and nutrients from the major sources to Plum
Island Sound, including the Parker River, the Ipswich River,
and the Ipswich WWTP? Will the repairs to the Ipswich
WWTP mitigate pathogen and nutrient flux to Plum Island
Sound?
Weymouth Fore Riven Certain projects are being imple-
mented in the Fore River watershed (e.g., decommissioning
of the Nut Island wastewater treatment facility, the Brain-
tree-Weymouth Interceptor project) that have environmental
implications. The success of these projects will be monitored
with respect to reduced loadings of toxic contaminants,
nutrients, and pathogens to Fore River and Hingham Bay
sediments and organisms, and for me reopening of swimming
beaches and shellfish beds.
Wellfket Harbor: The Town of Wellfleet is developing a
model to predict nitrogen loading to the embayment and the
possible impacts of nitrogen on shellfish resources and
habitats. The groundwork for this model (i.e., embayment
flushing calculations, land-based and oceanic nitrogen
loading estimates, and watershed build-out analysis) has been
completed However, additional field data may be needed to
verify the model predictions and determine whether addi-
tional parameters should be included, such as nutrient flux
from the sediments in Duck Creek. Additionally, the distri-
bution and biomass of macroalgae in selected intertidal areas
may need to be assessed and documented.
The monitoring plans for the Mini-Bays projects should be
refined as the final project synthesis reports are completed
this year.
Additional Monitoring
Follow-up monitoring of MBP-funded research projects can
be revisited on a time-scale appropriate for a given project
For example, depending on the results of the nutrient dy-
namic study in the Bays (Gardner etal., in progress), a small-
scale sampling of selected sites may be warranted to deter-
mine changes in the ecosystem. Other projects that may
require follow-up monitoring include the Merrimack River
study (Menzie-Cura, 1991), nonpoint source runoff study
(Menzie-Cura, 1995), and atmospheric loadings study
(Golomb et al., 1995). The data from these studies can be
used to gauge progress toward attaining the stated measur-
able goals, in addition to providing a broader assessment of
the status and trends of the Massachusetts Bays environment
Special Studies
The Massachusetts Bays Program recognizes that outstanding
questions remain to be answered which do not fit directly into
one of the monitoring categories listed above but have
relevance to the overall health and understanding of the
functioning of the Bays ecosystem. As monitoring projects
proceed, additional questions may arise that will need to be
answered to allow proper interpretation of the collected data.
A draft of the Scientific Monitoring Plan was completed and
distributed for review in June 1995, and the final draft was
completed in September 1995. The complete Scientific
Monitoring Plan is available through the Massachusetts Bays
Program office.
Vffl-3
-------
Management Monitoring
The purpose of this section is to describe the MBP's ap-
proach to management monitoring of the CCMP. This
approach allows for the periodic, qualitative examination of
certain aspects of the CCMP in order to ascertain their
effectiveness. These issues do not lend themselves to the
technical monitoring of environmental indicators. Accord-
ingly, this approach for management monitoring is intended
to complement the approach to scientific monitoring which
is outlined in the previous sections of this chapter. TheMBP
LGC technical assistance staff and the LGCs will take the
lead role in developing an appropriate management action
tracking matrix and will formalize a schedule for tracking
implementation progress over the next six months.
What Gets Monitored?
The MBP Management Conference has identified the
following sections of the CCMP which contain milestones,
products, or other actions which will be subject to qualitative
review:
Chapter HI. "Overview of Coastal Subre-
In Chapter EL, each of the 5 subregions within the MBP area
are described according to a variety of characteristics,
including their physical attributes, land use, coastal re-
sources, and resource management issues. In particular,
these summaries include the results of the "Community
Resource Management Survey," which tracks the status of
individual communities' efforts related to planning, bylaw
development, and resource use and protection. These are
major activities which directly support implementation of
CCMP Action Plans such as Protecting and Enhancing
Coastal Habitat, Reducing and Preventing Stormwater
Pollution, and Managing Local Land Use and Growth.
Accordingly, the Community Resource Management Survey
will be reviewed and updated as communities take action to
protect and enhance water quality and the living marine
resources of the Massachusetts Bays.
Chapter IV, "Projects of Regional Scope and
Impact"
The so-called "megaprojects" which are described in Chapter
IV are those projects which may have a greater-than-local
effect on the ecosystem of the Massachusetts Bays. Although
the MBP is not the proponent for any of these projects, it did
attempt to develop and build consensus on those actions
which are needed to ensure that each of the projects proceeds
in a manner which maximizes benefits for the people of the
region while posing the least risk to the Bays. In particular,
each of the seven megaproject discussions includes action
recommendations for the appropriate federal, state, regional,
and local proponents so that the previously identified
risk/benefit goal is achieved. For example, the Boston
Harbor Project incudes recommendations for several federal
agencies (among others), while the South Essex Sewerage
District discussion establishes recommendations for the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The
recommendations in all of the megaproject discussions will
be evaluated to ensure that the appropriate actions have been
taken, or to revise and otherwise update the goal of a given
recommendation. The process and timeframe for re-evaluat-
ing regional projects and tracking the associated action plans
will be developed by the Management Committee over the
spring and summer of 19%.
Chapter V. "Action Plans"
The Action Plans can be considered the "heart" of the CCMP,
and establish a broad blueprint of action by a number of
agencies and organizations to meet the MBP's goals. The
CCMP contains IS major Action Plans, each of which
contains at least one, if not a number of, individual actions to
meet the stated criteria of the Action Plan. The successful
implementation of a number of these actions can be evaluated
through monitoring of specific water quality indices over
time; for example, the reduction of toxic and oil pollution in
the Massachusetts Bays resulting from implementation of the
corresponding CCMP Action Plans. However, other Action
Plans/individual actions do not lend themselves to this type
of scientific approach, In particular, actions such as Planning
for a Shifting Shoreline and Managing Local Land Use and
Growth will be directly evaluated to assess whether imple-
mentation by the responsible agency(ies) has been successful.
The LGCs and LGC staff will monitor the progress made in
implementing action plans directed toward communities.
MBP staff will be responsible for meeting regularly with
environmental agencies to monitor the implementation of
action plans associated with each agency.
Chanter VL "Implementing the CCMP"
In Chapter VI, the MBP's "CCMP Implementation Strategy"
is summarized. This chapter establishes a framework for the
various agencies and organizations in undertaking their
respective actions to implement the CCMP. In particular,
this Strategy continues the current efforts by MBP's regional
technical staff, who are housed within the four Regional
Planning Agencies in the MBP area and who assist coastal
communities with implementation of CCMP recommenda-
tions, as well as by facilitating and directing the work of other
agencies responsible for implementation. Accordingly, the
activities of these MBP/RPA/LGC "teams" will be tracked in
order to evaluate their effectiveness in facilitating implemen-
tation of the CCMP's recommendations. From the perspec-
tive of agency participation, the model of the Shellfish Bed
Restoration Project (SBRP) has been successful and will be
vm-4
-------
used as additional teams are developed. The SBRP has a
Management Working Group, comprised of interested agency
members, which meets regularly and tracks progress toward
attainment of the project's goals.
Who Will Do This Monitoring, And How
Will It Be Undertaken?
As previously noted, the Management Conference is the
governing body for the MBP, and as such, it has overseen all
aspects of the CCMP for the Massachusetts Bays. In particu-
lar, this includes establishing a network of committees who
represent federal, state, and local agencies; scientists;
business interests; the general public; educators; and user
groups. These committees have supported development of
the recommendations in the CCMP through scientific study
and analysis, policy development, and education and out-
reach. Accordingly and following approval of the CCMP, the
Management Conference will assess and establish its roles
relative to the review and updating of CCMP policy, goals,
and objectives, and in guiding MBP/RPA/LGC technical
assistance team activities (all during the spring and summer
of 1996). Additional efforts will include the tracking, review,
and evaluation of activities identified in the previous section.
The specific assessments to be undertaken by both the post-
CCMP Management Conference, and by the MBP staff who
report to the Conference, are summarized as follows:
Community Resource Survey: Poll communities in the
Survey to identify recently undertaken, appropriate actions
which may constitute or otherwise support CCMP implemen-
tation.
Megaprojects: Determine the extent to which the responsi-
ble party(ies) have implemented the recommended actions;
also, assess whether the recommendations themselves
continue to be appropriate.
Action Plans: Interview the various parties responsible for
each action to determine the status of their efforts regarding
implementation; this applies to Action Plans which do not
lend themselves to quantitative assessment
Implementation Strategy: Since this is the framework
within which the above actions will be taken, the success of
the Implementation Strategy will reflect the successful
implementation of these actions.
When Will This Monitoring Be Under-
taken?
As previously noted, the Management Conference, as the
governing body for the MBP, will continue to exist upon
completion of this CCMP and as such, will ultimately be
responsible for evaluating the success of CCMP implementa-
tion. Further, with continuation of federal funding (albeit at
reduced levels), and with potential funding through the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, staff support for the
Management Conference also will continue. This aspect is
particularly significant regarding the regional technical staff
who assist the coastal communities in the MBP area, since a
number of the CCMP actions identify local officials as the
responsible implementing agents. These same staff also will
work with state and federal agencies to facilitate additional
implementation efforts.
In summary, implementation of the actions and recommenda-
tions found in this CCMP for the Massachusetts Bays can be
measured using methods for both scientific and management
monitoring. However, it should be noted that the Manage-
ment Conference will not limit its oversight and evaluation of
CCMP implementation to those portions of the document
which are directly measurable through either quantitative or
qualitative methods. The CCMP is a "living" document, and
as such, the Management Conference intends to consider all
aspects of it in its implementation of the CCMP and in the
ultimate achievement of its goals for the Massachusetts Bays.
Data Management
All MBP data sets will be made available in widely used,
standard desktop formats (comma-delimited ASCII format,
Excel, and Quattro Pro), and will be accompanied by digital
documentation that will include a description of each data
file, Quality Assurance Plan, and the Final Research Report
These data file formats can be easily incorporated into any
future data bases, and the documentation will make the files
discernible to future users. The data and documentation will
be available for viewing and downloading via CD-ROM
and/or the Internet
MBP data include:
1. MBP-funded research, demonstration projects, and Mini-
Bays data sets;
2. Digital files of Massachusetts Bays community map
overlays; and
3. New CIS data on Stellwagen Bank, Massachusetts Bays
bathymetry, etc.
The MBP Data Management agenda has changed over the
years from the initial vision of putting the data into a special-
ized, centralized structure like that of ORACLE or ODES, to
an open data structure with detailed documentation and easy
public access that will make the data easily available for
years to come with little or no maintenance. Open formats
will allow access for all potential users (e.g., Regional
vm-s
-------
Planning Agencies, community officials, the MWRA, other
state agencies, and private organizations), regardless of
software, analytical needs, or expertise. Any future monitor-
ing programs in Massachusetts Bays could have very specific
data standards and still easily incorporate MBP data into their
structure from the open formats in the MBP data base.
For more information on the MBP data sets, contact the
Massachusetts Bays Program office.
vm-6
-------
anagement Characterization
(Base Programs Analysis)
-------
The Massachusetts Bays estuary (i.e., Massachusetts Bay and
Cape Cod Bay), its shoreline, and its watersheds have
historically been used for a wide range of residential, com-
mercial, and recreational activities. Not surprisingly, these
potentially conflicting uses are subject to a vast number of
decisions and actions by a complex institutional network.
The Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) has analyzed this
network ("Management Characterization" or "Base Programs
Analysis") relative to the Program's various goals, of which
the overarching goal is the preservation and management of
a healthy ecosystem of living resources, useable by the
public. Specific supporting goals include: reduction of
nutrients from point/ nonpoint sources, improved habitat
quality, reduction of toxic contaminants, and reduction of
pathogen pollution of shellfish beds. These goals will be met
through implementation of the CCMP.
In accordance with EPA guidance, the MBP has undertaken
various aspects of this Analysis since the Program's incep-
tion, such as:
• The CCMPs 'State of the Bays" assessment (see Chapter
Action Plans developed to correct priority problems and
meet Program goals (see Chapter V);
Chapter VI of the CCMP, "Implementing the CCMP
Throughout the Bays Watershed"; and
• The Massachusetts Bays Management Systems: A
Valuation of Bays Resources and Uses and an Analysis
of its Regulatory and Management Structure (Bowen
and Terkla, June 1993).
The development and ultimate implementation of the CCMP
has been, and will continue to be, guided by the MBP's
governing body, the Management Conference. The Manage-
ment Conference's membership consists largely of the
institutional network referenced above (e.g., 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 Analysis reflects the consensus approach of the
Management Conference in that the institutional network
which will implement the CCMP consists of both Conference
member and non-member agencies which support the CCMP
Action Plans needed to achieve the MBP's goals; in addition,
the CCMP identifies agencies whose programs may need
additional resources or efforts.
For the complete Management Characterization/Base
Programs Analysis, please refer to Appendix E (available
under separate cover).
EX-1
-------
K-2
-------
0
n
n
j
o
F
ederal Consistency Analysis
n
LI
n
0
n
V?
n
n
u
n
n
U
-------
The Massachusetts Bays estuary (i.e., Massachusetts Bay and
Cape Cod Bay), its shoreline, and its watersheds have
historically been used for a wide range of residential, com-
mercial, industrial, agricultural, and recreational activities
and uses. Many of these activities and uses are supported or
otherwise affected by a broad array of federal actions and
decisions. In turn, these federally-sponsored activities have
as wide a range of objectives as they do variety, and as such,
some can be inconsistent with the goals of the Massachusetts
Bays Program (MBP). The overall goal of the MBP is the
preservation and management of a healthy ecosystem of
living resources, useable by the public, to be achieved
through implementation of the action plans in the CCMP.
In accordance with EPA guidance, the MBP has undertaken
a "Federal Consistency Analysis" to address the potential
inconsistencies between the CCMP and federal actions, hi
particular, this Analysis accomplishes the following:
• An inventory of those federal programs, actions, and
decisions which could possibly affect the CCMP. This
includes programs eligible for coverage under Federal
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of
Federal Programs), the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance, and other relevant sources.
• Evaluation of the inventory relative to the CCMP. This
indicates that the CCMP, as currently written, is consis-
tent with inventoried federal programs, actions, and
decisions.
• Identification of an approach to address any inconsisten-
cies between future implementation of the CCMP and
federal programs, actions, and decisions. This approach
uses the existing consistency process employed by the
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
(MCZM), which insures that applications for certain
federal actions or approvals in the Commonwealth's
designated Coastal Zone, or which affect the Coastal
Zone, are consistent with MCZMs enforceable program
policies, hi order to facilitate consistency with CCMP
implementation, the MBP will have the opportunity to
comment on proposed federal actions subject to MCZM
review, as well as to recommend that a proposed federal
action be reviewed by MCZM.
For die complete Federal Consistency Analysis, please refer
to Appendix F (available under separate cover).
X-l
-------
X-2
-------
tublic Participation/
Public Responsiveness Summary
-------
Introduction
The principal goal of the Massachusetts Bays Program
(MBP) is the preservation and management of a healthy
ecosystem of living resources, useable by the public. The
word "public" is operative in that public involvement has
been, and will continue to be, a major component of the
development and implementation of the CCMP. TheCCMP
provides the framework for meeting the MBP goal. Within
the MBP Management Conference (the overall governing
body), public involvement occurs through the Local Gover-
nance Committees (LGCs), the Technical Advisory Commit-
tee (TAG), and the Public Participation Program. All are
members of and report to the Management Committee, the
MBP's operating committee.
Local Governance Committees
The LGCs are 5 subregional committees (8 Towns and the
Bay, Salem Sound 2000, Metro Boston, South Shore, and
Cape Cod Coastal Resources Committee). They are made up
of local officials and appointees from each of the 49 coastal
communities in the MBP region These committees serve as
local forums to address water quality issues in support of the
MBP goal, through the provision of technical assistance and
demonstration grant monies. Typically, representatives of the
LGCs provide input into and guidance on MBP decisions at
Management Committee meetings. In one way or another,
these decisions are related to the CCMP.
Technical Advisory Committee
The TAC, a committee comprised of marine scientists from
academia, government, and non-profit organizations, serves
two important functions for the MBP. First, it has overseen
the approximately SI.6 million of research funded by the
MBP, and has offered recommendations to the Management
Committee regarding this research and its relationship to the
CCMP. This research has provided valuable data regarding
the status of living resources within the Bays, supporting the
action recommendations in the CCMP. Second, the TAC
advises the Management Committee on issues of technical
significance, such as federal or state regulations which might
affect the monitoring of marine water quality.
Public Participation Program
As developed by the Management Conference, the MBP's
Public Participation Program is highly conducive to the
involvement of and contribution by a broad spectrum of the
public who use, benefit from, are advocates for, or are
teachers about the Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. In
particular, the Program's efforts and activities, with support
from MBP staff, have directly contributed to the development
of key elements of the CCMP (e.g., Action Plan for Reducing
and Preventing Oil Pollution; Action Plan for Enhancing
Public Education and Participation). Related efforts include
outreach materials such as fact sheets and public service
announcements. Following are descriptions of various
committees and activities which comprise the MBP's Public
Participation Program:
Business and Resource Users Group
As its name implies, members of the Business and Resource
Users Group (BUG) include representatives of both the Bays'
business interests (e.g., Massachusetts Bays Yacht Club,
Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association), and user interests,
such as the New England Aquarium Divers' Club. The
BUG's purposes related to these groups include provision of
a forum for foe exchange of ideas and resources, and support
for the development and use of environmentally protective
technologies. With respect to the CCMP, an example of
BUG's involvement is the recommendation for a
stateAnunicipal/private partnership regarding the
minimization and recycling of hazardous materials, as
contained within the Action Plan for Reducing and
Preventing Toxic Pollution. Further, BUG has supported
public access issues as a means to enhance user experiences
(Action Plan for Enhancing Public Access and the Working
Waterfront).
Education Alliance
As indicated by its name, the Massachusetts Bays Education
Alliance (MBEA) is a group of teachers and educators who
represent schools and organizations from across the Massa-
chusetts Bays region (49 coastal communities plus 112
inland communities). The membership includes a significant
number of both public and private grade school and high
school teachers, as well as instructors and trainers from
jngtjtiitinng and organizations which are involved in environ-
mental education (e.g., Massachusetts Cooperative Extension
Service). The goal of the MBEA is to educate as many
residents and users of the Bays as possible about the impor-
tance of the Bays and their own everyday responsibilities in
protecting the Bays. In addition to its direct involvement in
developing and implementing the Action Plan for Enhancing
Public Education and Participation within the CCMP, the
MBEA been responsible for training teachers in the Bays-
related curriculum: "Watershed Education Training."
XI-1
-------
Coastal Advocacy Network
The membership and purpose of the Coastal Advocacy
Network (CAN) are somewhat self-explanatory; CAN
members are those non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
whose efforts in some way support the protection of Massa-
chusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Examples of these advocates
include the Conservation Law Foundation, the Cetacean
Research Unit, the Association for the Preservation of Cape
Cod, and Save the Harbor/Save the Bay. While CAN advises
and updates the MBP regarding the status of advocacy
efforts, such as changes to the state sanitary code/on-site
disposal systems, it also has been entrusted with a somewhat
separate role from the MBP such that its views do not always
represent the MBP - for example, when it comments on
controversial legislation. As a network of advocates for the
protection of Massachusetts' coastal resources, CAN has
reviewed and commented on most aspects of the CCMP,
focussing on the Action Plans.
Related Activities
Examples of MBP activities which directly support the
overall efforts of the Public Participation Program include:
• Bays Action Grants. The Bays Action Grants are small
grants awarded to individuals, communities, organiza-
tions, and small businesses for educational programs
regarding the public's role in preventing and reducing
water pollution to the Massachusetts Bays.
• Public Service Announcements. The two recently
developed "PSAs" outline the responsibilities of all
members of the public in preventing water pollution,
using a backdrop of easily recognized scenes of the Bays,
both clean and polluted
• Local Governance Committee (LGQ Action Grants.
These grants are awarded to the five Local Governance
Committees to fund local actions which support CCMP
implementation. Examples include establishment of
waste oil repositories and monitoring of sensitive em-
bayments.
Summary
In summary, the MBP Public Participation Program strives
to insure that all who are reached through the program learn
the basic premises of the MBP; the importance of protecting
the Bays; and what they can do, both individually and
collectively, to improve the quality of the Bays' resources; all
using the development and implementation of the CCMP as
a framework. The Public Participation Program is broad and
inclusive, reaching schoolchildren, teenagers, and adults who
are residents, users, protectors, and managers of the Bays and
their resources.
Public Responsiveness
The MBP's principal goal in establishing an approach to
Public Responsiveness is to build on the Program's extensive
advisory/public participation efforts, as documented in the
previous sections of this chapter. Accordingly, and for
purposes of mis section, public responsiveness will document
the opportunities for review of the CCMP by the public, as
well as provide responses to submitted comments.
The MBP has solicited comments from the over 300 mem-
bers of the Management Conference on the three previous
drafts of the CCMP, the most recent being the Draft Final
CCMP published in December of 1995. In turn, the input of
these individuals has reflected an even broader scope of
review. For example, as members of the Management
Conference, the five LGCs have sought input on the CCMP
from many of their fellow local officials, including: Select-
men/City Council members, Conservation Commissioners,
Planning Board members, and Board of Health officials. In
addition, all LGC meetings, as well as all other MBP meet-
ings, are open to the public and provide an opportunity for
regular public involvement
Public review opportunities for this Final Draft of the CCMP
mchi^fd both the Management Conference, by repeating the
process described in the previous paragraph, and a formal
public review process. With respect to the latter and as
advertised twice in the "Monitor" in mid- and late-December,
1995, a formal Public Meeting to review and comment on the
CCMP was held on January 23,1996, in the auditorium of
the Commonwealth's Hurley Building, downtown Boston.
The "Monitor" is published by the Massachusetts Environ-
mental Policy Act (MEPA) office to announce the status of
MEPA projects, as well as to advertise any pertinent environ-
mental decisions and events. It is distributed free of charge
to over 2,500 members of the public, government officials,
non-profit organizations, and consultants who have an
interest in environmental issues in Massachusetts. This Final
Draft of the CCMP, and all its supporting appendices and
documentation, was made available for public inspection at
the MBP office in Boston and was mailed out on request
The MBP established a comment period for the CCMP,
which ran through January 31,1996.
Many constructive comments were received from a wide
variety of governmental and public representatives. A
summary of the comments received within the public com-
ment period, with proposed responses, was reviewed and
approved by the Management Committee on February 7,
1996. A few comments were received shortly after the
January 31,1996 closing date; the responses to these com-
ments did not substantially change the content of the CCMP.
Accordingly, all comments on the CCMP and the MBP's
written responses are included in Appendix G.
XI-2
-------
A
ppendices
-------
appendices
Appendix A.
The Management
Framework
-------
The wise management and use of the resources in Massachu-
setts 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 agencies, that play a role in
restoring and protecting Massachusetts Bays. This appendix
provides both an overview of the existing governmental
framework and a context for many of the recommendations
described in the CCMP Action Plans. It also supports
Appendix E, the Management Characterization for the
Massachusetts Bays.
Federal Agencies
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 (CWA); the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA).
The CWA regulates "discharges" of "pollutants" from point
sources into waters of the United States. Its coverage
includes, among other things, effluent discharges from
sewage treatment plants and industrial facilities, and dis-
charges of dredged and fill material into wetlands, estuaries,
and other waters.
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 28 "estuaries of national
significance." EPA-New England has direct responsibil-
ity 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.
• Reviewing and approving state surface water quality
standards to ensure their consistency with federal law.
• Overseeing the states'primary responsibility for control-
ling nonpoint source pollution, such as agricultural and
stormwater runoff.
• Protecting wetlands and other waters by co-administrat-
ing, with the US Army Corps of Engineers, a permitting
program that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States.
• Administering the Construction Grants Program and the
State Revolving Loan Funds.
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and the amendment
SARA, better known as Superfund, EPA provides 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 (EIS) be prepared for all
proposed legislation and all major federal activities that could
significantly affect the quality of the human environment
EPA's responsibilities under the Marine Protection, Re-
search, and Sanctuaries Act include the development and
implementation of regulatory programs to ensure that ocean
disposal (e.g., of dredged material) will not adversely affect
human health and the marine environment, among other
considerations. In particular, EPA oversees the review and
issuance of dredged material disposal permits, monitors the
environmental effects of dredged material disposal jointly
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and designates sites
suitable for ocean disposal.
US Army Corps of Engineers
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) provides
engineering services and construction support for a wide
variety of military and civilian projects. The ACOE's
primary civil role is to develop and manage the country's
waterways and wetlands. Its projects include reducing flood
damage, improving harbors and navigation channels, protect-
ing stream banks and shorelines, and other activities aimed at
preserving and safeguarding the environment
The ACOE issues permits (under the CWA and MPRSA) for
discharges of dredged or fill material to wetlands and other
waters, including ocean waters. In addition, under the Rivers
and Harbors Act, the placement of structures (such as piers,
docks, and ramps) or any dredging activities (including
dredging and the discharge of dredged material) in or
A-l
-------
affecting traditionally navigable waters may also require an
ACOE permit
As part of its navigational responsibilities, the ACOE
develops, maintains, and improves harbors and waterways to
meet commercial and recreational needs. For example,
operating and maintaining the 17.5-mile-long Cape Cod
Canal is under the jurisdiction of the ACOE. The ACOE also
helps to protect and restore shores and beaches from erosion
damage.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) is part of the Department of Commerce. As the
nation's lead marine science agency, NOAA's mission
includes research, data collection and assessment, and
management of the nation's marine, estuarine, and coastal
resources. While many of NOAA's programs have some
linkage to and support research and management activities in
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays (e.g., the National
Weather Service, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the NOAA
Fleet, the National Undersea Research Centers, the National
Sea Grant Programs, and the many environmental research
and monitoring programs supported by NOAA), the three
NOAA programs that have the greatest connection to the
Bays are the Northeast Regional Office of the National
Marine Fisheries Service, the Stellwagen Bank National
Marine Sanctuary, and the funding provided by NOAA for
the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
The mission of the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) is to "achieve a continued optimum utilization of
living resources for the benefit of the nation." The Northeast
Regional Office, located in Gloucester, and the NMFS
Northeast Fishery Science Center, in Woods Hole, play a
pivotal role in providing a better understanding of, and
thereby better managing, the living marine resources of the
Bays. The Northeast Regional Office reviews coastal
development projects of regional significance and oversees
the management of critical fisheries resources and protected
species. The Northeast Fishery Science Center monitors the
status offish stocks and conducts critical research on fish and
marine mammals that are the livelihood of many in the
region.
The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is a 638
square nautical mile area located at the seaward edge of the
Bays between Cape Cod and Cape Ana It was designated by
Congress in 1992 to protect the rich biological productivity
and diversity of this important offshore bank in the Gulf of
Maine. The Sanctuary oversees and helps to coordinate all
federal activities that may affect Sanctuary resources, and
conducts education and outreach, research, and management
programs to assist the Sanctuary staff in this oversight role.
Human activities that may affect Sanctuary resources are
regulated both by the Sanctuary and by other federal agen-
cies, in collaboration with the Sanctuary staff, that have
regulatory authority over Sanctuary resources.
With respect to implementation of any CCMP Action Plans
and recommendations which could affect a federally listed
threatened or endangered species (or the designated critical
habitat of a listed species), a federal agency which authorizes,
funds, or otherwise carries out an implementation activity
must consult with USFWS and/or NMFS to ensure that
appropriate protections are in place, pursuant to Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition, federal
agencies must "conference" with USFWS and NMFS, as
appropriate under Section 7, to ensure that federal activities
consider potential jeopardy to species which have been
proposed for ESA listing but whose listing has not yet been
finalized.
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, administered by
NOAA, provides funds, policy guidance, and technical
assistance to coastal states to help them establish and main-
tain 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 conducted 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-New England.
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Formerly the Soil Conservation Service, NRCS is part of the
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). NRCS supports
local communities in the areas of agricultural waste and
stormwater runoff management, which are two nonpoint
pollution sources in Massachusetts Bays. In the past, NRCS
focused primarily on agricultural practices. Recently, NRCS
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
A-2
-------
ground and surface water. Under this initiative, NRCS has
begun a three-year program to provide education and
technical assistance to reduce nonpoint source pollution from
agricultural operations and stormwater.
US Fish and Wildlife Service
The US Fish and Wildlife Service 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; administers the National Wildlife Refuge System, a
national system offish hatcheries and research centers; and
operates several hundred field offices involved in all aspects
of wetlands protection, fish and wildlife surveys, contami-
nants cleanup, and endangered species protection.
Although the Service has no direct regulatory control con-
cerning 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 con-
struction or regulatory agencies and to permit applicants.
Such involvement includes analyzing and reporting on
construction proposals and applications for dredge and fill
permits issued by the ACOE, ocean dumping permits issued
by the EPA, bridge and causeway permits issued by the
Coast Guard, 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
which may affect a federally-listed threatened or endangered
species require the Service's review under the Endangered
Species Act All such federal or federally-authorized projects
are reviewed to ensure that their activities do not jeopardize
the existence of a threatened or 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
Endangered Species Act), and recreation and wilderness
areas (under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act).
All acquisitions become part of the National Wildlife Refuge
System.
The Fish and Wildlife Service also exercises other conserva-
tion activities pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act; the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act; the Coastal Barrier Resources Act; and the
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Conservation and Restoration
Act
US Coast Guard
The U.S. Coast Guard ensures that vessels and marine
transportation related facilities are in compliance with
numerous federal regulations promulgated to reduce environ-
mental impacts in the coastal zone. Pollution prevention and
safety are critical to the safety of the marine environment
When accidents happen, the Coast Guard has responsibility
under me Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as
amended, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act to monitor and direct the
removal of oil or hazardous substances from the coastal zone.
The Coast Guard, under authority of amendments to the
FWPCA, also ensures compliance with Marine Sanitation
Device regulations. Certain vessel waste disposal policies
set by the International Convention for Prevention of Pollu-
tion from Ships (MARPOL) are implemented in the U.S.
through both the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships and the
Ports and Waterways Safety Act The Coast Guard ensures
that vessels and facilities meet the standards of the regula-
tions through inspections, boardings, routine patrols, and
investigations. Other Coast Guard missions, such as main-
taining navigational aids, support marine environmental
protection by ensuring the safety of life and property on the
nation's navigable waters. Additionally, the Coast Guard
enforces regulations promulgated by other agencies, such as
the National Marine Fisheries Service, that ensure appropri-
ate use of our marine resources.
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 shellfish 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, 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.
A-3
-------
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is an
independent federal agency established by the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The ACHP reviews
federally-assisted projects that affect historic properties and
works with other federal agencies and the State Historic
Preservation Officers (see state MHC) to avoid or reduce
harm to those properties under 36 CFR 800, which are the
regulations implementing Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16 USC 470f,
1992). The ACHP has published several guides to the
federal historic preservation review process.
State Agencies
Executive Office of Environmental Af-
fairs
The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) is 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. Of the departments
and units within EOEA, the following are most involved with
management issues for Massachusetts 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); and
• Office of Technical Assistance for Toxics Use Reduction
(OTA).
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 100 feet
beyond specified major roads, rail lines or other visible
rights-of-way and seaward to the edge of the territorial sea;
it includes all of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket
andGosnold.
Developed under the authority of the federal Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Plan was approved in 197S and established
twenty-seven policies to protect and manage the Common-
wealth'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 regula-
tory authority and the federal consistency review process.
CZM also 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 mat 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
which may affect the coastal zone to ensure they are consis-
tent with state coastal policy. Any large coastal project
requiring a federal license 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 con-
struction, reconstruction, repair, or maintenance of coastal
facilities, as well as the preparation of municipal harbor
plans.
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Unit
The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Unit
directs state agencies, in their permitting and licensing of
proposed development, to review, evaluate, and determine
the impact on the natural environment of these works,
projects, or activities and to use all practicable measures to
mitigate their impacts and minimise damage to the environ-
ment Regulations under Title 301 of the Code of Massachu-
setts 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) admin-
isters 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 waterways. The
following discussion describes the divisions most closely
related to the CCMP.
A-4
-------
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 Protection Program (Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 131, Section 40), and the Waterways Act (Massa-
chusetts General Laws, Chapter 91).
• Wetlands Protection — Conservation Commissions are
the first line of defense in wetlands protection 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 statements that control the impact of activities in
wetlands 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 Wetlands and Waterways. The division
reviews local Conservation Commission decisions which
have been appealed All decisions by DEP may be
appealed to an adjudicatory hearing.
• Chapter 91 (Waterways) Licensing - Massachusetts
General Law Chapter 91 requires that DEP review and
license activity in state waterways. Activities which
require Chapter 91 licenses include the 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 that die 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
environmental resources such as wetlands, fish runs,
shellfish beds, and fish spawning and nursery areas.
Division of Water Pollution Control
The Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) is the lead
unit for improved water quality and waterpolhition preven-
tion in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts
Clean Water Act Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water
Act gives the State the authority to deny, grant, or condition
certification of any federal license for an activity that involves
a discharge, to ensure that the activity satisfies the water
quality requirements of state law. The DEP's authority to
issue, condition, or deny the water quality certification
extends to, for example, NPDES permits issued by EPA;
Rivers and Harbors Act s. 10 permits issued by the Corps of
Engineers for dredging activities; and CWA s.404 permits
issued by the Corps for discharges of dredged of fill material.
(The authority to issue s.401 certifications for s.404 permits
resides with the DEP Division of Wetlands and Waterways.)
NPDES permits are jointly issued by DEP and EPA, who
develop discharge limits to ensure compliance with
technology-based requirements and water quality standards.
Groundwater permits are required for discharges greater than
10,000 gallons of sewage and for any industrial waste. In
addition, the DWPC administers the Massachusetts Nonpoint
Source Management Program.
Bureau of Municipal Facility Grants and Loans
The Bureau of Municipal Facility Grants and Loans adminis-
ters the state/federal construction grants program which
evolved from a previous federal and state combined grant
program that once provided both 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 are not funded by the federal
program or have lower priority in the federal system.
Division of Hazardous Waste
The Division of Hazardous Waste regulates transportation,
storage, and disposal of waste materials within the Common-
wealth, 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 clean 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 municipalities, industry, 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
The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) is
responsible for preserving and protecting the natural re-
sources of the Commonwealth and for managing state hinds
and waters. The programs of the following offices are most
closely related to the CCMP:
Office of Natural Resources
the Office of Natural Resources provides for the long-term
protection, and the public use and enjoyment, of natural
resources. Activities include land acquisition, resource
management planning for parks and trails, critical resource
identification and protection, and municipal technical
assistance and greenway grant programs. The Resource
A-5
-------
Management Planning Program develops long range resource
management plans ("GOALS" plans) for Massachusetts State
Forests and Parks and identifies significant" Wildlands" areas
of Forests and Parks for designation and protection. The
Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Program
identifies critical resource areas for designation as ACECs,
facilitates state agency actions and coordination to protect
ACECs, and supports local and regional actions for long-
term ACEC management and preservation. The Coastal
Access - Sea Path Program coordinates, promotes, and
implements the establishment of community shoreline
pathways or "Sea Paths" along the intertidal zone for use of
walkers or hikers. The Bikeways and Rail Trails Program
acquires, plans for, and implements conversion of former
railroad rights-of-way into long distance recreation trails.
Office of Water Resources
The Office 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 of life and damage to property
through flood control; and to facilitate the development of a
comprehensive water resources management plan for
Massachusetts.
The Office acts as state coordinator for the National Flood
Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
Also, the State's Ocean Sanctuaries Program is located in this
Office. The Ocean Sanctuaries Act (Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 132A, Section 13-16 and 18) established
sanctuary areas that must receive a special level of protection
from "...any exploitation, development, or activity that would
seriously alter or otherwise endanger the ecology or the
appearance of the ocean, the seabed, or subsoil."
Office of Waterways
The Office of Waterways improves, develops, maintains, and
protects the Commonwealth's inland and coastal waterways.
Specific programs include the Rivers and Harbors Program,
which identities 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 Glouces-
ter, New Bedford, and Fall River, which are administered by
the Office of Waterways and leased to private operators and
managers; recreational facilities projects, including capital
improvements 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 Enforcement, but administered by the
Office of Waterways as the contracting agent
Department of Fisheries. Wildlife and
Environmental Law Enforcement
The Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental
Law Enforcement (DFWELE) is responsible 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 for the 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.
Riverways Program
The mission of the Riverways Program is to promote the
restoration and protection of the ecological integrity of the
Commonwealth's watersheds: rivers, streams, and adjacent
lands. The Riverways Program was established within
DFWELE in 1987 in recognition that river and stream
corridors are a crucial component of the state's ecological
infrastructure and that protection of these watershed
resources could not be accomplished through land acquisition
alone. The Riverways Program was created to encourage and
support local river protection initiatives as a vital
complement to state actioa
The primary activity of the Riverways Program is to provide
technical assistance and outreach to communities, citizens
groups, and others on various aspects of river, stream, and
watershed protection, restoration, and stewardship, including
the following:
A-6
-------
• assisting the formation/strengthening of watershed
associations, "Adopt-a-Stream" groups, Stream Teams,
and other citizen initiatives for the protection of specific
rivers/streams;
• preparing and distributing a newsletter, workbooks,
brochures, and other "how to" publications for river and
watershed protection and maintaining a resource library
of similar publications gleaned from across the U.S. and
Canada;
• conducting training sessions for citizens on specific river
conservation tools such as shoreline surveys, formulating
action plans, and effective advocacy techniques;
• disseminating notices of permit reviews and other pend-
ing government actions affecting rivers to citizens groups
and providing guidance on how to evaluate environmental
impact and participate in government decisionmaking;
and
• assisting communities in drafting and adopting river
protection bylaws, ordinances, and other local regulatory
techniques.
In addition, the Riverways Program serves as the primary
advocate for rivers on a statewide basis and seeks to protect
their natural integrity through a variety of means, such as:
• formulating and promoting statewide policies and legisla-
tion for river protection;
• encouraging increased recognition of the importance and
necessity for river and watershed protection within other
state and federal agencies and programs; and
• encouraging the establishment of public/private partner-
ship and other joint ventures for river/watersheds protec-
tion in coordination with the Executive Office of Environ-
mental Affairs.
Since its establishment eight years ago, the Riverways
Program has helped to generate and/or sustain a number of
successful river protection initiatives at the local and state-
wide level. Local efforts include:
• supporting watershed associations in each of the state's 28
major river basins and over 140 Adopt-a-Stream groups
in the preparation of educational curricula, riparian land
mapping, shoreline surveys, water quality monitoring, and
other resource protection tools;
• negotiating the donation of land and conservation restric-
tions protecting several miles of river frontage in conjunc-
tion with watershed associations and land trusts, enhanc-
ing their ability to attract additional land gifts;
• providing planning and organizational support for Federal
Wild and Scenic River studies and designations on the
Fannington, Westfield, and Sudbury/Assabet/ Concord
rivers; and
• providing staff support and serving as repository for all
documents relating to the Merrimack River Initiative.
Office of Technical Assistance for Toxics Use Re-
duction
The Office of Technical Assistance for Toxics Use Reduction
(OTA) is responsible for planning and facilitating the safe
and efficient management of hazardous waste in Massachu-
setts. The OTA formerly sponsored the Household Hazard-
ous Waste Program, which funded community collections of
household hazardous waste. OTA works to increase public
awareness of the larger problem of hazardous waste disposal
statewide. It conducts projects on source reduction and
recycling within industry. This program employs technical
audit teams — a free multi-media, nonregulatory service
provided to businesses with industrial discharges.
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, commu-
nicable 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
epidemiologjcal investigations of foodborne 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 the regulatory branch of
the Department The Division enforces state and federal
regulations regarding the wholesomeness of food products,
performs inspections of food establishments for compliance
with hygienic standards, and conducts field investigations of
foodbome illnesses.
State Laboratory Institute
The State Laboratory Institute analyzes fish, shellfish, and
biological fluids for bacterial contamination and marine
biotoxins. The laboratory data are useful for determining the
A-7
-------
cause of an acute foodborne illness and for ensuring compli-
ance with existing regulatory limits. In the past, the labora-
tory 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 Toxicol-
ogy evaluates the risk of exposure to chemical contaminants
by performing quantitative risk assessments, health assess-
ments, and epidemiological studies. The Division may
recommend a variety of exposure reduction strategies
including regulatory action and public health advisories.
Massachusetts Historical Commis-
sion
The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) was
established in 1963 to assist in protecting and preserving the
state's significant historic and archaeological resources. The
passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966
created a broad, national historic preservation program, and
directed each state to appoint a State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), who is responsible for implementing the
provisions of the NHPA at the state level; for coordinating
local, state, and federal preservation efforts; and for develop-
ing comprehensive, statewide historic preservation planning.
In Massachusetts, the SHPO is the Executive Director of the
MHC. In carrying out its mandates under both state and
federal law, the MHC has developed a number of historic
preservation programs, including: compiling and maintaining
a statewide inventory of historic and archaeological re-
sources; nomination of significant properties to the National
Register of Historic Places; technical assistance to municipal-
ities, state and federal agencies, and the public; involvement
in environmental review and historic preservation planning
for state and federally-assisted projects; grants-in-aid pro-
grams for historic preservation activities; and a broad public
information program.
MHC reviews projects that require federal or state funding,
licenses, permits, and approvals under Sections 106 and 110
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended
(16 USC 470f & 470h-2, 1992), and its implementing
regulations (36 CFR 800), and MGL c.9, ss. 26-27C (950
CMR 71). This review process identifies historic and
archaeological resources that may be affected by new
construction, demolition, and rehabilitation, and provides a
formal consultation process that seeks alternatives to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate impacts to significant cultural re-
sources.
The MHC is also the Office of the Massachusetts State
Archaeologist, who issues permits for archaeological investi-
gations on public lands and projects under review by munici-
palities, counties, and state and federal agencies, under the
provisions of MGL c.9, ss. 26A and 27C (950 CMR 70).
The permit process ensures the conservation of archaeologi-
cal resources and the highest quality of archaeological
research. The State Archaeologist reviews permit applica-
tions for archaeological investigations to evaluate the qualifi-
cations of archaeological research teams and the soundness
of archaeological research programs.
MHC has developed a revised Massachusetts State Historic
Preservation Plan (1995), and has published regional
overviews of the historic and archaeological resources that
are relevant to the coastal regions. These include: Historic
and Archaeological Resources of the Boston Area, Historic
and Archaeological Resources of Southeast Massachusetts,
and Historic and Archaeological Resources of Cape Cod
and the Islands.
Regional Planning Agencies
Regional planning in Massachusetts is carried out by 13
Regional Planning 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 compre-
hensive plans for their area's physical, social, and economic
development
Four RPAs represent the 49 coastal 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 transporta-
tion.
A significant new approach toward regional planning may be
on the horizon for Massachusetts. Beginning in 1986, the
then Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development
Commission (CCPEDC), predecessor 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 to 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
A-8
-------
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.
Through grants from the Massachusetts Bays Program, the
four coastal RPAs in the Bays region have established a
highly effective water quality technical assistance program.
RPA staff provide support for the regional local governance
committees, guide demonstration projects, and assist in
obtaining funds for local implementation of the CCMP.
Continuation of this technical assistance program is a key
part of the long-term implementation strategy for the CCMP.
Local Agencies
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 Amend-
ment to the state's constitution, that this philosophy changed
the thinking and actions of legislation and court decisions in
Massachusetts. Generally, municipalities are authorized to
exercise through the "adoption, amendment, or repeal of local
ordinances or by-laws...any power or runction...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.
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 Massa-
chusetts 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 stipulated in state law. Legal
decisions mat 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 regulations for any 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 Title 5 (State
Sanitary Code), health boards issue permits for any septic
system receiving up to 10,000 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
Wetlands Protection Act in 1978 and 1983, most
municipalities that had not yet established a Conservation
Commission found it necessary to do so in order to
administer new and relatively stringent state wetland
regulations. Commissions consist of three to seven members
appointed by the selectmen.
Conservation Commissions determine if a proposed project
will alter wetland resources and what conditions are required
to protect statutory wetland interests such as protection of
water supplies, prevention of storm drainage, prevention of
pollution, and protection of fisheries and wildlife habitat
Commissions 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 activities within 100 feet of inland and
coastal wetlands, and land under water bodies and
waterways.
Home rule allows the 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 wetland
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 a way that damages natural resources.
Conservation Commissions can also acquire outright
conservation lands that are valuable for habitat protection,
aquifer protection, open space, or any other environmental
value.
A-9
-------
Harbormasters
Zoning Boards of Appeals
Harbormasters have broad powers to regulate uses and
activities of waterways. The Harbormaster is typically
appointed by the Selectmen to oversee harbor activities and
enforce Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90B Section
15B. These regulations authorize towns, through their
Harbormasters, to regulate vessels in municipal waterways.
The regulations address the safe operation of boats, boat
speed limits, channel obstructions, boat seaworthiness,
fishing^ swimming^ diving, and refueling. Some municipali-
ties have harbor regulations that limit the number of moor-
ings 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, possibili-
ties, and needs" of their communities, including the protec-
tion 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 (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial).
Subdivision regulations govern the process of dividing a
parcel of land into two or more lots. Under these regula-
tions, Planning Boards generally require each developer to
submit a subdivision 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.
Boards of Appeals were established by Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40 A 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 overlay protection district The Boards of
Appeals also are empowered to issue comprehensive permits
under the affordable housing provisions of Chapter 40B.
Local Historical Commissions
Local historical commissions are public agencies within
municipal government established pursuant to GLc. 40 ss.
8D or special legislation. They are responsible for
community-wide historic preservation planning. Their duties
include compiling a comprehensive inventory of historic and
cultural resources, developing recommendations to protect
these resources, and advising the city or town on historic
preservation matters.
Local Historic District Commissions
Local historic district commissions are public agencies within
municipal government established under GL c. 40C or
special legislation. They administer local historic districts or
local landmarks through regulatory design review authority
over alterations, demolitions, and new construction affecting
designated local historic districts or landmarks.
A-10
-------
appendices
Appendix B.
Acronyms
-------
ACRONYMS
A
ACEC
ACOE
ACP
ASP
c
CAC
CA/T
CCC
CCMP
CDC
CERCLA
cfs
CSO
CZM
D
DEM
DEP
DFWELE
DMF
DPA
DPH
DSP
DWPC
£
EIR
EIS
EOEA
EPA
F
FDA
M
MAPC
MassGIS
MBDS
MBP
MDC
MEPA
MESA
mgd
Area of Critical Environmental Concern
Army Corps of Engineers
Area Contingency Plan
Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning
Citizens Advisory Committee of the MBP
Central Artery/Tunnel Project
Cape Cod Commission
Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan
Centers for Disease Control
Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act
cubic feet per second
Combined Sewer Overflow
Coastal Zone Management Office
Department of Environmental Management
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and
Environmental Law Enforcement
Division of Marine Fisheries
Designated Port Area
Department of Public Health
Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning
Division of Water Pollution Control
Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Impact Statement
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Environmental Protection Agency
Food and Drug Administration
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Massachusetts Geographic Information
System
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
Massachusetts Bays Program
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
Natural Resources Conservation Service
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
Port Area Committee
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
Request for Determination of Applicability
Regional Planning Agency
South Essex Sewage District
Technical Advisory Committee of the MBP
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
MSD
MVPC
MWRA
N
NAS
NETSU
NMFS
NOAA
NPDES
NRCS
NSSP
NWR
o
OCPC
ODES
ODMDS
OWOW
P
PAC
PAH
PCB
PSP
R
RDOA
RPA
s
SESD
T
TAC
u
USDA
USFWS
USGS
W
WBNERR Waquoit Bay National Estuary Research
Reserve
WPA Wetlands Protection Act
B-l
-------
B-2
-------
appendices
Appendix C
Glossary
-------
:t%^til^
Action Plan. A compilation of agreed-upon goals and
objectives, and a list of specific strategies or actions indicat-
ing 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
photosynthesis. Common algae include dinoflagellates,
diatoms, seaweeds, and kelp.
Algal Bloom. A condition resulting from nutrient levels or
other physical and chemical conditions that enable algae to
reproduce rapidly.
Amnesk 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 gastrointesti-
nal symptoms of vomiting, abdominal cramp, and diarrhea.
Within 48 hours, neurological 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 born 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. A provision in the State Water
Quality Standards, required by the federal Clean Water Act,
which forbids the degradation of existing water quality except
in very narrow circumstances.
Aquacutture. The controlled cultivation and harvest of
aquatic plants or animals (e.g., edible marine algae, clams,
oysters, and salmon).
1 CMR=Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulation
Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). An
area encompassing land and water resources of regional,
statewide, or national importance, designated by the Secre-
tary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (in
accordance with 301 CMR1 12:6.40-6.55), to receive addi-
tional protection and management
Aromatk 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. Water 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.
Best Management Practice (BMP). Practices used to
prevent or reduce adverse water quality impacts resulting
from an activity, such as soil erosion and sediment movement
from a construction site. The term originated from rules and
regulations in Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act
Specific BMPs are defined for each pollution source.
Bioaccumulation. 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 (BOD). The quantity of
oxygen-demanding materials present in a sample as measured
by a specific test. A major objective of conventional w-
astewater treatment is to reduce the biochemical oxygen
demand so that the oxygen content of the receiving water
body will not be significantly reduced Although BOD is not
a specific compound, it is defined as a conventional pollutant
under the federal Clean Water Act
Board of Health. A municipal authority, elected or ap-
pointed, responsible for administering bylaws addressing
health, safety, and welfare issues covered in the State Envi-
ronmental Code, including Title 5.
C-l
-------
Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW). As defined in
310 CMR 10.55, the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations,
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.
Bufldout Analysis. A parcel-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 decomposition before
occasional or intermittent removal. Cesspools are no longer
permitted for waste disposal under Massachusetts Law.
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CHCs). All aromatic and
nonaromatic hydrocarbons containing chlorine atoms.
Includes certain pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, and
solvents.
Coastal Bank. As defined in 310 CMR 10.30(2), the
Wetlands Protection Act Regulations, 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. A typical 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
Regulations, 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, the
zone that extends landward to 100 feet beyond specified
major roads, rail lines, or other visible rights-of-way; in-
cludes all of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, and
Gosnold; and extends seaward to the edge of the state
territorial sea (typically, 3 miles from shore).
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program. A federally-
funded and approved state program 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 wastewater and storm
water runoff.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act (CERCLA). A federal law admin-
istered 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 that
can, in sufficient concentration, adversely alter an environ-
ment 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 contami-
nant 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. Al-
though 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 adminis-
ters the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The
state agency, formerly known as the Department of Environ-
mental Quality Engineering, responsible for administering
laws and regulations protecting air quality, water supply, and
water resources, such as Chapter 91 and Title 5, and for
administering programs such as the Wetlands Protection
Program and Wetlands Restriction Program. It is also
responsible for overseeing the cleanup of hazardous waste
sites, and responding to hazardous waste emergencies and
accidents.
C-2
-------
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 environmental health, communicable
disease control, community health, health care quality, and
health education. The State Laboratory Institute within the
Department analyzes fish, shellfish, and biological fluids for
bacterial contamination and marine biotoxins. The laboratory
data are useful for determining the cause of an acute food-
borne illness and for ensuring compliance with existing
regulatory limits.
Designated Port Areas. As defined in Chapter 91 Regula-
tion, 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.
Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP). An illness caused
by eating shellfish contaminated with okadoic acid (which is
produced by several species of dinoflagellates of the genus
Dinophysis). The symptoms of DSP are diarrhea, nausea,
vomiting, abdominal cramp, and chills.
Diatom. Minute unicellular or colonial algae with sili-
caceous cell walls consisting of two overlapping symmetrical
parts.
Dinoflagellate. Minute marine algae which move by
whipping a thread-like projection; some forms are lumines-
cent, others form toxic "red tides."
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 (DMT). 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 assessment of
Massachusetts fisheries.
Drainage Basin. The land that surrounds a body of water
and contributes fresh water, either from streams, groundwa-
ter, or surface runoff, to that body of water.
Dredging. Any physical digging into the bottom sediment of
a water 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. A community of living organisms interacting
with 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 intercon-
nected ecosystems.
Eelgrass (Zostera marina). A marine flowering plant that
grows subtidally in sand and mud. Eelgrass beds are an
important habitat and nursery for fish, shellfish, and water-
fowl.
Effluent The outflow of water, with or 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. A group of bacteria found in the feces of
warm-blooded animals indicative of the 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. The process of nutrient enrichment in
aquatic 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 commu-
nities present and contribute to anoxic events and fish kills.
hi freshwater systems and in parts of estuaries below 5 parts
per thousand 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 UK Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (For more informa-
tion, see Appendix A.)
Fecal Conform 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 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.
C-3
-------
Floodplain. The area of shorelands extending inland from
the normal yearly maximum stonnwater level to the highest
expected stonnwater 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, adminis-
tering the National Shellfish Sanitation Program.
General Bylaws. Local laws that can be adopted with a
simple majority vote at town meetings. Cities adopt ordi-
nances 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 organism's
habitat must provide all of the basic requirements for life and
should be free of harmful contaminants. Typical Massachu-
setts Bays habitats include beaches, marshes, rocky shores,
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.
Hypoiia. A condition in which oxygen is deficient
Impervious Material With respect to Title 5 regulations,
a material or soil having a percolation 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 contaminants from industries can reduce contaminant loads
to the environment and allow beneficial reuse.
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 CMR 15.11 through 15.15.
Loading. The total amount of material entering a system
from all sources.
Marine Sanitation Device (MSD). A device installed on a
boat to treat or hold sewage. 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.
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
Under 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 Environ-
mental Protection and the Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
ment
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.
C-4
-------
Mean High Water. The average height of the high tides
over a 19-year period
Mean law 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, as well 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
excessive amounts by human activity. They are generally
toxic to life at certain concentrations. Since metals are
elements, they do not break down in the environment over
time, and can be incorporated 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 incorpo-
rate scientific research into planning activities.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). A permit system established by the federal Clean
Water Act, which regulates the discharges of pollutants
(except for dredged and fill material) from point sources to
water of the U.S. EPA and DEP are currently responsible for
jointly administering this program in Massachusetts.
Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). A
branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that, among
other things, provides technical assistance in resource
management and planning and implementation of agricultural
BMPs.
Neotropical Migrants. Birds that 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 dispersed rather than discharged
from a pipe. Common forms of nonpoint source pollution
include stonnwater 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 the Wetlands
Protection Act It includes information on the site's wetland
resources and the proposed work.
Nutrients. Essential chemicals needed by plants and animals
for growth. For example, excessive amounts of nutrients,
nitrogen, and phosphorus can lead to degradation of water
quality and growth of excessive amounts of algae. Some
nutrients can be toxic at high concentrations.
Objective. A short term target that, as achieved, incre-
mentally attains goals.
Order of Conditions. The document, issued by a Conserva-
tion Commission, containing conditions 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 mammals^ caused by a neurotoxin
produced by a type of plankton called Alexandrium. During
certain times of the year and at certain locations, these
organisms proliferate in "blooms" (sometimes called red
tides) and can be concentrated by clams, mussels, and other
bivalves. The nervous system of shellfish is unaffected.
Consumption of the shellfish can cause paralysis 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
Massachusetts Bays.
Performance Standards. Federal, state, or local codified
specification that condition development activities to limit the
extent to which a structure or activity may affect the immedi-
ate environment
Petroleum Hydrocarbons. The mixture of hydrocarbons
normally found in petroleum; includes hundreds of chemical
compounds.
Phytoplankton. Minute, floating aquatic plants.
Point Source Pollution. Pollution originating at a particular
place, such as a sewage treatment plant, outfall, or other
discharge pipe.
Porychlorinated Biphenyls (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.
Polycyclk or Polynuckar Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PAHs). A class of complex organic compounds, some of
which are persistent and cancer-causing. These compounds
are formed from combustion products and unbumed fossil
fuels, and are ubiquitous in the environment Gasoline and
other petroleum products are common sources. PAHs 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 tight traffic, and
which can also allow significant amounts of water to pass
through.
Primary Treatment A wastewater treatment method that
uses sealing, slamming, and (usually) chlorination to remove
C-5
-------
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.
PubBcly 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 Wetlands Protection Act
Runoff. The part of precipitation that travels overland and
appears in surface streams or other receiving water bodies.
Salt Marsh. A coastal wetland that extends landward up to
the highest high tide line (i.e., the highest spring tide of the
year), and is characterized by plants that are well 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. The semi-solid waste 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 the 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 (clams and
snails) or crustacean (crabs and shrimp), having a shell or
shell-like exoskeleton.
Shellfish Bed. An area identified and designated by the
Division of Marine Fisheries or Conservation Commissions
as containing productive shellfish resources. Shellfish bed
maps are based upon written documentation and field
observations by the shellfish constable or other authoritative
sources. In identifying such an area, the following factors are
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 shell-
fishing. 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 Area Closures. Closure, due to poten-
tial 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 closed. 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
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, hi 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 Applica-
bility issued by the Department of Environmental Protection
C-6
-------
deciding whether or not the area and activity are subject to
the regulations under the Wetlands Protection Act
Superseding Order of Conditions. A document issued by
the regional office of the Department 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 clay 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 (Advanced Waste Treatment). The
wastewater treatment process that exceeds secondary
treatment; may include nutrient and/or toxics removal.
Tidal Flat. Any nearly level 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 CMR 9:04.
Tidelands. All lands and waters between the high water
mark and the seaward limit of the Commonwealth's jurisdic-
tion, as defined in 310 CMR 9:04. Tidewaters are synony-
mous with n'delands.
Title 5. The state regulations (CMR IS) that establish
minimum standards for the protection of public health and the
environment when circumstances require the use of individ-
ual 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 pollut-
ants 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 cycle, including waterfowl (ducks and geese),
seabirds (terns and gulls), and wading birds (herons and
egrets).
Water Column. The water in a lake, estuary, or ocean
which extends from the bottom sediments to the water
surface. The water column contains dissolved and participate
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
definedinSlO CMR 15:01. Boards of Health can adopt the
definition of wetlands in 310 CMR 10.0 or broader language
in Title 5 as a "watercourse" in determining setbacks for
wastewater permitting purposes.
Watershed. The total land area (including subsurface
waters) that drains into a stream, river, estuary, bay, or other
waterbody.
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.
C-7
-------
C-8
-------
appendices
Appendix D.
Bibliography
-------
p^:
Ml.
wi^ ^ "-S •» <••* J-.-S. S
S%>'J ^M
^ »TJ«" \^'j^
« >< ^\^ ii%
AIber,MandA Chan. 1994. Sources of Contaminants to
Boston Harbor: Revised Loadings Estimates. MWRA
Technical Report 94-1. Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Boston, MA. 93pp.
Alber.M.J.Hallam, and MS. Connor. 1993. TheStateof
Boston Harbor 1992. MWRA Technical Report #93-6.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA
Battelle Ocean Sciences. In progress. Evaluating Costs to
Communities of Management Measures to Reduce Loads to
Sediments of Urban and Semi-Urban Harbors in Massa-
chusetts Bay. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA
Bothner, MH., M Buchholtz ten Brink, C.M Parmenter,
WMD'Angelo.andMW.Doughten. 1993. The Distribu-
tion of Silver and Other Metals in Sediments From Massa-
chusetts and Cape Cod Bays — An Interim Compilation.
USGS Open File report 93-725. U.S. Geological Survey,
Woods Hole, MA.
Bowen, R., J. Archer, D. Terkla, and J. Myers. 1993. The
Massachusetts Bays Management System: A Valuation of
Bays Resources and Uses and an Analysis of its Regulatory
and Management Structure. MBP-93-01. Massachusetts
Bays Program Office, Boston, MA
Buchsbaum, R. 1992. Turning the Tide: Toward a Livable
Coast in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Audubon Society,
Lincoln, MA
Buchsbaum, R., J. Pederson and W. Robinson (Eds). In
progress. The Role ofOverfishing, Pollution, and Habitat
Degradation on Marine Fish and Shellfish Populations of
New England. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA
Buzzards Bay Project August 1991. Comprehensive Con-
servation and Management Plan. Final Plan.
Buzzards Bay Project 1994. A Buzzards Bay Embayment
Subwatershed Evaluation: Establishing Priorities for
Nitrogen Management Action. Buzzards Bay Project Office,
Marion, MA
Cahill, J. and K Imbalzano. 1991. An Inventory of Organic
and Metal Contamination in Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod
Bay, and Boston Harbor Sediments and an Assessment of
Regional Sediment Quality. Massachusetts Bays Program,
Boston, MA
Cambareri, T.C., E.M Eichner, and C.A Griffeth. 1993.
Hydrogeologic Evaluation for the Waquoit Boy Land
Ecosystem Research Project Characterization of the
Watershed and Submarine Groundwater Discharge. Cape
Cod Commission, Bamstable, MA
Cape Cod Commission. March 1991. Draft Regional Policy
Plan.
Capuzzo, J. McDowell, A McElroy, and G. Wallace. 1987.
Fish and Shellfish Contamination in New England Waters:
An Evaluation and Review of Available Data on the Distri-
bution of Chemical Contaminants.
Cavanaugh, E.F., and L.R. Lewis. 1990. The State of Our
Harbors: an Examination of Massachusetts Harbor
Conditions and Related Economic Parameters. Rivers and
Harbors Program Report Division of Waterways, Massa-
chusetts Department of Environmental Management,
Hingham,MA
Center for Marine Conservation. May 1991. Cleaning
North America's Beaches —1990 Beach Cleanup Results.
Center for Marine Conservation. May 1990. National
Beach Cleanup Report.
Chase, B. 1994. Massachusetts Bay Smelt Spawning
Habitat Monitoring Program. New England Estuarine
Research Society meeting, June 2-4, 1994, Salem State
College, MA
Clendenning,B. and S. Dean, 1990. Coastal Habitats of the
Massachusetts Bay Region: Status, Threats, the Future.
Coastal Zone Management Office. 1977. Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management Program - Volume I.
Coastal Zone Management Office. 1985. The Way to the
Sea -Methods for Massachusetts Communities to Provide
Public Access to the Coast.
Coastal Zone Management Office. 1991. Summary of
Section 309 Assessment
Cooper A, and R. Buchsbaum. 1994. Plum Island Sound/
Rivers System Final Action Plan. Massachusetts Audubon:
North Shore, Massachusetts Bays Program Mini-bay Project
23 pp., plus appendices.
D-l
-------
Correia,SJ. 1992. Flounder Population Declines: Over-
fishing or Pollution? DMFNews. MA DMF Publication
#17020-12-7000-7/92. pp. 2-5. Massachusetts Division of
Marine Fisheries, Boston, MA.
Costa, IE. 1988a Distribution, Production, and Historical
Changes in Abundance ofEelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in
Southeastern Massachusetts. Ph.D. Dissertation, Boston
University, Boston, MA.
Costa, J£. 1988b. Eelgrass in Buzzards Bay: Distribution,
Production and Historical Changes in Abundance. U.S.
EPA 503/4-88-002 and BBP-88-05. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 1 and Buzzards Bays Program,
Boston, MA.
Cura,J.J. 1991. Review of Phytoplankton Data: Massachu-
setts Bay. MWRA Technical Report No. 91 -1. Massachu-
setts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.
Cura, J.J., and J. Freshman. 1992. Nitrogen Loading to
Massachusetts Bay. New England Estuarine Research
Society, Fall 1992 meeting, Wells, ME, November 5-7,
1992.
Daskalakis, KD. and T.P. O'Connor. 1994. Inventory of
Chemical Concentrations in Coastal and Estuarine Sedi-
ments. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 76.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver
Spring, MD.
Dean, S. October 1991. Prescription for Saving Our
Coastal Waters. New England Aquarium.
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 1990. Art
Environment at Risk The First Annual Report on the State
of the Massachusetts Environment. Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. 129 pp.
Foulis, D.B. and R.W. Tiner. 1994. Wetland Trends for
Selected Areas of the Coast of Massachusetts, from Plum
Island to Scituate (1977 to 1985-86). Ecological Services
Report R5-94/2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 14 pp.
Gardner, G.B:, T. Villareal, and T. Loder. la Progress.
Biological and Physical Processes Controlling Nutrient
Dynamics and Primary Production in Cape Cod Bay.
Massachusetts Bays Program Office, Boston, MA.
Gardner, G.R., R.J. Pruell, and L.C. Folmar. 1989. A
Comparison of Both Neoplastic and Non-neoplastic Disor-
ders in Winter Flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus)
from Eight Areas in New England. Marine Environmental
Research. 28:393-397.
Geyer, W.R., G. B. Gardner, W.S. Brown, J. Irish, B.
Butrnan, T. Loder, and R. Signell. 1992. Physical Oceano-
graphicInvestigation ofMassachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.
MBP-92-03. Massachusetts Bays Program Office, Boston,
MA.
Giese, G., D. Aubrey, and P. Zeeb. 1987. Passive Retreat
ofMassachusetts Coastal Upland Due to Relative Sea Level
Rise.
Golomb, D., D. Ryan, N. Eby, J. Underbill, T. Wade, and S.
Zemba. 1996. Atmospheric Deposition of Trace Metals,
Pofynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), and Nitrogen
onto Massachusetts Bays. MBP-96-01. Massachusetts Bays
Program, Boston, MA.
Greenbaum, D. and A. ODonnell. 1987. Losing Ground:
The Case for Land Conservation in Massachusetts. Massa-
chusetts Audubon Society.
Hall-Arber, M. 1991. Water Pollution and Water Quality
in Massachusetts Coastal Zone - A Municipal Official's
Primer. MBP-92-04. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston,
MA.
Hankin, Alan L., L. Constantine, and S. Bliven. January
1985. Barrier Beaches, Salt Marshes, and Tidal Flats. An
Inventory of the Coastal Resources of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies and
MCZM Program Publication 13899-27-600-1-85 C.R.
Heufelder, G. 1988. Bacterial Monitoring in Buttermilk
Bay. EPA 503/4-88-001. U.S. EPA Region 1, Boston, MA.
Hickey, J.M September 1989. "Massachusetts Shellfish
Closures, Monitoring Programs, Regulations and the Concern
Over the Bacterial Standard" in Shellfish Closures in
Massachusetts: Status and Options. WHOI-89-35.
HorsleyandWitten,Inc. In progress. Geographic Analysis
of Bacterial Contamination: Ipswich, Beverly and
Provincetown Watershed Studies. Massachusetts Bays
Program, Boston, MA.
Hubbard,W.,J.Penko, and T.Fleming. 1988. Site Evalua-
tion Studies of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site for
Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material. US Army Corps of
Engineers, New England Division.
Hyland, J.L. and H. Costa. 1995. Examining Linkages
Between Contaminant Inputs and Their Impacts on Living
Marine Resources of the Massachusetts Bay Ecosystem
Through Application of the Sediment Quality Triad Method.
MBP 95-03. Massachusetts Bays Program Office, Boston,
MA.
D-2
-------
Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Science. 1991.
Seafood Safety. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.
Ipswich Shellfish Advisory Board. 1991. Shellfishing in
Ipswish, 1991: Pollution and its Effect on Shellfishing.
Ipswich, MA. 28 pp.
Johnson, L.L., C.M Stehr, O.P. Olson, MS. Myers, S.M.
Pierce, C.A. Wigem, BJB. McCain and U. Varanasi. 1993.
Chemical Contaminants and Hepatic Lesions in Winter
Flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) from the Northeast
Coast of the United States. Environmental Science and
Technology, 27:2759-2771.
Karp, C., C. Penniman, R. Zingarelli, and A. Dixon. 1990.
Sewage Contamination - Pathogens. Briefing Paper
prepared for the Narragansett Bay Project
Kelly, J.R. 1991. Nutrients and Massachusetts Bay: A
Synthesis of Eutrophication Issues. MWRA Technical
Report No. 91 -10. Massachusetts Water Resources Author-
ity, Boston, MA. 66 pp.
Kelly, J. 1993. Nutrients and Massachusetts Bay: An
Update of Eutrophication Issues. MWRA Technical Report
#93-17. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston,
MA. 119pp.
Kelly, J., C. Albro, K. Foster, J. Hennessy, P. Doering, L.
Reed, E. Requintina, J. Turner, and D. Borkmaa 1993.
Water Quality Monitoring in Massachusetts and Cape Cod
Bays: Annual Report for 1992. MWRA Technical Report
93-16. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston,
MA. 129pp.
King, Dennis. In progress. The Functions of Coastal
Wetlands and the Economic Value of Coastal Wetland
Restoration in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Bays Program,
Boston, MA.
Kipp, K. October 1990. Health Risk from Chemically
Contaminated Seafood. Briefing Paper prepared for the
Narragansett Bay Project
Kipp, K. October 1990. Seafood Contamination Issues.
Briefing Paper prepared for EPA Region I.
Klauber, A. Spring 1991. "Seafood Quality Assurance:
Strategies for the 1990s" in Nor'easter.
Knebel, H., R. Rendings, and M Bothner. Sept 1991.
Modem Sedimentary Environments in Boston Harbor,
Massachusetts. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 61,
No. 5. pp. 791-804.
Kurland,J. January 1991. Habitat Mitigation Efforts in the
Gulf of Maine: Stemming the Tide of Environmental
Degradation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration/National Marine Fisheries Service.
Leo, W.S., M Alber, MS. Connor, K.E. Keay, and A.C. Rex.
1994. Contaminated Sediments in Boston Harbor. MWRA
Technical Report #93-9. Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Boston, MA,
Leonard, D., M Bronfman, and K. Hankness. March 1989.
The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters on the East Coast
of the United States, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA.
MacDonald, D.A. 1991. Status and Trends in Concentra-
tions of Selected Contaminants in Boston Harbor Sediments
and Biota. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 56,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle,
WA.
Massachusetts Audubon Society. Fall 1991. Special Report:
Wetlands Under Siege.
Massachusetts Barrier Beach Task Force. February 1994.
Guidelines for Barrier Beach Management in Massachu-
setts. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office.
Massachusetts Bay Marine Studies Consortium. July 1990.
Coastal Zone Governance on Massachusetts Bay's North
Shore. Second Edition.
Massachusetts Bay Marine Studies Consortium. 1989a.
Maritime Resources of Massachusetts Bay: Guide to
Identification and Preservation.
Massachusetts Bay Marine Studies Consortium. 1989b.
Natural Resources of the Massachusetts Bay Area: Values,
Status, and Threats.
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office. December
1982. Coastal Zone Management Barrier Beach Inventory
Project.
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office. 1992.
Final Guidance Document - The Development of Resource
Management Plans for Coastal Anas of Critical Environ-
mental Concern.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
1990 a. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Summary of
Water Quality.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
1990 b. Massachusetts Water Quality Standards.
D-3
-------
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
Division of Water Pollution Control and Office of Watershed
Management March 1995. Summary of Water Quality
1995.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
Division of Wetlands and Waterways. February 1991.
Wetlands White Paper: A Report on the Protection of
Wetlands in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Environmental Law Enforcement, Riverways Program.
1993. Riverways Community Guide - Strategies for Draft-
ing and Passing Local River Protection Bylaws.
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. 1985. Assess-
ment at Mid-Decade: Economic, Environmental, and
Management Problems Facing Massachusetts' Commercial
and Recreational Marine Fisheries.
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. 1989. Massa-
chusetts Lobster Fishery Statistics.
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. July 1990.
Metal Concentrations in Marine Fish and Shellfish from
Boston and Salem Harbors, and Coastal Massachusetts.
Progress Report
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. 1992.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Summary of Water
Quality. (305b Report). Department of Environmental
Protection, Boston, MA.
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.
1990. An Environment at Risk the First Annual Report on
the State of the Massachusetts Environment. Common-
wealth of Massachusetts. 129pp.
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs,
Division of Conservation Services. 1990. The Open Space
Planner's Workbook.
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.
June 1991. Report of the Living Resources Committee of the
Technical Advisory Group for Marine Issues.
Massachusetts Onshore Groundfish Task Force. 1990. New
England Groundfish in Crisis - Again.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. November 1990.
The State of Boston Harbor: 1990.
Massport 1995. Port of Boston Economic Development
Plan. Massport Authority, Boston, MA.
McDowell, J.E., D.F. Leavitt and D. Shea. In Progress.
Population Processes ofMyaArenariafrom Contaminated
Habitats in Massachusetts Bay. Massachusetts Bays
Program, Boston, MA.
McElroy, A., M. Shiaris and J. McDowell. 1994.
Bioavailability and Biotransformation ofPotycyclic Aro-
matic Hydrocarbons in Benthic Environments of Coastal
Massachusetts. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Menzie-Cura and Associates. 1991. Sources and Loadings
of Pollutants to the Massachusetts Bays. Report #MBP-91-
01. Massachusetts Bays Program Office, Boston, MA.
Menzie-Cura and Associates. 1995a. Organic Loadings
from the MerrimackRiver to Massachusetts Bay. MBP-95-
04. Massachusetts Program Office, Boston, MA.
Menzie-Cura and Associates. 1995b. Measurements and
Loadings of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
Stormwater, Combined Sewer Overflows, Rivers, and
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) Discharging to
Massachusetts Bays. MBP-95-06. Massachusetts Bays
Program, Boston, MA.
Metropolitan District Commission. October 1990. Task
Force Report on Algal Fouling in Broad Sound and Nahant
Bay.
Moore, M1, B.R. Woodin, and J.R. Stegeman. 1992. Liver
Pathology of Winter Flounder: Boston Harbor, Massachu-
setts Bay, and Cape Cod Bay -1991. MWRA Environmen-
tal Quality Department Technical Report No. 92-5. Massa-
chusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.
Moore, M. J. and J.R. Stegeman. 1993. Liver Pathology of
Winter Flounder: Boston Harbor, Massachusetts Bay, and
Cape Cod Bay — 1992. MWRA Environmental Quality
Department Technical Report No. 93-7. Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.
Moore, Ml, R.M. Smolowitz, D.F. and J.J. Stegeman.
1995. Evaluation of Chemical Contaminant Effects in
Coastal Habitats of the Massachusetts Bays. MBP-95-05.
Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Nassif, J. Massachusetts Marine Biotoxin Monitoring
Project. State laboratory Institute. FDA/PHS/HHS #223-
89-4064. October 1991. Interim Report.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1988.
National Marine Pollution Program — Federal Plan for
Ocean Pollution, Research, Development, and Monitoring,
Fiscal Years 1988-1992.
D-4
-------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1990.
Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of a National
Resource Base. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA
Strategic Assessment Branch, Rockville, MD.
National Oceanic and atmospheric Administration. 1990a
50 Years of Population Change Along the Nation's Coasts,
1960-2010. The second report of a coastal trends series.
National Ocean Service, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Rockville, MD.
National Oceanic and atmospheric Administration. 1990b.
Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of a National
Resource Base. A special NOAA 20th anniversary report.
National Ocean Service, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Rockville, MD.
National Oceanic and atmospheric Administration. 1990c.
Coastal Environmental Quality in the United States, 1990:
Chemical Contamination in Sediment and Tissues. A
special NOAA 20th anniversary report National Ocean
Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1991.
Stelhvagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary: Draft
Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan.
NOAA Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Washington, DC.
New England Aquarium. November 1990. Massachusetts
Awash in Plastics: Can We Turn the Tide?
Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants.
December 1994. Financing the Massachusetts Bays
Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan: Federal, State, and Local Funding Sources and
Mechanisms. MBP-95-01. Massachusetts Bays Program
Office, Boston, MA.
Orth, R.J., and K.A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: An
Unprecedented Decline in Submerged Aquatic Vegetation.
Science 222:51-53.
Pennock, J.R. 1985. Chlorophyll Distributions in the
Delaware Estuary: Regulation by Light-Limitation. Est.,
Coast, and Shelf Sci. 21:711-725.
Provincetown Beach Debris Task Force. 1994. Strategies
to Reduce Marine Debris - Provincetown, MA. Provin-
cetown Harbormaster's Office.
Reback, K.E., and J.S. DiCarlo. 1972. Final completion
report Anadromous fish project MA DMF Publication
#6496 (115-50-12-72-CR). MA Division of Marine Fisher-
ies, Boston, MA.
Rex, A.C., K.E. Keay, W.M Smith, J.J. Cura, C.A. Menzie,
M.S. Steinhauer, and M.S. Connor. 1992. The State of
Boston Harbor: 1991. MWRA Technical Report #92-3.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.
Ridley, N. May 1989. Chemical and Microbiological
Contamination of Seafood: A State Perspective. Testimony
before the Massachusetts Committee on Oversight and
Investigations and Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Roach, D.A. 1992. A Sanitary Survey of Essex Bay in
Essex, Gloucester, and Ipswich, Massachusetts, Area N7.
MA Division of Marine Fisheries Shellfish Sanitation and
Management Program. 36 pp. plus appendices.
Robinson, M. December 1989. Non-Regulatory Methods
of Habitat Protection. Prepared for the Buzzards Bay
Project.
Robinson, M January 1990. Strategy for a Town Conserva-
tion Restriction Program. Prepared for the Buzzards Bay
Project
Robinson, WE., T.J. Coffey, and P.A. Sullivan.. 1990. New
England Aquarium's Ten-Year Boston Harbor Monitoring
Program. First Report (March 1987-July 1989). New
England Aquarium, Boston, MA.
Schwartz, J., N. Duston, and C.A. Batdorf. 1991. PCBsin
Winter Flounder, American Lobster, and Bivalve Molluscs
from Boston Harbor, Salem Harbor, and Coastal Massa-
chusetts: 1984-1989. MA DMF Publication #16,966-63-
250-10-91-C.R. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisher-
ies, Boston, MA.
Schwartz, J., N. Duston, CA. Batdorf, W. Sullivan, and C.M.
Hutcheson. 1993. Metal Concentrations in Winter Floun-
der, American Lobster, and Bivalve Molluscs from Boston
Harbor, Salem Harbor, and Coastal Massachusetts: A
Summary of Data on Tissues Collected from 1991-1993.
MA DMF Publication #17670 04 200 2/95 1.25-C.R.
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Boston, MA.
Shea, D. In progress. Accumulation, Inventory and Budget
of Pofycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Massachusetts
Bays Sediments. Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Shea, D., D. Lewis, B. Buxton, D. Rhoads, and J. Blake.
1991. The Sedimentary Environment of Massachusetts Bay:
Physical, Biological and Chemical Characteristics. MWRA
Technical Report 91-6. Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Boston, MA. 139pp.
D-5
-------
Shea, D. and JRKelly. 1992. Transport and Fate of Toxic
Contaminants Discharged by MWRA into Massachusetts
Bay. MWRA Technical Report #92-4. Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority, Boston, MA.
Shea, D. and J. Seavey. In Progress. Inventories and
Concentration Profiles of Organic Contaminants in Sedi-
ment Cores from Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.
Massachusetts Bays Program, Boston, MA.
Short, F.T., D.M. Burdick, J.S. Wolf, and G.E. Jones.
January 1993. Eelgrass in Estuarine Research Reserves
Along the East Coast, USA. University of New Hampshire,
Jackson Estuarine Research Laboratory.
Simon,AandP. Hauce. June 1987. Contamination of New
England's Fish and Shellfish. Coast Alliance.
Smith,! April 1990. The Status of'Municipal Wastewater
Systems with Discharges to Coastal Waters. Coastal Zone
Management Office, Boston, MA.
Sullivan, P.A., and W.E. Robinson. 1990. The Health of
Winter Flounder from Boston Harbor. A Summary of
Results from Fish Day, May 13,1989. Edgerton Research
Laboratory, New England Aquarium, Boston, MA.
The Boston Harbor Associates. March 1987. Cleanup
Action Network Report I — Review of the Swimmability
Standard: Emphasis on Boston Harbor.
The Boston Harbor Associates. June 1987. Cleanup Action
Network Report II-A Clamor for Safer Shellfish: Emphasis
on Boston Harbor.
Tiner.RW.andW.Zmni. 1988. Recent Wetland Trends in
Southeastern Massachusetts. National Wetlands Inventory
Project, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA.
Titus et al. July 1988. Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise
and Coastal Wetlands. USEPAdoc. 230-05-86-013.
Townsend, D., L.M. Cammen, IP. Christensen, S.G.
Ackelson, MD. Keller, KM. Haugen, S. Corwin, W.J.
Bellows, and J.F. Brown. 1990. Seasonally ofOceano-
graphic Conditions in Massachusetts Bay. Bigelow Labora-
tory for Ocean Sciences Final Report to the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.
Uhler, AD., DE. West, and CD. Hunt 1994. Deer Island
Effluent Characterization, June-November, 1993. MWRA
Environmental Quality Department Technical Report No. 94-
4. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA.
Urban Harbors Institute. University of Massachusetts. 1990.
The Resources and Uses ofStelhvagen Bank.
US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division.
December 1989. Saugus River and Tributaries Flood
Damage Study. Final Environmental Impact Statement and
Final Environmental Impact Report.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment April
1987. Wastes in Marine Environments, OTA-0-334.
US Department of Commerce, NOAA. 1990. 50 Years of
Population Change Along the Nation's Coasts, 1960-2010.
The Second Report of a Coastal Trends Series. National
Ocean Service, Rockville, MD.
US Department of Commerce, NOAA. 1994. Gulf of
Maine Point Source Inventory: A Summary by Watershed
for 1991. National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver
Spring, MD.
US Environmental Protection Agency. December 1983.
Water Quality Standards Handbook.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1988& Analysis of
Risks from Consumption of Quincy Bay Fish and Shellfish.
US EPA Region 1, Boston, MA.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1988b. Assessment
of Quincy Bay Contamination. Summary Report. Prepared
byMetcalf&Eddy. US EPA Region I, Boston, MA.
US Environmental Protection Agency. September 1989.
Evaluation of the Continued Use of the Massachusetts Bay
Dredged Material Disposal Site. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement US EPA Region I, Boston, MA.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1990 a. Study of
Floatable Debris in U.S. Waters. Prepared by the Battelle
Memorial Institute.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1990 b. Supplemen-
tal Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Designa-
tion of Dredged Material Disposal Site in Massachusetts
Bay, Alternative Site Screening.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1992 a. The National
Estuary Program after Four Years: A Report to Congress.
EPA 503/9-92/007.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1992b. National
Estuary Program Guidance. Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plans: Content and Approval Require-
ments. EPA-842-B-92-002.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1993 a. Assessment
of Potential Impact of the MWRA Outfall on Endangered
Species. US EPA Region 1, Boston, MA.
D-6
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1993 b. National
Estuary Program: Guidance Compendium and Training
Manual. Volumes I and D.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1994 a. Deposition
of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters. First Report to
Congress. EPA-453/R-93-055.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1994 b. National
Estuary Program Guidance: Technical Characterization in
the National Estuary Program. EPA-842-B-94-006.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. June 1987. Recovery Plan for
the Peregrine Falcon; March 1988. Recovery Plan for the
Roseate Tern; January 1989. Recovery Plan for the Piping
Plover.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. US Fish and Wildlife
Service Participation in the Massachusetts Bays National
Estuary Program. Gulf of Maine Coastal and Estuary
Project Portland, ME.
US Food and Drug Administration. 1982a. FY 1979
Pesticides and Metals in Fish Programs. Compliance
Program Report of Findings.
US Food and Drug Administration. 1982b. FY 1979 Total
Diet Studies. Compliance Program Report of Findings.
US General Accounting Office. August 1988. Seafood
Safety - Seriousness of Problems and Efforts to Protect
Consumers.
Valiela, I. and J.E. Costa. 1988. Eutrophication of Butter-
milk Bay, a Cape Cod Coastal Embayment: Concentrations
of Nutrients and Watershed Nutrient Budgets. Prepared for
the Buzzards Bay Project
Wallace, G, R.P. Eganhouse, L. Pitts, and B. Gould 1988.
Analysis of Contaminants in Marine Resources. Prepared
for Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
and the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Williams, F.P., and G.S. Fout 1992. Contamination of
Shellfish by Stool-shed Viruses: Methods of Detection.
Environmental Science and Technology 26(4):689-696.
Witaan, J.D. 1994. Rocky Sub-tidal Communities in
Massachusetts Bay: Lovell's Island to Nahant Transect.
Final Report on the 1992 -1993 Sampling Period. MWRA
Technical Report #94-16. Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Boston, MA
D-7
-------
D-8
-------
appendices
Appendix E.
Management
Characterization/
Base Programs
Analysis
Available Under
Separate Cover
-------
Appendix E has been issued as a separate compan-
ion document to the CCMP. For a copy, please
contact the Massachusetts Bays Program Office.
E-l
-------
E-2
-------
appendices
Appendix F.
Federal
Consistency
Analysis
Available Under
Separate Cover
-------
Appendix F has been issued as a separate
companion document to the CCMP. For a copy,
please contact the Massachusetts Bays Program
Office.
F-l
-------
F-2
-------
appendices
Appendix G.
Public Comments
and MBP Responses
-------
The following pages are reproductions of the comments made
on the Final Draft CCMP. These letters are noted where
responses were generated, and are followed by the MBP's
narrative response. Refer to Chapter XI for additional
information regarding the review and comment process for
the Final Draft CCMP.
G-l
-------
G-2
-------
Received from Army Corps of Engineers - Cathy Demos et al.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page IT-7.4th para., last sentence: This sentence could easily mislead the reader. It
implies that the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) is highly contaminated
because MBDS violates proposed EPA sediment criteria. The technical data used to make
this statement is based on proposed sediment criteria and not the criteria currently used to
evaluate dredged material for open water disposal. The Public Record of Decision for the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the designation for the MBDS indicated that
"The MBDS has been previously used without any significant adverse effects to the
marine ecosystem or human health and the proposed future use of the modified MBDS
should have no such effects either."
A suggested statement would indicate that the MBDS is not a significant impact
to the habitat of Massachusetts Bay, based on the findings of the MBDS EIS and
Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) research.
Page II-7f 5th para: In addition to dredged material disposal projects, which do not add
contaminants to the aquatic ecosystem (i.e. only moves sediment from one area to
another), other contaminant sources should also be included, such as point (NPDES
permits) and non-point sources (runoff, air pollution, etc.), to provide the reader with an
overall picture of different contaminant sources.
Page II-l 7.4th para: Typo "Cur-rently".
Page 11-17. "Recommended Actions": The Massport, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), EPA, NMFS and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
(EOEA) should all be responsible for the last "Recommended Action" - "begin planning
now for disposal of contaminated maintenance- material..."
G-3
-------
G-4
-------
MBP Response to Cathy Demos, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1 Please note die expanded discussion on the MBDS
in the Chapter n subsection, "Concentrations of
Toxic Pollutants in the Water Column and Sedi-
ments."
Contaminant sources other than dredged materials
- e.g., wastewater, atmospheric deposition, storm-
water runoff - are described in the Chapter n
discussion, "Sources of Pollutants to Massachu-
setts Bays."
Spelling corrected as noted.
Please note the revised "Recommended Actions"
section in the Chapter IV megaprqject discussion,
"Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project."
G-5
-------
G-6
-------
MASSPORT MARITIME DEPARTMENT. EAST SLOG. II. FISH PER.
NORTHERN AVENUE, BOSTON. MA 02210 (617) 973-5354 FAX: (617) 973-5357
massDOri
January 26,1996
Margaret M. Brady, Director
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Commonwealth of Massachusetts .
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
Dear Peg:
The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) has taken an active role in commenting on the Massachusetts
Bays Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). Over the past few months,
Massport has evaluated the goals, objectives, and commitments outlined in the draft CCMP. Based on this
review, we believe than many of the goals of the CCMP can be met by the cooperative relationship of
Massport, state agencies, local environmental offices, and federal agencies such as the Corps of Engineers and
EPA.
As you know. Massport is the local sponsor of the Corps of Engineers' Boston Harbor Navigation
Improvement Project, known also as the Boston Harbor dredging project. As project partners, Massport and
the Corps have moved the project in tandem, through the state and federal environmental review processes.
The project, as currently proposed, reflects environmental, economic, and engineering concerns of both the
project partners and many interested parties, including the state environmental agencies.
As a matter of federal law. the Corps will prepare the contract bid documents and issue the construction
contracts necessary to complete all aspects of the Boston Harbor dredging project. The contracts will
certainly require compliance with all environmental permits. In the development of the construction bid
documents. Massport will continue to work with the Corps to encourage including other appropriate
environmental performance standards into the construction contracts. Massport will, in all likelihood, have
no formal contractual relationship with the dredging contractor. Even in the privately-owned berths, it is
expected that the Corps will maintain control over the dredging contractor. Consequently, it remains a
Massport priority to have enforceable performance standards included in the dredging contract
It is expected that the Corps will include specific monitoring requirements in the construction contract. In
addition, Massport will work with the Corps to assure that adequate independent monitoring of the dredging
and disposal work during construction and to assure periodic monitoring of the cap is conducted. Post-
construction monitoring is the sole responsibility of the Corps of Engineers.
Massport will provide planning assistance to the Commonwealth for future disposal of contaminated
maintenance material. In the Final Environmental Impact Report submitted to the Commonwealth in June
1995 Massport provided the results of a major information-gathering exercise in the area of alternative
technologies. We will continue to work with the state in pursuit of long-term solutions.
Massport takes these commitments very seriousK. I look forward to working together to make the
Massachusetts Bays CCMP successful in protecting me important resources of the Bays.
Very truly yours.
Ralph F. Cox
Maritime Director
MBBW»ri8RIDSE''rlWSSOT|!lffl) • BOSTON FISH PIER • COMMONWEALTH PIER (SITE OF WORLD TRADE CENTO BOSTON)
G-7
-------
G-8
-------
MBP Response to Ralph Cox, Massport
Please note the amended language on both the
permitting process and agency responsibilities in
the Chapter IV megaproject discussion "Boston
Harbor Navigation Improvement Project." This
updated material is based on recent conversations
with, and information provided by, Janeen Hansen
(Massport) and Cathy Demos (ACOE).
Also, please note the revisions to the "Recom-
mended Actions" section in the same megaproject
discussion.
G-9
-------
G-10
-------
Received from Scon R. Lundgren, Commander First Coast Guard District - Marine Safety Division
Alan-
I have taken a look at your: letter and agree that the information
on the Coast Guard could be improved, j found a fax that I sent
to you (a while back) with updated information for several parts
of the plan, which included a more accurate description of the
Coast Guard's missions in the environmental arena, which I have
included on the next page; please incorporate this into Appendix
A.
I need to talk to you about paragraph 6 of the "Action Plan for
Reducing and Preventing Oil Pollution", which is inaccurate. I
supplied an accurate description of oil spill response in the fax
mentioned above, but it referenced other sections from the 12/91
comprehensive plan. I'm sorry that I missed this when Dan and I
came to OMass Boston - I think we were concentrating on the
specific actions, which are accurate.
2 Below is some of the wording from my comments on the Si plan
which seems to fit here and accurately describee our response to
oil spills:
The party responsible for an oil discharge that affects navigable
waters is required to adequately respond under the Federal water
Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended, The Coast Guard On-
Scene Coordinator (OSC) and the State OSC from the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection will ensure that the
responsible party adequately responds to. such spills, .if a
response is not adequate,, the Coast Guard and the State will
direct response actions. The spiller is liable for money spent
by the Coast Guard or State during a response. The Coast Guard
owns oil spill containment and recovery equipment and can call
upon a spill response Strike Team for additional .assistance, but
will primarily rely on contracted resources. A spiller is also
required to provide compensation to restore or replace natural
resources damaged by a spill.
3 While you are on that page, it is Exxon Valdez vice Valdeez
G-ll
-------
•as.
A -
The U. S. Coast Guard ensures that vessels and marine transportation
related facilities are in compliance with numerous federal
regulations promulgated to reduce environmental impacts in the
'coastal zone. Pollution prevention and safety are critical to the
safety of the marine environment. When accidents happen, the coast
Guard has responsibility under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA), as amended, and the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, to monitor and direct the
removal of oil or hazardous substances from the coastal zone. The
Coast Guard under authority of amendments to the FWPCA ensures
compliance with Marine Sanitation Device regulations. Certain vessel
waste disposal policies set by the international Convention for
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) are implemented in the
U.S. through the Aot to Prevent Pollution from Ships and the Ports
and Waterways Safety Act. The Coast Guard ensures that vessels and
facilities meet the standards of the regulations during inspections,
boardings, routine patrols, and investigations...
Other Coast Guard missions, such as maintaining navigational aids,
support marine environmental protection by ensuring the safety of life
and property on the navigable waters. Additionally, the Coast Guard
enforces regulations promulgated by other agencies, such as the
National Marine Fisheries Service, that ensure appropriate use of our
marine resources.
G-12
-------
MBP Response to Scott Lundgren, First Coast Guard District
1 Please note expanded U.S. Coast Guard mission
description in Appendix A - Management Frame-
work.
Please note revised discussion on oil spill response
in introduction to Action Plan #6 (Reducing and
Preventing Oil Pollution).
Spelling corrected as noted.
G-13
-------
G-14
-------
Massachusetts Sierra dub 3 Joy Street Boston MA 02108 (617)227-5339
January 31, 1995
Ruth Knykendall
Massachusetts Bays Program Office
Room 2006
100 Cambridge St
Boston, MA 02202
By.
Comments Submitted on the CCMP on Behalf of the Massachusetts Chapter of the
Sierra Club
Genera] Comments
This letter contains the comments of the Massachusetts Chapter-Sierra dub on the Massachusetts
Bays 1995 Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) final draft document This
plan is well written and contains a good description of the four priority areas chosen by (he
Massachusetts Bays Program for emphasis: shellfish bed closings, nutrient enrichment of coastal
embayments, reductions of toxics inputs, and restoration of 12 wetlands with restricted tidal flow.
These reflect the.major manmade stressors in the inshore region of Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts
Bay. It might be useful to address the major offshore anthropogenic stressor in these waters which is
the direct and indirect effects of fisheries harvesting (Pearce and Wallace, 1995). The other general
observation is that although it is obviously true that these problems have to be approached through
'actions of the general citizenry, local town government units, state agencies, arid their Federal
counterparts, there is no mechanism described in the CCMP to coordinate these actions, so that they
move forward smoothly in an organized fashion. A model might.be the Gulf of Maine Council for the
Marine Environment which coordinates actions on a regional ?cal? between staie/provincial/Federal
governments while involving NGO (non government organization) participants. In the short run
Chapter 6 suggests that the Mass Bays program may provide this coordination function.
. In the assessment of which embayments are nitrogen sensitive, it would be helpful to also identify the
major sources of nitrogen loading for the regional authorities mat will have to remediate. Mass Bays
should mink more about the structure for regions and communities to address their nitrogen loading
problems to prevent squabbling amongst authorities and to give them guidance. This would also be a
very good way to start addressing watershed-wide nitrogen loading problems.
The CCMP suggests thatDEP take over the NPDES program and we are not sure that DEP can handle
this. Adding another task to the understaffed and underfunded agency seems destined for problems,
unless funding is provided as well. EPA Region 1 might have a better understanding of Gun" of Maine
sources and make better long term choices to manage the problem.
Fisheries Harvesting
As pointed oat by the Water Resources and Coastal and Marine Environmental Research
Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) resource use (fisheries) must be
related to ecosystem stability (Boesch and Urban, 1995). Similarly Mclntyre (1995) pointed out that
more damage has been done to marine organisms in the ocean from excessive fishing activity than by
pollution. In the Gulf of Maine (which subsumes die Massachusetts Bays Program area) fisheries
G-15
-------
-2- . .
harvesting has impacted the abundance and species composition of both targeted species (cod, haddock,
yellow tail flounder, winter flounder, lobsters, etc.) and non-targeted species (harbor porpoises, benthic
invertebrates, noncommercial fish species, undersized commercial fish species, etc.) (Pearce and
Wallace, 1995). For example the National Marine Fisheries Service has estimated me incidental
mortality of harbor porpoise due to primarily the sink gill net fishery was 1200 to 2000 animals between
1990 and 1993 (which is more than 2% of the estimated population level). Efforts have been made to
list this species on the Federal Endangered Species list (Blaylock and Waring, 1995). The muMspecies
groundfish harvesting has depleted cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder populations, while enhancing
the population size of sfratrvs, dogfish, sea herring, and Atlantic mackerel This dramatic change in the
composition of the fish community is likely to have impacts on other components of the ecosystem such
as marine mammals and seabirds which utilize many of the same prey items as do fish. Recent research
has also detected impacts of bottom trawling on benthic invertebrates (especially epibenthic forms) which
is likely to have impacts on the demersal food chain (Auster and Malatesta, 1995). Thus the ecological
sustainability of the offshore region of the Massachusetts Bays area is threatened by the direct and
indirect effects of excessive fisheries harvesting.
Potential actions that the Massachusetts Bays Program could support to help alleviate some of the
direct and indirect affects of fisheries harvesting include:
• Support the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary's call for a 100 square mile no fishing zone in
the sanctuary to study the- impacts of otter trawls on the benthic invertebrates.
t Encourage the Hew England Fishery Management Council to establish a non-extractive reserve (Auster
and Malatesta, 1995) on Georges Bank which would cover the spawning areas for cod and haddock. .
This would represent an expansion of Area U that is proposed for seasonal closure under Amendment 7
to the New England multispecies groundfish plan. A non-extractive reserve area would be permanently
closed to fishing, thus allowing a recovery area that could provide a source for replenishing groundfish
stocks elsewhere (source and sink concept for metapopulations).
• Support the National Marine Fisheries Service in the establishment of a Take Reduction Team that
would develop methods to reduce the mortality of harbor porpoises from the New England sink gill net
fishery.
• Encourage the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries in its efforts to close fishing in areas
occupied by important habitats such as kelp beds and sea grass beds.
Specific Comments
The following specific comments refer to pages in the text of the CCMP.
• ni-58: The poDution plumes at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) are not all moving
towards Vineyard Sound, in fact the Landfill Plume has just entered Buzzards Bay.
• V-3: The CCMP emphasizes the closure of shellfish beds due to pathogens, but does not examine the
role of biotoxins (such as paralytic shellfish poisoning) in closing shellfish beds in the Massachusetts
bays region. Even though the exact cause of the red tide events that produce biotoxin contamination of
shellfish is not known, die biotoxin problem has been spreading down the coast of the Gulf of Maine for
years, with red tide events now occurring periodically in Cape Cod Bay. Although the cause and effect
relationship is not known, it should not be overlooked that some evidences suggest that anthropogenic
influences may exacerbate red tide events. Also there are transport mechanisms that can bring these
events into the Massachusetts Bays region from other source areas where red tide events are more
common.
G-16
-------
-3-
• V-33: Municipal Action #3.4 should address vernal pools as well as permanent wetland types, since
many state listed species on Cape Cod are associated with either vernal pools or seasonally variable
7 ponds (such as Mary Dunn Pond in Hyannis). Many vernal pools are threatened by nutrient enrichment
from septic systems, while Mary Dunn pond has gone dry in some years-due to excessive water
pumping by the water company. The CCMP includes watershed controls on nonpoint sources of
pollution to Massachusetts and Cape Cod bays and mas it should also look at wetlands protection in a
more holistic fashion (especially given their role in supporting listed species).
•V-S7: Municipal Action #4.1 will require that the coordination of multiple jurisdictions for its successful
8 implementation. For example, when the Black Beach District of Critical Planning Concern (DCPQ was
designated the boundaries didn't include the major sources of upland water quality problems. Route 28A
(state highway department jurisdiction) nor Hamblin Hills development (Falmouth Planning Board
jurisdiction), which means that the Falmouth Conservation Commission will need help in protecting, this
barrier beach/salt marsh system from both excessive construction activities and water quality problems.
• V-67: Massachusetts Highway Department Action #4.6 emphasizes incorporating storm water impact1;
into the Highway Design Manual, but it is equally important to incorporate impacts on wetlands. Many
9 highway projects in wetland areas alter the hydrology which results in standing water which can result in
loss of the wetland vegetation from the accumulation of hydrogen snlfide in the soil pore water and
changes in me discharge of sediments which can impact the integrity of the wetland. Intact wetlands
provide important benefits as wildlife habitat, controlling flooding, and reducing the input of nonpoint
sources of pollution. It is not clear why the targeted advocacy groups didnt include the Massachusetts
Chapter-Sierra Club, since we have had a long term involvement in issues related to highway
development impacts on air quality (Central Artery/Third Tunnel) and wetlands (Route 2).
• V-133: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Action #9.1 in relation to the Massachusetts Bay
1/\ Disposal Site (MBDS) capping experiment, it needs to utilize nontoxic sediments in this trial. The
••• U Massachusetts Chanter-Sierra fTuh is eenerallv ormosed tn fhft offshore disnnsal of contaminated dredge
spoils. The ACQE standards for dredge spoil disposal are based upon the characteristics of the dredge
spoils in order to decide whether the sediments .are operationally defined as being safe for offshore
disposal. -The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should develop sediment quality criteria
(SQC) for the receiving sediments offshore, so that the sediments at the MBDS do not exceed the SQCs
as a result of "clean", dredge spoil disposal, much less the potential impact of attempting to cap
"contaminated" dredge spoils in deep water.
• V-139: Municipal Action #10. 1 on implementing a marine debris reduction program needs to be
1 1 supplemented by action by the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) 10 deal with the
problem of abandoned fishing gear which goes on 'ghost fishing " after its disposal offshore. This
"ghost fishing" gear can harm or kill fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds.
• V-141 : The discussion of the tool nitrogen entering the Massachusetts Bays region appears to ignore
I /* the fact that the major source of nitrogen to the Gulf of Maine is inflow of water through the Northeast
1^ Channel (Christensen et al... 1992). thus the percentages from point sources listed should probably he
identified as m$nm?fo sources of nitrogen to the system.
• V-146: The identification of nitrogen sensitive embayments by Regional Planning Agencies/Ma. Dcpt.
of Environmental Protection/Municipalities from nitrogen loading models is likely to require expertise
and data that are not readily available to these organizations. Since the response of the system to
nitrogen loading is the area of public concern, the secchi disc depth test might serve only as an early
indicator of system eutrophication. While this test is not ideal for these purposes, it would be easy and
inexpensive to measure by the shell fish wardens: A long term record might give a measure of decreased
water transparency resulting from increased chlorophyll abundance in coastal abayments. Areas would
need to be identified where existing conditions, such as other suspended solids or pollutants, might
render this test inaccurate to avoid false positives. Also, the data would need to be separated from
increased turbidity due to other events O-e. storm or spill) mixing sediments into the water column.
G-17
-------
When a diminishment of water quality has been noted, then it might be useful to analyze the sources of
nitrogen and develop more detailed predictive nitrogen loading models than those utilized by the Waquoit
Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (on a site specific basis). We emphasize mat me secchi depth
test would serve as only a trigger to conduct more in-depth modeling studies.
• V-164: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) Action #12.5 on using the Sea Paths '
14 Program to gain public access to the intertidal areas of the Massachusetts coast that are in private hands is
probably an endeavor that is doomed to failure. The Cape Cod Group-Sierra Club had representatives at
a meeting in Brewster on the Sea Paths program and it generated much anger between the homeowners
that owned beach front property and the general public which desired increased access. Many beach
front property owners were concerned about the lack of a state enforcement effort for this program and
damage to their land or liability for injuries suffered by hikers. Traditionally towns people have been
able to walk along the intertidal areas in Brewster on an informal basis, but the Sea Paths program
perceived threats has caused many shoreline owners to post their property. It is unlikely mat enough
property owners would agree to easements to allow a coastal hiking path to be developed. It is also
likely mat homeowners granting easements would be at war with'neighbors that didnt desire to do so.
Thus the Sea Paths Program appears to.be exacerbating the lack of public access to the shoreline.
In closing, we commend Mass Bays for recommending not only educational programs within the
schools, but for also exploring non-traditional means to educate non-coastal residents as to their role in
coastal problems. Thank you for considering our comments on the CCMP.
Yours truly,
. Q
-------
References
Auster, PJ. and RJ. Malatesta. 1995. Assessing the role of non-extractive reserves for enhancing
harvested populations in temperate and boreal systems, pp.82-89 in Marine Protected Areas and
Sustainable Fisheries ed.. by N. Shackell and J.H.M. Willison; Science and Management of Protected
Areas Association; WolfviBe, Nova Scotia.
Blaylock, B. and G. Waring. 1995. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments.
NCAA/National Marine Fisheries Service Technical Memorandum.
Boesch, D.F. and E.R. Urban, Jr. 1995. Priorities for coastal ecosystem science—a review.
Oceanography 8:97-99. .
Christensen, J.P., D.B. Smith, and L.M. Mayer. 1992. The nitrogen budget of the Gulf of Maine and
climate change, pp. 75-90 in Proceedings of die Gulf of Maine Scientific Workshop, 8-10 January
199L ed.. by Jack Wiggin and Christopher N.K. Mooers; Univ. Massa.-Boston-Urban Harbors
Insimute.
Mclntyre, A.D. 1995. Human impact on the oceans: the 1990s and beyond. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 31:
147-151.
Pearce, J. and G. Wallace. 1995. The Health of the Gulf of Maine Ecosystem: Cumulative Impacts of
Multiple Stressors Exectuive Summary. RARGOM repon 95-1; Hanover, N.H.
G-19
-------
G-20
-------
MBP Response to James McCaffrey, Massachusetts Chapter Sierra Club
The CCMP discusses the issue of overfishing of
major commercial finfish species hi Massachusetts
Bays and the resultant severe economic hardship
on traditional fishing-dependant communities such
as Gloucester. It states that "...overfishing is
generally considered to be the primary cause of
the current crisis in the fishing industry", but also
recognizes that "...pollution and habitat loss are
thought to play a role as well, especially among
fish mat spawn nearshore or are anadromous." In
order to shed further light on this complex issue,
the MBP has funded the development of a White
Paper and will be hosting a workshop which will
explore the factors impacting the region's declin-
ing offshore fish stocks. Please refer to the
discussion on "fishing" in The Human Habitat
section of Chapter n (The State of the Bays).
With respect to coordination of the various CCMP
implementation actions, the CCMP describes a
multi-agency implementation mechanism that is
based on several highly successful Massachusetts
models, including the MBP's innovative MBP /
Regional Planning Agency / Local Governance
Committee partnership. Please refer to Chapter
VI (Implementing the CCMP Throughout the Bays
Watershed) for a detailed discussion of the CCMP
implementation strategy.
Based on the recommendations of a working group
convened by the MBP in March of 1995, the MBP
has funded a first-tier nitrogen analysis project
which is determining nitrogen sources, estimating
nitrogen loading based on land use categories, and
calculating oceanic nitrogen loading for selected
embayments. The results of this project will be a
first approximation of the coastal embayments
likely to be at risk of eutrophication. Once the
major sources are identified, more refined loading
estimates and appropriate reduction strategies will
be developed. Please refer to RPA / DEP / Munic-
ipal Action #11.2 in Action Plan #11 (Managing
Nitrogen-sensitive Embayments) of Chapter V.
ration with EOEA and CZM officials, and has the
strong support of each of these agencies.
Please refer to Response #1 above regarding the
fisheries over-harvesting issue. As demonstrated
by the MBP's funding of the offshore fisheries
White Paper and workshop, the MBP is concerned
about threats to the ecological diversity and
sustainabilhy of the offshore waters and sediments
of Massachusetts Bays, and will seek out opportu-
nities to work cooperatively with other interested
parties (e.g., Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary program. New England Fisheries
Management Council, National Marine Fisheries
Service, and Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries) to explore potential actions to alleviate
these threats.
The CCMP has been revised to reflect the various
flow directions of the multiple pollution plumes
emanating from the Massachusetts Military Reser-
vation (MMR) on Cape Cod. Please refer to the
amonrieH "Water Quality" discussion hi the Cape
Cod Region section of Chapter HI.
The discussion on shellfish bed closures due to
pathogen contamination has been expanded to
include a brief description of the periodic problem
of paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), a naturally-
occurring biotoxin. Please refer to the "Shellfish
Bed Contamination" discussion hi Chapter n (The
State of the Bays).
The CCMP has been revised to include a refer-
ence to vernal pools and seasonally variable
ponds, as well as permanent wetland types.
Please refer to Municipal Action #3.4 hi Action
Plan #3 (Protecting and Enhancing Coastal Habi-
tat) of Chapter V.
The CCMP recommendation that DEP assume
responsibility for administering the NPDES pro-
gram was developed by DEP personnel in consul-
8 The CCMP has been revised to include a discus-
sion of the need for multi-jurisdictional coordina-
tion and implementation whenever stormwater
G-21
-------
sources and impacts cross municipal boundaries.
Please refer to Municipal Action #4.1 in Action
Plan #4 (Reducing and Preventing Stormwater
Pollution) of Chapter V.
The Massachusetts Highway Department's pro-
posed comprehensive Environmental Manual will
not be limited to addressing stonnwater impacts
only. Highway and bridge construction impacts to
wetlands, water supplies, and other sensitive
resource areas will be covered as well.
10 An approved capping demonstration project for the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) would
employ only sediments which meet EPA's estab-
lished Ocean Dumping Criteria. In evaluating and
approving the suitability of sediment for disposal
at the MBDS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE), the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and the Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts utilize the federal tiered testing protocol.
This protocol requires testing for both sediment
chemistry and biological effects (e.g., toxicity and
bioaccumulation). Results from these tests are
compared to similar tests performed on clean
reference sediments near the MBDS according to
the Ocean Dumping Criteria. In addition, the
Commonwealth also compares project sediment
chemistry concentrations to those of existing State
guidelines. Finally, any capping demonstration
project at the MBDS would utilize forthcoming
guidance currently being developed under a EPA
/ ACOE national effort related to capping design
and implementation.
With respect to sediment quality criteria, EPA has
adopted five of these criteria for selected polycy-
clic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and pesticides,
and is currently developing additional standards
for a number of metals. At this time, EPA and
ACOE have not determined how existing and
future criteria will be used in the regulatory
review process applicable to dredging projects.
11 Actions to be taken by the New England Fisheries
Management Council (NEFMC) relative to aban-
doned fishing gear and other offshore fisheries
management issues were beyond the scope of the
current Massachusetts Bays Program.
12 The discussion on nitrogen inputs to Massachu-
setts has been amended to include a reference to
ocean water inflow as a significant nitrogen con-
tributor. Please refer to the introductory section
of Action Plan #11 (Managing Nitrogen-sensitive
Embayments) of Chapter V..
13 The coastal Regional Planning Agencies and DEP
have competent technical staff with broad exper-
tise in water quality, land use, and related environ-
mental issues. Any specialized additional training
mat might be required to develop and apply nitro-
gen loading models to the region's watersheds and
embayment areas can be arranged on an as-needed
basis through die MBP and the interagency work-
ing group.
14 According to DEM's Coastal Access Planner, the
comments regarding the Sea Path Program contain
several factual errors - e.g., "Traditionally towns
people have been able to walk along the intertidal
areas in Brewster on an informal basis, but the Sea
Paths program perceived threats has caused many
shoreline landowners to post their property." In
fact, according to both Brewster citizens and
officials responsible for the coastal zone, there
have been no additional postings since the issue
was raised in the community. All agree that it
would be difficult to post the intertidal zone at all.
Furthermore, owners expressing their concerns at
the Brewster public meeting did not refer publicly
to liability, and did not express an interest in more
state enforcement of Sea Paths. (In fact, misgiv-
ings were expressed about formal beach staff.)
The larger issue is how best to address the com-
plex and emotionally charged issue of improving
public coastal access. There is no question that
many shoreline landowners react negatively to the
idea of either formalizing existing public use or
opening beaches to walkers. However, such
reactions are not unusual. They are voiced in
response to nearly any type of proposed trail,
reflecting general fears of the impact of outsiders
and government control of their land. Over the
last few decades, the coastline in Massachusetts
has experienced an enormous fragmentation of lots
and ownership, huge increases in property values,
expanding non-resident ownership, and a growing
population. While some landowners say that they
will continue to informally allow public use, they,
and the subsequent owners of the land, are simply
not bound to do so. The implication of this hits
home when citizens are shocked to find areas
closed to them that they traditionally enjoyed - in
certain areas of Brewster (the focus of the Sierra
Club's comment), in neighboring communities like
G-22
-------
Dennis, in Island communities such as Edgartown,
in north shore communities like Rockport, and
many others.
Hie Sea Path Program cannot address these issues
by itself. To be effective, such a program needs
to be one of an assortment of planning, acquisi-
tion, and regulatory tools, integrated into a com-
prehensive approach that includes a variety of
public and private project proponents. For its own
pan, the Sea Path Program is slowly building
partnerships with nonprofits and municipalities
regarding particular areas of concern. It may be
slow to establish legal rights-of-way due to the
significant barriers faced, but there is no evidence
that the program is "exacerbating the lack of
public access to the shoreline." The Department
of Environmental Management has indicated that
it is open to suggestions about how to address this
complicated issue, and invites the Sierra Club and
other groups to work with Department personnel
to help achieve the goal of unproved, secure, well-
managed public coastal access.
G-23
-------
G-24
-------
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
January 30,1996 .-^infem Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Massachusetts Historical Commission
Peg Brady
Director
Coastal Zone Management
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
RE: Massachusetts Bays 1995 Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan. MHC #16075.
Dear Ms. Brady:
Thank you for your letter of January 17, and a copy of the Draft Final Plan for the Massachusetts
Bays Program. Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission have reviewed the information you
submitted.
For MBP-funded or assisted projects, applicants might not be aware of the requirement for MHC
review of projects with federal or state funding, licenses, permits, and approvals. As an alternative to
1 the procedures you suggested, MHC recommends that CZM have its grant applicants submit to. the
1 MHC a Project Notification Form (PNF. 950 CMR 71, Appendix A), which would include a
photocopy of the relevant section of a USGS quadrangle map that clearly shows the boundaries of the
proposed project area, as well as larger scale plans. MHC would review this information to determine
whether or not the project is likely to impact any significant historic or archaeological resources. CZM
could include the submittal of the PNF on a checklist on its grant application materials, similar to that
used by other agencies (e.g.. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of Conservation Services, DEP, etc.).
In preparing the Final Plan, MHC recommends that additional information be provided. Feel free to
use the text of this letter, in preparing revisions to the sections indicated.
Chapter II, The State of the Bays, should include a section on Cultural Resources. This section could
briefly summarize the human use of the bays first by Native American groups beginning
approximately 12,000 years ago (when the continental shelf was exposed as a broad coastal plain), and
2 continuing into the present. A recent survey of data at the MHC indicates that the coastal region has .
the highest density of ancient archaeological sites in the state. Marine resources have been a significant
part of Native American subsistence strategies for millennia. European explorers were initially attracted
to the bays for its fishing potential in the 15th century, and much of the early colonial settlement was
oriented there. Important aspects of Massachusetts' history are related to its sea-faring industries, and
dependence on the maritime trades and economies. Important historic and archaeological resources are
present in the coastal areas and in the bays, including habitation areas (some now submerged), historic
shipwrecks, marine-dependent structures (wharves, lighthouses, etc.), and archaeological sites located
in the coastal areas, such as Native American habitation areas and villages, historical settlements,
historical marine industries (historic ships, shipyards, saltworks, fish flakes, etc.). These resources
define the character of the region's cultural heritage, and provide a better understanding of its
historical development. Cultural resources are both finite and non-renewable, but sustainable.
220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125- (617) 727-8470
Fax: (617) 727-5128 TDD: 1-800-392-6090
' Fax:(617)727-5128 TDD: 1-800-392^6090'
G-25
-------
Implementation of projects that involve excavation, new construction, demolition, an'd rehabilitation
. have the potential to affect historic and archaeological resources, and need to be carefully planned to
take into account their effects on the region's cultural resources.
Chapter V, Action Plans, should include a section on protecting and enhancing historic and
archaeological resources in the bays. This could include a discussion of the need to locate and identify
~ historic properties, evaluating their significance in terms of the local, regional, and statewide historical
•^ contexts developed by the MHC, evaluating proposed project impacts to these resources, and planning
new projects to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to cultural resources. Protecting and
preserving the historical, character-defining elements of the bays adds to the state's aesthetic and
cultural environment, encourages the traditional uses of the coast and bays for fishing, transportation,
recreation, etc., and fosters an appreciation of coastal resources for residents and tourists. New projects
proposed that will require federal or state funding, licenses, permits, and approvals, require review by
the MHC.
Appendix A, The Management Framework in Massachusetts Bays, should include a short description
.of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation under federal agencies; the MHC and the
4 Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources under state agencies; and. Local
Historical Commissions and Local Historic District Commissions under local agencies.
For federal agencies, you should add the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The
ACHP is an independent federal agency established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
The ACHP reviews federally-assisted projects that affect historic properties and works with other
federal agencies and the State Historic Preservation Officers (see MHC) to avoid or reduce harm to
those properties under 36 CFR 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16 USC 470f; 1992). The ACHP, which has published several
guides to the federal historic preservation review process, is headquartered at 1100 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Suite 809, Washington, DC 20004, Tel. 202-606-8505.
For state agencies, add a section on the MHC. A brochure of MHC's programs is enclosed. The MHC
was established in 1963 to assist in protecting and preserving the state's significant historic and
archaeological resources. The passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966 created a
broad,, national historic preservation program, and directed each state to appoint a State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), who is responsible for implementing the provisions of the NHPA at the
state level, for coordinating local, state, and federal preservation efforts, and for developing
comprehensive, statewide historic preservation planning. In Massachusetts, the SHPO is the Executive
Director of the MHC. In carrying out its mandates under both state and federal law, the MHC has
developed a number of historic preservation programs, including: compiling and maintaining a
statewide inventory of historic and archaeological resources; nomination of significant properties to the
National Register of Historic Places; technical preservation assistance to municipalities, to state and
federal agencies, and to the public; involvement in environmental review and historic preservation
planning for state and federally-assistoti'pjsjeaeai• grencs-wy-gid''pg&giai.a'for• historic preservation
activities; and a broad public information program.
MHC reviews projects that require federal or state funding, licenses, permits, and approvals, under
Section 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16 USC 470f &
470h-2, 1992) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), and MGL c. 9, ss. 26-27C (950 CMR
71). This review process identifies historic and archaeological resources that may be affected by new
construction, demolition, and rehabilitation, and provides a formal consultation process that seeks
alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to significant cultural resources.
G-26
-------
The MHC is also the Office of the Massachusetts State Archaeologist, who issues permits for
archaeological investigations on public lands, projects under review by municipalities, counties, and -
state and federal agencies, under the provisions of MGL c. 9, ss. 26A and 27C (950 CMR 70). The
permit process ensures the conservation of archaeological resources and the highest quality of
archaeological research. The State Archaeologist reviews permit applications for archaeological
investigations to evaluate the qualifications of archaeological research teams and the soundness of
archaeological research programs. The State Archaeologist also responds to the accidental discovery of.
human remains believed to be 100 years old or older under MGL c. 9, s. 27C and c. 38, s. 68, and
assists in the preservation of ancient burial places under MGL c. 7, s. 38 and c. 114, s.. 17.
MHC has developed a revised Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Plan (1995), and has
published regional overviews of the historic and archaeological resources that are relevant to the
coastal regions. These include Historic and Archaeological Resources of the Boston Area. Historic and
Archaeological Resources of Southeast Massachusetts, and Historic and Archaeological Resources of
Cape Cod and the Islands.
Also under state agencies, you should add a section on the Massachusetts Board of Underwater
Archaeological Resources (BUAR). I understand that you have sent the BUAR a copy of the draft plan
for their review .and comment Information on the BUAR's legislative history, review authority, and
programs of BUAR can be obtained from its Director, Victor. Mastone at EOEA. Coordination under
the Federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act (43 USC 2101-2106) and Guidelines (55 Fed. Reg. 50116-
50145) might be included in this section.
For local agencies, you should add Local Historical Commissions (established under MGL c. 40, s.
8O) and Local Historic District Commissions (established under MGL c. 40, s. 40C). I am enclosing a
broadsheet that explains the different roles and responsibilities for these two different kinds of
commissions. Local historical commissions vary widely in the role they may have in reviewing and
commenting on local projects, while local historic district commissions undertake regulatory design
review within established local historic districts. Addresses for local historical commissions and
historic district commissions can be provided by the MHC.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft plan. If you have any
questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact me.
^Sincerely,
Edwari L. Bell
Senior Archaeologist
Massachusetts Historical Commission
xc: Victor Mastone, EOEA/Bpard of Underwater Archaeological Resources
Susan Coin, EPA, Region 1
Enclosures (Program brochure, pub. list, SHPP. LHD/LHDC/LHS info)
G-27
-------
G-28
-------
MBP Response to Edward Bell, Massachusetts Historical Commission
For MBP-funded projects, MBP will require
applicants to submit to MHC a Project Notification
Form, as requested. In addition, when Massachu-
setts Bays Program project staff provide grant-
writing assistance to community applicants seeking
other sources of funding from the state or federal
government, MBP will work with the applicants to
ensure compliance with the requirement for MHC
review. Please refer also to Appendix K, "Na-
tional Historic Preservation Act."
Please note addition of "Cultural Resources"
discussion to Chapter EL
The Action Plans in Chapter V address the spe-
cific priority issues identified by the MBP Man-
agement Conference at the outset of the Program.
These issues relate primarily to water and sedi-
ment quality, habitat, and living marine resources
protection. Nevertheless, to the extent that future
CCMP implementation activities may involve or
impact any of the region's historic and cultural
resources, MBP will explore opportunities to work
collaboratively with local and state preservation
officials to help preserve and enhance these re-
sources.
Please note addition of descriptions of the refer-
enced federal, state, and local historic preservation
entities to Appendix A - The Management Frame-
work, nvfridmg- the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP), the Massachusetts Histori-
cal Commission (MHC), Local Historical Com-
missions, and Local Historic District Commis-
sions.
G-29
-------
G-30
-------
*Jn& wcwimonuiteculn' o£\dla
C'aaon^dM^£a^€^tc&;i5uilalina'
'o&fan,, ^vtnAAacnAt&e/&> OS202 727-3193
February 1, 1996
Ms. Diane Gould, Director
Mass Bays Program
Coastal Zone Management
100 Cambridge Street. 20th Floor
Boston, MA 02202
.Dear Diane,
The .Division has reviewed the revisions and excepts from the
December 1995 draft CCMP for the Mass Bays Program. We have
several comments on the revisions some of which are minor in
nature. The comments are as follows:
i. On page Roman Numeral-V, paragraph 2 under "Estuaries as Fish
and Waterfowl Habitat". It is noted that Massachusetts Bay
and Boston Harbor support some of the largest anadroraous runs
of rainbow smelt in our coastal waters. In recent years most
of the state's smelt fisheries have sharply declined..
Presently Boston Harbor is one of the few regions where viable
smelt fishery still exists. The three top rivers for smelt
production in Massachusetts bay are the Neponset River, Back
River and Fore River. • The enclosed report is offered for your
review and may provide a useful citation on anadromous fish in
. either this section or Section C of the chapter on the Metro
Boston region.
2. On page Roman Numeral V-3, item 2.2. This appears to be a new
recommended.action for the Division of Marine Fisheries. While
we agree that it would benefit the Commonwealth and cities and
towns,- we note that we are already assisting cities and towns
in the development of shellfish management plans and that our
current priority is to fully fund and staff our own shellfish
management program before providing financial assistance to
cities and towns. If new funds became available for a grant
program we would certainly support that effort but only after
full funding of our shellfish program.
3. On Page Roman Numeral V-4, action item 3.11. We support the
item to provide an up-to-date inventory of anadromous fish
runs in the Massachusetts Bays region but we point out that
this should be 'a cooperative effort between the Division of
Marine Fisheries and the Riverways Program within the
G-31
-------
Department, since the management authority rests with the
Division of Marine Fisheries tinder Chapter 130.
4. On page Roman Numeral V-65.V-85 and V-103, action numbers 4.5,
5.5, 7a.2. All of these action items involve the NPDES permit
program which is jointly administered with EPA and DEP. We
suggest that the action items also include DEP . as a
cooperator .
5. On page Roman Numeral V-126, paragraph 1, last sentence. It
should be noted that proposals for funding have been .solicited
from coastal communities and approximately $1 million dollars
has been released for project construction and implementation.
6. On page Roman Numeral V-149 and 150, action item 12.1. This
action item discussed the need to enhance public access along
the shoreline but includes no mention of recreational fishing
access. The nearest reference is of the colonial ordinance
and that reserves the public's rights of "fishing, fowling,
and navigation" in the intertidal zone. We are concerned that
the inference could be drawn that there is adequate
recreational fishing access and opportunities in Massachusetts
Bay when in fact fishing access has been greatly diminished in
recent years especially for. the metropolitan Boston area. The
increasing population on the coast along . with associated
changes in waterfront development and use have severely
limited the options of the average angler. Massachusetts
Public Access Board has attempted to address the problem in
recent years by construction and repairing of boat ramps in
the Massachusetts bay region. These efforts should be
applauded but greater support is needed to continue the
program. The other part of the problem is that there .is
little access for those anglers who fish from shore. Little
progress has been made to gain greater shorefront access for
this type of activity. We strongly recommend that the topic
of recreational fishing access be recognized in action plan
12.1 and that the construction of recreational fishing piers
should be highlighted as a public access initiative.
If you need further information on our comments please contact
either myself or Brad Chase at Cat Cove Marine Laboratory
(telephone 617-727-3958) for assistance. We appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the draft.
Sincerely,
.w. Leigh Bridges
Assistant Director
cc: Jim Fair
Brad Chase
Mike Hickey
.Ruth Kuykendall, MBP
G-32
-------
MBP Response to W. Leigh Bridges, Division of Marine Fisheries
1 Please note expanded discussion on anadromous
fish in "Estuaries as Fish and Wildlife Habitat"
section of Chapter n.
DMF action item #2.2 (The Division of Marine
Fisheries should develop and administer a local
Shellfish Management Grants program to help
communities finance the development and imple-
mentation of effective local shellfish management
plans) was developed in collaboration with DMF
personnel in 1994. Its continued strong support by
DMF was reaffirmed by James Fair, DMF Assis-
tant Director, in a recent conversation with MBP
staff..
Please note addition of Riverways Program as a
cooperator in DMF action item #3.11 (The Divi-
sion of Marine Fisheries, in cooperation with the
Riverways Program, should prepare an up-to-date
inventory of anadromous fish runs in the Massa-
chusetts Bays region and develop a strategy to
prioritize, restore, and maintain these runs).
Please note inclusion of DEP as a cooperator
under the "Responsible Agents" listed for each of
the action items referenced.
Please note addition of grant figure (approximately
$1 million) to introductory section of Action Plan
#8 (Managing Boat Wastes and Marina Pollution).
Please note expanded discussion on recreational
fishing access in introductory section of Action
Plan #12 (Enhancing Public Access and the Work-
ing Waterfront).
G-33
-------
G-34
-------
Bl-lS-1996 11:40*1 . SteJlaagen Bank WS 5087471949 P.02
NATIONAL OCEAN S8MCE
OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
SANCTUARIES AM> RESERVES OVISiaN
3Mw«gen Bmk NcteMl UariM SMon»y
(SOS) 747-1691. (508) 747-1049 PAX
16 January, 1996
Diane Gould, Ph-D., Executive Director
Massachusetts Bays. Program
100 Cambridge Street Room 2006
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
Transmitted via FAX (617-727-2754)
Dear Diane:
I have reviewed a copy of the changes to the 1995 Draft final CCMP and was
disappointed to discover feat none of my comments, provided to Tara Tracy via FAX
on 28 September/1995, appear to have been incorporated into the most ieuei.it draft. I
recognize that die MBP seems to have made the determination to focus on nearshore
environments and activities, but where the offshore resources are discussed, I believe
it is important to be a thorough, complete, and correct
I indude a copy of the letter I FAXd to Tara here in hopes that you will reconsider
including them in the final CCMP. The substantive comments on page 2 of the letter
are little more than clarifications and what we feel axe necessary additions. While
these do nothing to speak to the policy issues surrounding the neglect of the offshore
environments, in the CCMP, their addition would help to make the CCMP more
complete and accurate.
While we may ultimately agree to disagree on whether the wi^o" of some of the
more critical offshore issues is appropriate for what is purported to be a
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Massachusetts and Cape
Cod Bays, one of the results of this coastal and watershed focus is mat we lose the
opportunity for Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary to be one of the
principal implementing agencies for the CCMP, an outcome I view as unfortunate
indeed In the abstract, the linkage between the MBP and SBNMS would have been a
logical one. In fact, our HS/MP indicated that we were ready and willing to
collaborate with the MBP. However, the appropriate nexus was never discovered, for
whatever reason. We applaud the CCMP for helping to establish a firm foundation
for enhancing the protection the coastal resources of the Bays, and the Sanctuary will
surely benefit from the implementation of the CCMP as currently devised, but I can
G-35
-------
01-16-1996 11:40*1 Stelluagen Bank NMS 505 747 1949 P.83
Diane Gould, Ph.Dv Executive Director
16 January/1996
Page2
only wonder how much better it could have been if we had found the means and the
will to establish a successful partnership.
We remain ready to work with the MBP staff if you feel it appropriate. I greatly
appreciate your continuing to send copies of the CCMP drafts for our comment, .and
hope you accept ihese comments as constructive input It is, after all, in the
Sanctuary's interest that any CCMP developed be a positive and significant
contribution to the governance of the waters adjacent to the Sanctuary. If you have
any comments or questions regarding the issues raised in either mis of the previous
letter, please give me a call
Sincerely,
^
Bradtey^K Ban
Sanctuary Manager
cc Tara Tracy, EPA Coordinator/MBP (via FAX 617-565-4040)
G-36
-------
Suggested Revisions to draft CCMP...BWB (22 fan 96)
p. IV-20/I l/2nd Sentence
"...with its own policies. Projects will also be reviewed by NOAA, under the
Sanctuary Consultation provision of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (to
insure that the activity will not adversely affect the resources or qualities of
the Sanctuary) as well as under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (for
protected species issues). "
p. IV-20/"Issues of Concem'/'lmpact on Marine Biota"
"endanger any protected species that may occur in die area."
p. IV-20/"Issues of Concern VStelhvagen Bank"
retitle "Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary"
'The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) is located only
around 200 meters from the northeastern perimeter of the MBDS. The
regulations of the National Marine Sanctuary both prohibit disposal of
dredged material within the Sanctuary, and prohibit disposal outside the
Sanctuary that is likely to enter the Sanctuary and harm a Sanctuary resource
of quality. Given the proximity of the Sanctuary to the disposal site, it is
.therefore critical that barges disposing dredged material at MBDS be certain
that were they are dumping material as dose as possible to the permitted
disposal location. Recent research conducted by the US Geological Survey
and SBNMS has indicated that past disposal activities have been less than
precise, and are working with the US Coast Guard to insure that disposal
operations are more carefully monitored by enforcement personnel."
Appendix A/NOAA/I1
"..dead marine science agency, NOAA mission includes research, data
collection and assessment, and management of the nation's marine,
estuarine, and coastal resources. While many of NOAA's programs have
some linkage to and support research and management activities in
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, including the National Weather Service,
the Coast and Geodetic Survey, The NOAA Fleet, the National Undersea
Research Centers, the National Sea Grant Programs, and the many
environmental research and monitoring programs supported by NOAA, the
three NOAA programs that have the greatest connection to the Bays are the
Northeast Regional Office National Marine Fisheries Service, the
G-37
-------
Stcllwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and the funding provided by
NCAA for the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
The mission of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is to "achieve
a continued optimum utilization of living resources for the benefit of the
nation." The Northeast Regional Office, located in Gloucester, and the NMFS
Northeast Fishery Science Center, in Woods Hole, play a pivotal role in
providing a better understanding of, and thereby better managing the living
marine resources of the Bays. The Northeast Regional Office reviews coastal
development projects of regional significance, and oversees the management
of critical fisheries resources and protected species. The Fishery Science
Center monitors the status of fish stocks and conducts critical research on fish
and marine mammals that are the livelihood of many in the region.
The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is a 638 sq. nmi. area located
at the seaward edge of the Bays between Cape Cod and Cape Arm, designated
by Congress in 1992 to protect the rich biological productivity and diversity of
this important offshore bank in the Gulf of .Maine. The Sanctuary oversees
and helps to coordinate all federal activities that may affect Sanctuary
resources, and conducts education and outreach, research, and management
programs to assist the Sanctuary staff in this oversight role. Human activities
that may affect Sanctuary resources are regulated by the Sanctuary, and by
other Federal agencies, in collaboration with the Sanctuary staff, that have
regulatory authority over Sanctuary resources.
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,..."
Suggesl thai Ihe CG SecliOil (p. A-3) be modified to reflect tiiat they enforce ail
laws applicable to the use of the waters of the US, including (in addition to
what you cite) the fisheries laws, the laws and regulations of the Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and the Marine Mammal Protection act
and the Endangered Species Act They play a larger role than the small
section included in the CCMP implies. Might want to check with the CG for
their input.
G-38
-------
MBP Response to Brad Barr, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Estuary
The priority issues of the Massachusetts Bays
Program and CCMP were established at the outset
of die Program by the MBP Management Confer-
ence. It was agreed that the Program would focus
principally on the multiple nearshore and landside
threats to the Bays' water and sediment quality,
habitat, and living marine resources. Toward this
end, 15 separate action plans have been developed
in the CCMP which prescribe a broad range of
actions aimed at preventing and mitigating pollu-
tion, protecting and restoring degraded habitat,
promoting responsible land use, and enhancing
public access to and enjoyment of the coast. The
enhancement of estuarine and sediment quality and
habitat is expected to have a positive impact on the
offshore marine environment and living resources
of Massachusetts Bays.
The problem of declining offshore commercial fish
species has not been overlooked. The CCMP
discusses the issue of overfishing of major com-
mercial finfish species in Massachusetts Bays and
the resultant severe economic hardship on tradi-
tional fishing-dependant communities such as
Gloucester. It states that"...overfishing is gener-
ally considered to be the primary cause of the
current crisis in the fishing industry," but also
recognizes that "...pollution and habitat loss are
thought to play a role as well, especially among
fish that spawn nearshore or are anadromous." In
order to shed further light on this complex issue,
the MBP has funded the development of a White
Paper and will be hosting a workshop which will
explore the factors impacting the region's declin-
ing offshore fish stocks. Please refer to the
discussion on "fishing" in The Human Habitat
section of Chapter D (The State of the Bays).
Please note the expanded title and description of
the SBNMS in me bulleted item previously labeled
"Stellwagen Bank" in the MBDS discussion in
Chapter IV.
Please note the revised and expanded description
of NOAA (including NMFS and SBNMS) in
Appendix A - Management Framework.
Please note the revised and expanded description
of the U.S. Coast Guard in Appendix A - Manage-
ment Framework.
Please note the amended language hi the conclud-
ing paragraph of the "Project Description" section
of the "Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site" discus-
sion in Chapter IV.
Please note addition of phrase "endanger any
protected species mat may occur hi the area" to
the "Issues of Concern/Impact on Marine Biota" in
the MBDS discussion in Chapter IV.
G-39
-------
G-40
-------
KEITH K. DAVISON
37 Hastings SL, #206-ME
West Rabinx MA 02132
(617) 327-5761
January 30,1996
Ruth Knykendall
Massachusetts Bays Program Office . fax 727-2754
100 Cambridge SL, Room 2006
Boston, MA 02202
RE: CCMP- Draft Final Plan (Dec 1995)
Massachusetts Bays Comprehensive Conservation and Management Flan
This valuable and informative document is obviously the result of a great deal of work
by many people. The challenge over the coming years win be to keep it updated, a
living document - and to make h effectively accessible. (It is common for such
documents to soon become "out of print".)
Considering that this proposed plan has been five years in the making, the stated bare
month between the close of the public comment period and publication of the final draft
is inadequate to meaningfully incorporate public comment in the plan. The
announcement in the 24jan96 EM of an overlapping (separate?), intervening MCZM
comment period is confusing.
p.ffl-35
1 The stated per capita average sewage flow for the MWRA system is over twice that
of the Lynn system. What explains this glaring discrepancy?
Most regions covered in Section HI list detailed directories. Oddly, the Metro Boston
region does not Groups such as SH/SB & BHA don't seem to even be included
indirectly in "citizen group efforts" (p.IH-41).
pJV-3
2 The very brief introduction to the origin of the MWRA seems confused/confusing.
The two sentences introducing the MWRA obscure the fact that it is the successor
agency to the MDC with regard to sewage treatment (and seem to downplay the role of
lawsuits and the court in the existence of the MWRA).
G-41
-------
pJV-5 Sludge Processing
Foil beneficial reuse is stffl just a goal Molybdenum contamination is an ongoing
challenge. Fore River is being upgraded/enlarged.
- He major tmmel project associated with Fore River and the sewage upgrade in that
3 area don't seem to be mentioned in this section. Current exploration of a marine
pipeline alternative raises new harbor impact issues, in addition to the unacknowledged
excavate disposal impacts of the default design.
Megaprojects, esp. this one, entail significant levels of injury and death among
construction workers. It would be fitting to acknowledge this.
p.IV-11 CA/T
Most of this section seems to be over two years old, a long time for this immense,
ever-changing project Tie tunnel is open, Spectacle Island is being fought over (the
4 configuration of docking and other final facilities, completion and operations funding),
CRC and the new Charles park are evolving. Changes have been made to stormwater
plans north of the Charles, and the details of the destruction and mitigation of Miller's
River have just been completely re-planned.
This section should be substantially re-written to bring it up to date; I'd nice an
opportunity to review- it before final publication.
5 p.IV-17
Is tiie Navigation Improvement Project actually a 50-year planning framework?
6 P-IV-21 MBDS
In a few places throughout the text, words appear with extraneous hy-phens
separating syllables.
As long as the MBDS is "authorized" for "consideration", it wffl be used. There must
of an ongoing process larger than individual projects — monitoring impacts, developing
and exploring alternatives.
7 p.IV-31 Plymouth Sewage
The CDM documents include a fine discussion of water reuse, which deserves
specific mention here as a conservation/efficiency measure.
g Chapter V Action Plans
Each action has associated estimated cost and target date(s). These are worth
attempting to incorporate in short form in the summary table.
9 Plan #1 - Public Health
Collecting test results is a basic requirement But analyzing data and developing
accurate and usable predictive models seems equally important
10 Plan #3 - Coastal Habitat
I find no mention of the history of zccsquito control and current salt marsh
restoration/management plans.
11 #3.10
There should be an effort to make GIS data effectively available to local officials,
non-profit organizations, and citizens.
G-42
-------
12 Plan #4 - Stonnwater Pollution
I find no mention of snow damping/BMP.
Plan #5 -Toxic PoDntion
13 #6 - Ofl Foliation
DEP is actively promoting municipal collection programs for oil and paint
HHW programs have not made notable progress over die last decade. Only
permanent, year-round programs have any chance of «gntfi«mt impact There is also a
need for uniform, sample labeling of aD potential toxics at pointrof-sale.
Mercury should be removed from commerce (e.g. batteries) so that it doesn't end up
in the water.
Rationally, restaurants that serve seafood could effectively inform the public about
'seafood safely. .
p.V-77
14 LEPC's are supposed to facilitate the public right to know and public participation.
" This is not happenfiig~OKKa3aiy not in Boston!
There are no local, regional, or state programs mat annually survey the worst-toxic
spills and plan on appropriate future prevention, with public participation.
p.V-84
•Targeted* niche HHW collections may be more cost-effective, but I fear they are
if less convenient for the public and thus result in more inappropriate hazardous waste
No private sector, actions are recommended. Major vendors and retailers of paint
should be encouraged to set up paint take-back programs.
The availability of private HHW disposal fatalities, such as Clean Harbors in Natick
($4/Ib) is an oddly well-kept secret, deserving of wider publicity and emulation. If the
fact can be brought home to citizens that many substances cost more to dispose of
. properly than to purchase, perhaps they will start taking purchase decisions more
seriously.
Plan #6 - Ofl Pollution
* f Is natural gas significantly cleaner for the environment man fuel oil heating, on the
whole? Should public policy tip the scales more towards natural gas?
What percentage of Massachusetts Bays cfl shipments are double-hulled?
The City of Bostca has a permanent used oC collection program which needs wider
publicity and a more conveniently distributed neighborhood presence. It would be
logical for fire stations to become more responsive to a spectrum of such local needs.
The used oil retailer take-back program has not been a success. A deposit/tax
system to support a more effective program should be considered. More
. encouragement, publicity, and accolades should be given to service stations that accept
used oil from the public. Perhaps public policy should also do more to emphasize the
"environmental correctness1' of having your oil changed by a responsible, properly
equipped "professionar. (It is not easy to know which service stations actually
implement "best management practices" for the various wastes - oin^ifaiwn^wis5td«&'"«''
antifreeze, for example). It seems to me that if motor ofl were retailed as a bulk fluid,
people, who change their own ofl would be more naturally inclined to return/exchange
the bulk used fluid.
G-43
-------
17 p.V-91
The listed costs seem so low, compared to the benefit, that the MWRA should
consider subsidizing such programs.
18 P-V-95
What spilk of note have occurred since 1991?
A major oil spffl has just occurred cff Rhode Island, weather-related, or at least
weather-aggravated. What is being don? to avoid vulnerable toxic material shipments
during bad weather?
Is it realty beyond our technical capacity to totally enclose a foundering barge or
tanker - or do we merely lack the win?
Plan #7 - Municipal Wastewater
•*•" I suggest mention of beneficial reus? of biosoHds vs. v*irfat>T»titmfl»nMi'tt disposal,
and discussion of black vs. grey water sad water reuse.
It is cot necessary to mix hmnar biosolidc xvith vast quantities of water, and. this
wasteful standard practice is vastly esperrive - end polluting. Composting toilets are
available. (As you note on p.V-108. Besides Or/us, other compact, seK-contained
residential systems are available. Perhaps you should describe currently available
convenience and de-emphasize past drawbacks. Don't obscure the underlying fact that
this may be the most responsible alternative, zzd in some cases perhaps the truly
cheapest on the whole.)
20 p.V-99
You might mention molybdenum sludge contamination issues and the controversy
over chlorine.
2i P-V-121
No contact is given for the ad ho; tasi fcrss for decentralized wzstewater
management How do I get on their nailicg list?
22 Plan #8 - Boat Wastes
AD standard boating waste disposal practices seem environmentally irresponsible.
No model BMPs are in sight
What do pump-out facilities do with these tads materials?
Yacht club memberships, dcciing fess, etc. should include pump-out privileges, to
avoid o£ c-:ouccnc issentrve for ii- JTC>C? dis%£C=.1
You don't mention the use of "dkc!oshg" cbenicals, or deal with the variety of other
boating wastes.
23 Plan #9 - Dredged Materials Dispose!
• Is it possible to cocvey dispersed c.a*.eri?b to me bottom without distributing them
in the water column?
• Is it possible to inject disposed nateria-s under the ocean bottom?
• Is there any long-term statewide irschacisn for matching disposal of clean
dredged or island excavate with shoreline erosion-control needs?
G-44
-------
24 Plan #10 - Marine Flotables
Are cigarette botts (one-third of total hems) a hazard to wildlife?
Apparently, laws prohibiting ocean plastic disposal are widely ignored - Perhaps
•rial docking fees should include trash disposal
25 Flan #12 - Waterfront
• Boston HarborWalk
• No approved Ft Point Channel Master Plan
• No S. Boston Marine Industrial Park Master Plan - Impending sale
• Lack of adequate rafl freight connections to ports
Plan #15 - Public Participation
26 Chapter XI
An effective public participation program is extremely MtRmit to implement,
there are no adequate Massachusetts models to emulate.
The Internet should be an important part of future plans to make information
available and promote dialog.
The CCMP is clearly the product of many meetings, of many groups. Most such
"public" meetings are public in name only. Access to agendas and meeting minutes are
critical to public participation, but the key is just becoming aware of the very existence
of an ongoing series of meetings. Every such group should be listed at least annually,
ideally quarterly, in die Environmental Monitor.
Only a small fraction of citizens potentially interested in the CCMP are likely to know h
exists.
27 p.V-189 CAN
List member organizations and contacts.
28 Chapter EX
I am surprised that the statement of the overarching goal does not include the word
"restoration".
2Q Chapter*!
The terms "draft final" and "final draft" are confusing.
One month is inadequate for consideration and incorporation of public comments in
the plan hself. Better not to pretend.
Providing copies of public ccsuneats to the public is a vital mechanism of dialog.
"Summarizing'1 the comments may be necessary as a practical matter, but is likely to
adversely impact true diversity of authentic public opinion. Delaying such material until
the very end of the process greatly detracts from its value. Such delayed, formal "written
responses" are a -minimal form of meaningful dialog.
My understanding is that RPA's/counties in Massachusetts are relatively weak and
powerless. "Home rule" seems to be more a mechanism of legislative obstruction than
local empowerment
G-45
-------
G-46
-------
MBP Response to Keith K. Davison, West Roxbury
The MWRA's average sewage flow of 500 mgd
includes the sewage flows from all 43 MWRA
communities, not just the eight Metro Boston
coastal communities listed. A note to this effect
has been added to the " 1995 Metro Boston Munic-
ipal Sewage Treatment Information" chart in the
Metro Boston Region section of Chapter ffl.
A "Directory of Coastal Projects, Programs, and
Sources of Assistance" has been added to bom the
Metro Boston and the South Shore Region sections
in Chapter m.
The brief discussion of the origin of the MWRA
has been clarified. Please refer to the "Back-
ground" section in the Boston Harbor Project:
Upgrading Sewage Treatment in die Metro Boston
Area discussion in Chapter IV.
Please refer to MBP response #19, following, for
a discussion of biosolids (e.g., sewage sludge)
reuse. With respect to the ongoing challenge of
molybdenum contamination, please refer to the
introductory section of Action Plan 7A (Managing
Centralized Wastewater Treatment Facih'ties) in
Chapter V.
The MBP acknowledges that certain construction
projects of the size and scope of the "megapro-
jects" described in the CCMP may indeed involve
issues of construction worker health and safety,
but these issues are beyond the MBP's focus on
water quality, living resources, and habitat preser-
vation.
The Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) Project de-
scription in Chapter IV has been updated to reflect
recent milestones (e.g., dedication and opening of
the Ted Williams Tunnel) and the project's current
status.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates
maintenance dredging requirements over a 50-year
period in order to evaluate a project's long-term
benefit/cost ratio. The brief discussion on mainte-
nance dredging in the "Issues of Concern / Source
Control" section of the Boston Harbor Navigation
Project writeup hi Chapter IV is intended to
inform the reader of the ongoing nature of sedi-
ment accumulation in Boston Harbor's navigation
channels, and of the value of controlling pollution
at the source to minimise sediment contamination
and future dredged materials disposal costs.
The extraneous hyphens inadvertently placed in
the text of the MBDS discussion of Chapter IV
have been removed.
MBP staff will review the referenced CDM dis-
cussion on water reuse as a conservation/effi-
ciency measure for the Plymouth Sewage Treat-
ment Project, and as appropriate, may summarize
or cite it in a future update to the CCMP.
8 As it moves into the implementation phase of the
Program, the MBP plans to produce companion
documents to die CCMP, through its LGC techni-
cal assistants, which will summarize community-
specific CCMP actions, costs, and timetables for
each of the five coastal subregions.
The MBP, through its RPA/LGC technical assis-
tants, will work closely with the Department of
Public Health (DPH) and local Boards of Health to
ensure the proper development, interpretation, and
use of public beach testing data. Please refer to
DPH Action #1.1 hi Action Plan #1 (Protecting
Public Health) of Chapter V.
10 The Commonwealth has an active program under-
way to identify, prioritize, and restore degraded
salt marsh and other wetland types. Please refer
to EOEA Action #3.13 in Action Plan #3 (Protect-
ing and Fnhancing Coastal Habitat) of Chapter V
for a discussion of the Commonwealth's innova-
tive Wetlands Restoration and Banking Program.
G-47
-------
11 Through funding to be provided through the 1995
Open Space Bond, the Regional Planning Agencies
(RPAs) will be established as regional CIS data
centers. Working in collaboration with the Mass-
CIS Office, the RPAs will make CIS data avail-
able to local officials, non-profit organizations,
businesses, and citizens.
12 Sources of stormwaier pollution, and best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) for controlling stormwater i c
pollution, including "snow dumping" BMPs, are
too numerous to have discussed individually in the
CCMP. 16
13 Under the leadership of the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, the Commonwealth is
consulting with industry representatives (including
manufacturers and retailers), municipal officials,
environmental organizations, and others to explore
and form public/private partnerships mat can
facilitate the safe management of a broad range of
hazardous products - emphasising reduced prod-
ucts use and recycling wherever possible. [See
EOEA/Municipal/Private Sector Partnership Ac-
tion #5.4 in Action Plan #5 (Reducing and Pre- 17
venting Toxic Pollution).]
With respect to used motor oil, EOEA has drafted
and will be pursuing legislation in 1996 that will
make significant improvements in the collection of
used oil from do-it-yourself oil changers (DIYers).
hi particular, the EOEA-proposed legislation
would make current collection requirements more
flexible, and pay recycling incentives to both
collection centers and to DIYers who return used je
oil for recycling. It also would provide needed
resources (through payments made by motor oil
manufacturers) for public education programs,
reimbursement of collection centers for costs of
disposing of contaminated oil, and expansion of
current Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) municipal recycling grants for used oil
storage tanks. The Massachusetts Bays Program
supports the passage of the revised legislation
developed by EOEA. [See Municipal Action #6.1
in Action Plan #6 (Reducing and Preventing Oil
Pollution).]
linkages among local, regional, state, and federal
agencies to coordinate and share data. The CCMP
is a living document, and as such, can be revised
to reflect developments in and improvements to
emergency response planning For example,
assistance to support local emergency responders
may be considered as a future area of support
under EPA's Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Program.
See response #13, above.
The question of whether natural gas is cleaner than
fuel oil, and whether public policy should tip the
scale toward greater use of natural gas, is far
broader than the current Massachusetts Bays
Program focus on near coastal water quality and
living resources of the Bays. For more informa-
tion on these subjects, the MBP recommends that
the writer contact the Federal Department of
Energy at (617) 565-9700 or the Massachusetts
Executive Office of Energy Resources at (617)
727^732.
For several years, the MWRA financed a pilot
program for used oil collection in selected commu-
nities, and issued a guidance manual for use by
other communities interested in establishing
similar collection programs. The MBP staff has
passed me writer's comment along to the MWRA
regarding possible future subsidy of local oil
collection programs by the MWRA.
The tracking and recording of oil spills, the spe-
cific safeguards being instituted to prevent toxic
materials spills during bad weather, and the
technical capacity to totally enclose a foundering
barge or tanker are subjects beyond the current
scope of the Massachusetts Bays Program. For
information on these subjects, the MBP recom-
mends that the writer contact:
Marine Safety Division
First Coast Guard District
408 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02110
Tel.: (617) 223-8434
14 There is clearly a need to broaden and enhance
emergency response planning at the local level to
address situations such as toxic spills to storm
drains There is also a need to provide better
19 The reuse of "gray water" or other waters from
sanitary systems is not a widespread practice in
Massachusetts due primarily to local and state
G-48
-------
health regulations, but it is being examined and
researched in the context of alternative wastewater
systems. Some individual on-site systems do
allow water reuse. With respect to the beneficial
use of biosolids on a small scale, several makes of
composting toilets are becoming more widely
allowed and used; these are pan of a range of
innovative wastewater technologies which the
MBP encourages communities to consider in
managing nutrients and pathogens from individual
on-site systems. Finally, land application of
certain classes of biosolids from larger sources
(e.g., wastewater treatment plants) is regulated
under both federal and state law, and as such, can
be a viable alternative to more traditional disposal
options such as incineration and landfiiiing
20 The CCMP has been expanded to include a brief
discussion of the issue of seasonally elevated
molybdenum concentrations in the MWRA sewage
sludge. Please refer to the introduction to "7A.
Action Plan for Managing Centralized Wastewater
Treatment Facilities" in Action Plan #7 (Managing
Municipal Wastewater) of Chapter V.
The "controversy over chlorine" is presumed to
refer to the adverse effect of excess chlorine on
aquatic life versus the need to adequately disinfect
wastewater effluent (typically using chlorine) prior
to its discharge to coastal waters. While this
conflict may have historically been controversial,
both the Massachusetts DEP and the EPA cur-
rently use the chronic aquatic life criterion to set
the chlorine limits in wastewater effluent discharge
permits. As a result, some wastewater effluents
undergo dechlorination prior to discharge in
coastal waters as a means to protect aquatic life in
those waters from excess chlorine levels.
21 The Ad Hoc Task Force for Decentralized Waste-
water Management may be contacted as follows:
c/o Marine Studies Consortium
Pine Manor College
400 Heath Street
Chestnut Hill, MA 02176
Tel.: (617) 566-8600
22 The MBP believes that aggressive implementation
of Municipal Action #8.1 (Municipalities should
work cooperatively with neighboring communities,
private boatyards, and state agencies (DFWELE
and CZM) to establish, promote, and maintain
Boat Pump-out Programs in targeted embayment
areas) will significantly reduce the problem of
improper boat waste disposal along the coast.
Already, over SO new pump-out facilities have
been placed in Massachusetts coastal waters as a
result of Clean Vessel Act (CVA) grants and
technical assistance to communities from DFWE-
LE, CZM, and DEP personnel. Another year of
funding though the CVA grants program is ex-
pected to help finance additional pump-but facili-
ties. Boat wastes collected at these facilities are
required to be properly disposed of at authorized
sewage and septage treatment plants.
23 Using a subaqueous discharge tube at reasonable
depths, the mixing of dredged materials with a
large portion of the water column is minimized.
However, the use of'mis technique may prove
difficult with strong currents in the upper water
column. These discharge tubes have not yet been
widely used. With respect to "injection" of dredg-
ed materials, although the intent of this word is
unclear, dredged materials have been successfully
isolated in natural or manmaH* depressions on the
ocean bottom. Also, capping of surface mounds in
some of the New England's dump sites has suc-
cessfully isolated dredged materials from marine
biota. Finally, both state and federal regulations
require the evaluation of alternatives to open water
disposal of dredged materials. Agency policies
regarding these alternatives encourage the benefi-
cial uses of these materials, as appropriate. For
example, these uses could include shoreline stabili-
zation, beach nourishment, habitat development,
and landfill rapping
24 According to CZM staff, discarded cigarette butts
on a beach are not known to constitute a signifi-
cant hazard to coastal wildlife. Nevertheless, like
other Utter, they are unsightly and detract from the
public's beach-going experience. See Action Plan
#10 (Reducing Beach Debris and Marine Float-
ables) in Chapter V.
Commercial as well as recreational docking fees
2SB, and in some instances dfl, include the costs of
trash collection and disposal. For example, the
design standards for marinas under Chapter 91
(Waterways) licensing regulations require the
placement of trash receptacles at all marina gang-
ways and restrooms.
The U.S. Coast Guard has regulations addressing
the management of both shipboard waste (plastic,
food, medical, etc.) and dockside receptacles. A
G-49
-------
25
26
"designated waterfront facility", in accordance
with US law/regulation, must have a Certificate of
Adequacy (COA) to operate. The COA shows
that the facility has capacity to handle shipboard
waste (generally through contractors). Fish
facilities handling over 500,000 Ibs. of fish per
year also fall under this COA requirement.
As the commenter pointed out, economics often
encourage disposal of waste elsewhere, since U.S.
waste disposal is very expensive. Currently, the
requirements focus on the availability of the
disposal facilities, not the costs of such capacity.
If a vessel has illegally disposed of trash, and the
USCG notes a discrepancy when boarding such a
vessel, one of two actions will be taken:
1. If the USCG cannot prove that the vessel
dumped plastic within the EEZ (U.S. Exclu-
sive Economic Zone - 200NM), then all ob-
tainable data are collected and forwarded to
the Sag state of the vessel by the USCG Com-
mandant.
2. If the USCG obtains evidence that the vessel
may have dumped illegally within the EEZ, the
USCG unit will process a civil penally against
die vessel; these cases can be very difficult to
process because of the requirement for proof
of dumping within our waters.
No response required.
The MBP has worked hard over the last five years
to develop and implement an effective public
participation program. The Management Commit-
tee-die MBP's principal deliberative body - is
composed of diverse representatives from numer-
ous larger public and private constituencies,
including scientists and educators, business and
industry, resource user groups, environmental
advocacy groups, and government agencies (fed-
eral, state, regional, and local). Complementing
the work of the Management Committee, and a
major success of the Program, has been the forma-
tion and active participation of Local Governance
Committees (LGCs) from the five coastal subre-
gjons. The LGCs consist of a broad range of local
officials and citizens and have played a key role
both in developing, and now implementing, the
CCMP.
Building on its already considerable outreach
efforts, the MBP is currently developing a home
page on the Internet, and has provided funding to
link member organizations of the Coastal Advo-
cacy Network dirough die Internet. MBP will
continue to explore electronic and other means of
communicating'the work of the Bays Program,
including its extensive research findings and the
CCMP, to the public. For more information on
the MBP's public participation efforts, please refer
to Chapter XI (Public Participation/Public Respon-
siveness Summary).
27 Members of the Coastal Advocacy Network and
their affiliations are listed in die "Acknowledge-
ments" section in the front of the document.
28 No response required.
29 Public participation in the development of the
CCMP, and solicitation of public comments on the
contents of the CCMP, have been ongoing over a
5-year period. The most recent public review
process, as with those preceding it, was formally
approved by me Management Committee. As this
section of the Plan attests, all public comments on
the Draft Final CCMP have been incorporated in
full, along with a corresponding written response
from the MBP.
30 While it is true that most Regional Planning
Agencies (RPAs) lack regulatory authority, they
have proven to be an effective mechanism for
delivering a broad range of professional planning
services and technical assistance to local govern-
ments. Through the RPAs, the MBP has been
able to provide Local Governance Committees and
municipal boards along the coast with much
needed technical assistance in the areas of water
quality task force organization, pollution source
identification and remediation, habitat protection,
aquaculture development, and grant writing and
public education. The strong MBP/RPA/LGC
partnership created by the Massachusetts Bays
Program will serve as one of die key mechanisms
for implementing CCMP actions at both die local
and regional (i.e., embayment and watershed)
levels.
G-50
-------
Boston
Redevelopment
Authority
Tnoflios M. MOT me,
Clarence J. Jones.
' Mofio Logo,
January 19,1996
Ms. Ruth Kuykendall
Massachusetts Bays Program
100 Cambridge Street / Rm. 2006
Boston, MA 02202
Dear Ms. Kuykendall:
Re: Draft Final CCMP
I have reviewed the excerpts from the December 1995 Draft Final CCMP, which were
recently submitted .to me for review, and have .the following comments on the new
and/or revised material:
(1) Chapter II, pg. 11-4 "Rocky Shores-
Cite "recent study by Northeastern University" (II. 6-7).
(2) Chapter II, pg. 11-5 "Shipping. Boating, and Dredging*
Update economic activity figure. Data for 1992 indicate $1.858 billion in
economic activity generated by the Port (Port of Boston Economic Development
Plan. Nov. 1995, Table 1.11). (This figure is used in the 2nd paragraph of
"Expected Benefits" on page IV-16.)
(3) Chapter II, Pg. l!-6 "Rshing"
The spread in the annual economic benefit of recreational fishing ($45-$344
million) seems rather large (I. 6.2nd paragraph). Is this correct?
(4) Chapter II, pg. II-7 "Sources of Pollutants..."
CSO's also are a significant contributor to the degradation of nearshore waters
and should be added to stormwater as a source of pollutants (top paragraph on
this page).
Z'r-z C«»y Ho-'! Sqwcwc
DCVC- '.XAC220! t007
£;:. j* 'v- VK: O
G-51
-------
(5) Chapter 11, Pg. 11-7 "Concentrations of Toxic Pollutants..."
Cite reference to "MBP funded... sediment triad analysis" (II. 6-7,2nd '
paragraph).
Reduction in CSO's also will contribute to a decrease in levels of selected
contaminants in Boston Harbor and should be added to improvements in
wastewater treatment facilities and reduced use of certain toxic pollutants (last
paragraph of this section).
(6) Chapter II, pg. 11-8 "Effects of Contaminants..."
I would recommend quaJifying the statement that health risks associated with
consumption of fish from our coastal waters (including Boston Harbor) are low
(last paragraph of this section). As .noted in the preceding paragraph, there are
some risks, even though generally fish in the Bay are considered safe to eat.
Nonetheless, we should be careful about making too general a statement.
(7) Chapter IV, pg. fV-6 (Boston Harbor Project)
In the first paragraph of the section "Work to be Completed", change "on the
following page" (last line) to "below" (since this is where the timetable chart is
located).
(8) Chapter IV, pg. IV-8 (Boston Harbor Project)
I would again recommend eliminating the recommendation that the MWRA
consider, in contingency planning, to relocating the outfall to Boston Harbor (7th
recommended action) (see my memo to Diane Gould of July 7,1995). As noted
in my previous comment, the MWRA does not recommend this action and
therefore there seems little reason for Mass Bays to support it.
(9) Chapter IV, pp. IV-15-IV-16 (Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project)
To clarify the recommended plan, I would recommend rewording the last
sentence of the "Maintenance Dredging" paragraph as follows: "It is
recommended that the maintenance material be disposed of in-channel (Mystic
River, Chelsea River, and Inner Confluence) at a cost of $32 million."
(10) Chapter V, pg. V-61 (DEP Action #4.3)
In line 10 of "Implementation Strategy",-should "plan" be "play"?
RM/20.LTR/011896
G-52
-------
(11) Chapter VI, pg. VI-2
in the second paragraph of "Models for a Regional Approach..." .16 action plans
should be changed to lj> action plans (1.14).
I thank you for the opportunity to comment.
I B. Mertens, AICP
Environmental Review Officer
RM/20.LTR/011896
G-53
-------
G-54
-------
MBP Response to Richard Mertens, Boston Redevelopment Authority
Please note addition of study citation to "Rocky
Shores" discussion in Chapter n.
Treatment in the Metro Boston Area" section of
Chapter IV.
Please note updated economic activity figure hi
"Shipping, Boating, and Dredging" discussion hi
Chapter n.
Please note discussion of the preferred option of
"in-channel" disposal of dredge maintenance
material in the Chapter IV BHNIP section labeled
"Issues of Concern".
Bowen et al. (1992) used ranges of estimates from
around the country on the consumer surplus value
of a recreational fishing day to estimate a range of
$45 - 355 million hi annual economic benefit of
Massachusetts Bays recreational finfishing The
authors acknowledge that their analysis was of
necessity limited due to the unavailability of
reliable survey data on the particular socioeco-
nomic characteristics and fishing habits of Massa-
chusetts ' Bays recreational marine fishermen.
10 Spelling corrected as noted.
11 Text changed to "15." action plans as noted.
Please note inclusion of CSO reference hi "Sour-
ces of Pollutants to Massachusetts Bays" discus-
sion in Chapter n.
Please note inclusion of sediment triad analysis
citation in "Concentrations of Toxic Pollutants hi
the Water Column and Sediments" discussion in
Chapter n. Also, please note reference to CSOs
hi the concluding paragraph of the same discus-
sion.
Please note addition of qualifying statement to
concluding paragraph hi "Effects of Contaminants
on Organisms in the Bays" discussion hi Chapter
n.
7 Please note text change from "on the following
page" to "below" as suggested.
8 Please refer to the MWRA Recommended Actions
in the "Boston Harbor Project: Upgrading Sewage
G-55
-------
G-56
-------
CITY OF BOSTON * THE ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Air Pollution Control, Back Bay Architectural. Beacon HH1 Architectural. Boston landmarks and the
Conservation Commission
Thomas M. Menino, Mayor
Lorraine M. Downey, Director
Januarys!, 1996
Ruth Kuykendall
Massachusetts Bays Program
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
RE: 1995 Massachusetts Bays Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan - Draft
Final Plan.
Dear Ms. Kuykendal:
The City of Boston Environment Department has reviewed the Draft Final 199S
Massachusetts Bays Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) and
hereby submits the following comments in response:
General Comments
There needs to be a discussion of how the plan will be presented to municipalities and the
1 public and how support for the plan will be solicited. There should also be a discussion as
to how municipalities are expected to use this information.
The plan discusses the DEP's storrmvater performance standards as if they have already
been approved and accepted, yet they are still in the development stage. The guidance
document "Urban Best Management Practices for Massachusetts", which is intended to
2 accompany the standards, is also referred to in the CCMP as if it were final. However,
this document is stiD in draft form and likely to be revised once final standards are issued.
The CCMP should be clarified to reflect the status of the stormwater performance
standards. Information could include an update of the DEP's schedule for stormwater
performance, the process for developing standards, and how public review of the
standards will be conducted.
BOSTON CITY HALL/ROOM 805 • BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02201 • 617/635-3850 * FAX: 635-3435
Primi oo vended 1*90 * *%cȣ-
G-57
-------
Coastal Subregions - Metro Boston Region
IHr9 Survey Answers and Action Plan #3
Boston does not have local guidelines in addition to the Wetland Protection Act.
'She survey was given a "yes" answer because Boston has a separate filing fee, procedural
jfelicies, and informal protective poBcies. In the context of the CCMP, as a reference
'document, the "Y" under "Boston" should be changed to "N", Otherwise the City of
Boston has implemented the remaining applicable actions in Action Plan 3.
Projects of Regional Scope and Impact
IV-8 The Boston Harbor Project:
We do not endorse Recommended Action #7 which would consider divergence of effluent
from the new Deer Island outfall pipe to the existing outfalls in Boston Harbor. This
recommendation should be eliminated from the CCMP. The state and the City are
spending $30 million and $500,000, respectively, to restore the Boston Harbor beaches.
Also, the Boston Water and Sewer Commission is eliminating and/or reducing CSO
discharges to the harbor at substantial cost. The purpose of the Beaches initiative is to
actively bring people "Back to the Beaches." These efforts should not be hampered by
bringing effluent back to the Harbor, especially if it poses a health or odor problem.
rv-13 Central Artery/Tunnel Project -
The information under this section should be updated by.acknowledging the opening of
the Ted Williams Tunnel. •
Even more important to the Bay, the CCMP should indicate that there is a proposal by
CA/T Project to add more excavate to Spectacle Island than previously agreed.
Recommended Actions:
The Plan does not make Recommended Actions to the CA/T Project. There have been
incidents of sedimentation control breakdown at Spectacle Island, with plumes and
sediment suspension observed in the waters around the Island. We ask that the CCMP
recommend to the Artery Project that double staked haybales be maintained around the
perimeter of the Island as usual best management practices. The CCMP should further
recommend that special attention be paid to containing the fill on Spectacle Island.
Action Plans
Action Plan #4
The NPDES stormwater discharge permit program applies to municipalities with a
separate storm drainage system serving a population of 100,000 or more rather than
500,000 as indicated. 40 C.F.R. 122.26(a)(b).
G-58
-------
Action Plan #4 cont.
In addition to running Logan International Airport, the Massachusetts Port Authority
controls considerable industrial property along Boston Harbor. Stormwater draining from
Massport properties picks up foams, de-icing agents, jet fuel, oil and other toxins. As a
o responsible State Authority with an interest in the Harbor, Massport should have its own
"Action Plan #4" calling for best management practices for stonnwater discharges,
correcting sheetflow, and educating tenants about the effect of their operational practices
on runoff.
EPA Action 4.5
EPA should provide assistance to all communities in the Mass. Bays watersheds for
. stormwater management The rationale provided seems to focus only on the lower
^ Charles River and the Neponsett River. While these areas have been specifically targeted,
EPA and DEP should not ignore the other watersheds. Furthermore, in the case of the
Charles project, attention should be given to upstream sources.
Action Plan #6
10 Emergency Spill Respoi^'iPQHiW'gl^W'WWUfle'efflergency spills to storm drains.
A more extensive analysis of which agency has what responsibility would increase the
functioning value of the CCMP document. Preparedness for response to emergency spills
should occur on all levels of government, so that implementation can begin sooner rather
than later.
Action Plan #8
11 The Massachusetts Port Authority controls several piers in Boston Harbor. Tenants at
these piers include tugs, barges, cruise ships, fishing and cargo vessels. As a responsible
State Authority with an interest in the Harbor, Massport should have its own Action Plan
#8 calling for pumpouts at each pier where tenants tie up. Massport should have a
pumpout education program for its tenants,' and look for other incentives to ensure
compliance.
I thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Lorraine M. Downey ^-^
Director
. c:\winwortfken\czmcsmpjJoc
G-59
-------
G-60
-------
MBP Response to Lorraine M. Downey, Boston Environment Department
The CCMP has been expanded to provide addi-
tional information on die development of the Plan,
its presentation to and use by the municipalities,
and mechanisms for its implementation Please
refer to Chapter I (Introduction) and Chapter VI
(Implementing the CCMP Throughout the Bays
Watershed).
The CCMP has been revised to reflect the fact mat
the NPDES stormwater discharge permit program
applies to municipalities with a separate storm
drainage system serving a population of 100.000.
and not 500,000 as originally indicated. Please
refer to the introductory section of Action Plan #4
(Reducing and Preventing Stormwater Pollution).
The CCMP has been revised to reflect the current
status of DEP's developing stormwater perfor-
mance standards and draft guidance document,
Urban Best Management Practices for Massachu-
setts. Please refer to DEP Actions #4.3 and #4.4
in Action Plan #4 (Reducing and Preventing
Stormwater Pollution) of Chapter V.
8 One specific effort to facilitate the reduction of
stormwater pollution from Massport facilities is
the planned issuance, by U.S. EPA, of an individ-
ual stormwater permit under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System for Logan Interna-
tional Airport. This permit may be issued during
the 19% calendar year.
The CCMP has been revised to reflect the fact mat
the City of Boston does not currently have local
wetlands guidelines in addition to the state Wet-
lands Protection Act regulations. Please refer to
the "Metro Boston Resource Management Survey"
chart in the Metro Boston Region section of
Chapter HI.
Please refer to the MWRA Recommended Actions
in the "Boston Harbor Project: Upgrading Sewage
Treatment in the Metro Boston Area" section of
Chapter IV.
To the extent that staff and technical resources
allow, EPA will be providing assistance to Massa-
chusetts communities which request it. However,
due to currently limited compliance and assistance
resources for stormwater control, EPA will be
targeting its cnmmimhy-hased efforts during
Federal Fiscal Year 1996 on the Massachusetts
communities situated within the Neponset River
and Charles River watersheds, as a complement to
existing efforts in these watersheds (e.g., Massa-
chusetts DEP Watershed Initiative). Finally, the
Lower Charles River Initiative does consider
pollutant sources upstream of the Initiative area.
The CCMP has been updated to reflect the current
status of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project.
Please refer to the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T)
megaproject discussion in Chapter IV.
The CA/T discussion has been expanded to in-
clude a discussion of the past sediment control
problems at Spectacle Island and the need for
improved best management practices to prevent
erosion of fill material. Please refer to die "Issues
of Concern" section in the CA/T megaproject
discussion of Chapter IV.
10 There is clearly a need to broaden emergency
response planning to address situations such as
spills to storm drains, as well as to provide link-
ages among local, regional, state, and federal
agencies to coordinate and share data. The CCMP
is a "living" document, and as such, its future
revisions can include developments in and im-
provements to emergency response planning. For
example, federal assistance to support local emer-
gency responders may be considered as a future
area of support under EPA's Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Program.
G-61
-------
11 Subsequent to receipt of the City's comment letter,
a meeting was hosted on 2/23/96 by CZM which
included representatives of Massport, the Boston
Environment Department, and the State
DFWELE, which administers Clean Vessel Act
funds. As a result of this meeting, Massport is
proceeding with submission of an application for
Clean Vessel Act funding. If possible, Massport
will submit the application in cooperation with the
City of Boston. The application will request funds
for the upgrading of existing pump-out facilities
and for installation of a series of new pump-outs
on Massport property. Sewer connections already
exist at the Black Falcon Cruise Terminal and the
World Trade Center, and MBP recommends these
locations for consideration.
G-62
-------
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of Environmental Management
136 Damon Road ' „
Northampton Memorandum BY FAX
Massachusetts
01060 TO: Alan Macintosh, MVPC/MPB
(413)596-8706 Prom: Leslie Luchonok, DEM ACEC Program
(413)784-1663 Subj: Revisions to draft final plan, CCKP
Data: February IS, 1996
Alan, attached are three pages of suggested revisions to
the draft final CCMP regarding ACSCs and th« ACEC
Program.
I will also send another FAX with the specific pages
referenced, with locations of suggested changes shown, as
you requested.
I hope the suggestions are clearly described and that you
can incorporate them into the final plan without
difficulty.
Thank you for your patience,, and for all your good work!
Please call if you have any questions. I'm in my
Northampton office this morning; however, beginning this
afternoon I will be out until Tuesday,. Liz will be in
her Boston office tomorrow. Thanks* again.
attachments
cct Liz Sorenson, DEM
Pruned oh recycled paper
G-63
-------
Comments and Corrections to HBP 1995 CGHP 12/95 Final Draft,
Concerning ACBC Program
• «ut«nitted bv Leslie Luchonok. ACEC Program
1) The Parker River/Essex Bay ACEC is not mentioned in the Upper
North Shore Region Section (ACBCs are mentioned in other regional
sections). On page III-4, provide description .of Parker River
Essex Bay ACEC under 3) Watersheds and Important Tributaries - add
paragraph after Ipsvich. River paragraph, as follows:
The estuarine portions of the Parker River and Ipswich River
vatersheds, as veil as the castle Keck River/ Essex River and Essex
Bay, are located within the Parker River/Essex Bay Area of critical
Environmental concern (ACEC). This is the only ACEC located on the
tipper North Shore, but is the largest ACBC in the commonwealth -
approximately 25,500 acres in size. The ACEC is located in the
towns of Essex, Gloucester, Ipsvich, nevbury and Rowley, and vas
designated in 1979 (see description of ACEC program and table on
page v-3i).
2) Correct_and revise Upper North Shore and Salem Sound Directories
on pages III-14 and 111-27, and add ACEC listing to Cape Cod
Directory on page 111-66, as follows:
For each Directory -
a) correct spelling of Leslie's last name - Luchonok
For each Directory -
b) revise Program Description - ACEC status provides additional
protection to critical resource areas, and creates ecosystem-based
planning and management framework for state and local actions.
3) Correct and revise description of ACBCs on page 111-41, as
follows:
The Metro Boston region has two estuarine ACECs. The Rumney
Marshes ACEC is approximately 2,800 acres in size, and is located
in Boston, Lynn, Revere, Baugus and winthrop. The 1,260-aere
Neponset River Bstuary is located in, Boston, Hilton and Quincy. An
ACEC Resource Management Plan for the Neponset Bstuary ACEC is
currently underway, as part of the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs commitment to working with municipalities/
environmental organisations and residents for the long-term
stewardship of ACBCS. Portions of three freshwater ACBCs are also
in the region - the cranberry Brook Watershed, the Fowl Meadow-
Ponkapoag Bog, and Golden Bills ACBCs (see description of ACEC
Program and table on page V-31).
G-64
-------
4) correct descriptions of p. Areas of Critical Environmental
concern on page IIX-52. Add introductory sentence, correct Weir
River ACZC, and add Herring River Watershed ACEC, as follows:
currently there are four ACBCs located in the South Shore Region
(see description of ACBC Program and table on page V-31) :
Weymouth Back River (Hingham and Weymouth)
Weir River (Cohasset, Hingham and Bull)
Ellisville Harbor (Plymouth)
Herring River Watershed - Plymouth and Bourne
5) Add section on Cape Cod ACBCs vithin Mass Bays watershed on page
XZX-64 (as done in other regional sections) , as follows:
D« AffffflT of Critical BnvirOTOHfflttjjji Concern
There are three state-designated Areas of critical Environmental
Concern (ACBC) located on Cape Cod within the Massachusetts Bays
watershed. These three ACBCS total approximately 24,ooo acres.
The Inner cape Cod Bay ACBC is located in Brews ter, Basthaa and
Orleans (2 > 550 acres); the Sandy Beck/Bamstable Harbor ACBC is in
Barnstable and sandwich (8,850 acres); and the Wellfleet Harbor
ACEC is in Bastham, Truro and Wellfleet (12,350 acres). An ACBC
designation provides additional resource protection regarding state
regulations, programs and actions; creates a framework for
ecosystem planning and management; and affords an opportunity for
increased state-municipal cooperation and collaboration, currently
an ACBC Resource Management Plan is being prepared for the Pleasant
Bay ACBC, a joint effort of four towns, state and regional
agencies/ environmental organiiatiens and residents (see
description of ACBC Program and table on page 7-31) .
6) Correct and update table of ACECs on page V-31, as follows:
a) gpdate/revise heading/title, as follows:
Statewide, there are 25 coastal and inland ACECs comprising
approximately 170,000 acres:
b) add/update, under inland ACECs, below canoe River Aquifer:
* Central Vashua River Valley 12,900 acres Bolton, Harvard,
Lancaster, Leominster
c) add/update, under inland ACECs, below Hockomocfc Swamp
Kampoosa Bog Drainage Basin 1,350 acres Lee, Stoekbridge
d) eorreet-add/delete * denoting ACECs within Mass Bays Watershed
add * to sandy Beck/Barnstable Harbor
delete • to canoe River Aquifer (this ACEC is in Taunton R. basin)
G-65
-------
7) correct Intro paragraph, last sentence, under Department of
Environmental Management on page A-5, as follows:
The programs of the following Offices are most closely related to
the CCMP.
8) Add section on page A-5 describing Office of Natural Resources,
directly under intro paragraph for Department of Environmental
Management, as follows (the ACEC program, the GOALS Program, the
coastal Access Program, and the Greenways Program are administered
from this Office):
OFFICE OF HATURAL RESOURCES
The office of natural Resources provides for the long-term
protection of natural resources, and for the public use and
enjoyment of them, activities include land acquisition/ resource
management planning for parks and trails, critical resource
identification and protection, and municipal technical assistance
and greenway grant programs. The Resource Management Planning
program develops long range resource management plans
-------
MBP Response to Leslie Luchonok, DEM ACEC Program
1 Please note addition of Parker River/Essex Bay
ACEC description to Upper North Shore Region
section of Chapter HI.
Please note spelling corrections and revised ACEC
program description in regional directories of
Chapter m.
Please note amended discussion of ACECs in
Metro Boston Region section of Chapter m.
Please note corrected ACEC information in South
Shore Region section of Chapter ffl.
Please note addition of ACEC description to Cape
Cod Region Section in Chapter IB.
Please note corrected and updated information in
table of ACECs in Municipal Action #3.3 of
Action Plan #3 (Protecting and Enhancing Coastal
Habitat) in Chapter V.
7 Please note correction in introductory paragraph of
"Department of Environmental Management"
discussion hi Appendix A - Management Frame-
work.
8 Please note added description of "Office of Natu-
ral Resources* in 'Department of Environmental
Management" discussion hi Appendix A - Man-
agement Framework.
G-67
-------
G-68
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NEW ENGLAND REGION
JFK FEDERAL BUILDING
BOSTON. MA 02203
TO: Diane Gould. Ph.D
Executive Director, Massachusetts Bays Program
FROM: Tara
Senior RegiSKaTPrografcrt Manager, Massachusetts Bays Program
SUBJ: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comments on the Massachusetts
Bays Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
DATE: February 26. 1996
Representatives of the Coastal Management Branch and the Marine
Pollution Control Branch of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) (Headquarters) have reviewed and commented on the Draft Final
Massachusetts Bays ComprehensiveConservattonand Management Plan
(CCMP) (December, 1995). As such, the purpose of this memorandum
Is to provide, a synopsis of these comments in order to facilitate the
inclusion of responses In the Final CCMP.
O Existing and Putura MafBoamant Conteranen Structure. The
current Management Conference membership which participated in the
development of the Draft Final CCMP should be documented, as well as
the activities and efforts leading to the Final CCMP. This latter
discussion should refer specifically to the letters of commitment and
resolutions signed by agencies and communities participating in
implementation of the Final CCMP. In addition, the future structure of
the Management Conference should also be documented. This relates
particularly to the Conference's responsibilities in facilitating and tracking
Implementation of the Final CCMP, as well as approving annual
workplans. Finally, the Final CCMP should describe the structure and
approach of the Massachusetts Bays Program on a post-CCMP basis.
o Monitoring. The Final CCMP should include schedules related to
programmatic monitoring and reporting (e.g., tracking of Action Plan
implementation, what wni be reported to the public by the Management
Conference). Also, the Final CCMP's approach to monitoring should
reflect both the currently proposed level of effort, based on present
funding and resources, as well as any efforts planned beyond this level
G-69
-------
Memorandum
February 26, 1996
Page 2
should the current funding situation change. Lastly, the Final CCMP
should discuss the means for the public and others to access data which
supported the development of Action Plans and recommendations, as
Weil as the monitoring of their implementation.
o Federal Consistency. Coordination and consistency with the
Federal Endangered Species and National Historic Preservation Acts
3 Should be addressed In the Final CCMP, since these laws are critical
components of the overall CCMP objective to preserve and protect
coastal habitat.
o Base Programs Analysis. The report, The Massachusetts Bava
Management System: A Valuation of Bays Resources qnd Uses and an
4 Analysis of its Regulatory and Management Structure (Bowen, Archer,
Terkia, and Myers, June 1993), is referenced In the Analysis, but its
results (e.g., identifying the need for technical assistance) are not
included. This should be rectified by summarizing the report's
conclusions In the Base Programs Analysis (as well as in the
Implementation Strategy).
o Actign Plans. As written, the Action Plans do not establish that
the absence of implementation priorities is related to the fact that each
5 community will largely be responsible for setting priorities, through their
Local Governance Committee (LGC). This approach should be
documented in both the Introduction to the Action Plans as well as In the
Implementation Strategy; the latter should also document recent
"visioning" discussions by the LGCs In support of this communlty-by-
communrty approach to implementation.
With respect to the Habitat Action Plan, the Final CCMP should
describe how the Community Resource Atlases (GIS) document the
presence of endangered species.
Each Action Plan with outdated milestones should be updated.
O Implementation Strategy. A number of the above comments relate
to revisions recommended for the Implementation Strategy and are
6 significant enough to reiterate as follows: the role of the Management
Conference in implementation; written commitments by agencies and
communities to implementation of the Final CCMP; incorporation of the
Bowen. etal report; and setting of Action Plan priorities at the local level.
G-70
-------
Memorandum
February 26.1996
Page3
Mftrtna Pollution Control Branch
O Boat Wastes and Marina Pollution. This Action Plan should
consider provisions for "dump stations* for the disposal of the portable
heads common on small boats. Also, the U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service
7 (USFWS) has a number of education/outreach materials and grants
(Clean Vessel Act) which could support implementation of this Action
Plan. A contact at USFWS was provided.
O Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal. This Action Plan should
reflect both EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulation
8 and guidance regarding dredge material disposal. This applies to both
the proposed capping demonstration project at the Massachusetts Bay
Disposal Site, and the potential survey of future dredge areas to identify
contaminated "hot spots" using EPA's "Beneficial Use Manual" (currently
being drafted). Finally, similar to the National Dredging Team, regional
dredging teams are being established; potentially supporting
Implementation of this Action Plan.
G-71
-------
G-72
-------
MBP Response to Tara Tracy, EPA - New England/MBP
For expanded discussions on the MBP Manage-
ment Conference's existing and future structure,
as well as its role in developing the Draft Final
CCMP, approving annual workplans, and facilitat-
ing and tracking CCMP implementation, please
refer to Chapter I (Introduction) and Chapter VI
(Implementing the CCMP Throughout the Bays
Watershed). Also, please refer to Appendix L for
letters of commitment and resolutions signed by
agencies and communities participating hi imple-
mentation of me Final CCMP.
For expanded discussions on: 1) programmatic
monitoring and reporting (e.g., tracking of Action
Plan implementation); 2) currently proposed and
possible future levels of effort; and 3) mechanisms
for accessing MBP data, please refer to Chapter
vm (Monitoring CCMP Implementation).
CCMP coordination and consistency with the
Federal Endangered Species Act and the National
Historic Preservation Act is discussed hi the Final
CCMP. In particular, please refer to Appendices
J and K, respectively.
The conclusions of the Base Programs Analysis
report, The Massachusetts Bays Management
System: A Valuation of Bays Resources and Uses
and an Analysis of its Regulatory and Management
Structure (Bowenet al., 1993), are summarized in
the Final CCMP. Please refer to the Management
Characterization/Base Programs Analysis discus-
sions in Chapter K and Appendix E (available
under separate cover).
The approach to setting of implementation priori-
ties by the LGCs is discussed in the Introduction
to the Action Plans (Chapter V) as well as in the
Implementation Strategy (Chapter VI). The latter
also dnrjni)^in^ jjjg recent "visioning" discussions
by the LGCs hi support of mis commumty-by-
8
of endangered species.
Action Plans with outdated milestones have been
updated.
For further discussion on: 1) die role of die Man-
agement Conference hi CCMP implementation; 2)
written commitments by agencies and communities
to implement the Final CCMP; 3) incorporation of
the Bowen report; and 4) setting of action plan
priorities at the local level, please refer to Chapter
VI (Implementing the CCMP Throughout the Bays
Watershed).
The Federal Clean Vessel Act (CVA) provides
financial support for me establishment of boat
pump-out stations. CVA funds are appropriated
through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
granted by the Massachusetts Division of Fisher-
ies, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement
to harbors (i.e., municipalities) and marinas which
are situated in targeted embayments. hi Massa-
chusetts, CVA funds have also been used to
establish dump stations in similarly sensitive areas.
Dump stations are used as waste receptacles for
the sewage wastes from portable heads typically
found on smaller boats. Accordingly, in conjunc-
tion with CVA funding and planning agency
efforts to initiate pump-outs for larger boats, the
Massachusetts Bays Program will work to estab-
lish dump stations for smaller boats hi targeted
embayments.
Recent revisions to the CCMP Action Plan for
Managing Dredging and Dredged Materials
Disposal reflect the role federal regulations will
tng ACtlOD P13Q S rCCOIDZDCIl~
The Habitat Action Plan describes how the Com-
munity Resources Atlases document the presence
dations. In addition, MBP staff have a close
working relationship with the EPA-New England
staff who oversee federally-regulated dredging
projects and demonstrations. Accordingly, all
work related to implementation of this Action Plan
will occur with EPA-New England input and
direction, using such sources as available guidance
materials (e.g., die Beneficial Use Manual) and
die yet-to-be-formed regional dredging team.
G-73
-------
G-74
-------
THE COMMONWEALTH or MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
1OO CAMIMIMC Smcrr. BOSTON. MA O22O2
(617) 727-8S3O FAX (61 7 > 727-27S4
Zone
rement
•ogram Draft Final Comprehensive
HBSJDRAKDUM
To: Diane Gould, Director
Massachusetts Bays I"
Prom: Peg Brady, Director
Massachusetts Coasta
Date: March 5, 1996
Re: Massachusetts Bays -,-^ -
Conservation and Management Plan; Statewide
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (MCZM) would like to thank
the Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) for the opportunity to comment
on the 1995 Draft Final Coracruhensive Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP).
The CCMP is the result of a five year effort by the Massachusetts
Bays (or MassBays) Program tc characterize the natural resources of
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, identify resource management
issues, and propose remedis.tion strategies to address these
concerns. The MassBays Prcgra.m has made extensive public outreach
and participation efforts, attempting to ensure both scientifically
valid and publicly acceptable solutions to resource management
problems of the Bays. MCZM has been an active participant in the
development of the CCMP.
MCZM is currently conducting a federal consistency review of the
CCMP to ensure consistency with its enforceable program policies.
This review will be completed following incorporation of comments
into the Draft CCMP and submission of the Plan to the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for acceptance.
MCZM offers the following comments for consideration in the
amendment of the Draft CCMP.
Introduction: A great deal cf information underlies or is included
in the CCMP, however, for a rtjader who has not participated in the
development of the Plan, this depth may not be apparent. MCZM
recommends that an- introductory chapter be developed that
describes:
- the National Estuary Program (NEP) ,-
- the structure and purpose of a CCMP,-
- the process by which MassBays developed its scientific
understanding of the Bays and the management recommendations
embodied in the Plan;
WlbUM F. WCLO. QOVCRNOK: AMID ftUIL ClkLUCU. LltL'TINJiNT OOVtKNOH; THUOT C0XZ. StCHCT«ITr; MAMMirr M. BMADY. DlHECTOR
C-75
-------
- the authorities under which the NEP operates and the
commitments of federal, state and local governments co
implementation of the Plan's recommendations;
- participants in the Plan's development.
Chapter II, Shellfish Bed Contamination, page II-8, third 1: MCZM
recommends that the CCMP cite the US Department of Health and Human
Services, Food and Drug Administration's 1989 Revision of the
"National Shellfish Sanitation Programs's {NSSP} Manual of
Operations, Part I, Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas" after
the discussion of the criteria for shellfish beds open to
harvesting.
Chapter III, Overview of Coastal Subregions: The overview of
coastal subregions is nicely done. The MassBays Program has funded
a large body of research on the characteristics of the
Massachusetts Bay system -- reference to this research and
identification of the location of reports would enhance this
section and highlight the excellent work that the MassBays Program
has sponsored.
MCZM suggests that, for consistency, directories of. Projects,
Programs, and Sources of Assistance for the Metro Boston Region and
South Shore Region be added to the CCMP. Fara Courtney's name as
MCZM North Shore Coordinator should be deleted from the Directory
of Upper North Shore and Salem Sound Coastal Projects, Programs,
and Sources of Assistance.
Chapter IV, Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site, page IV-19: Under
"Recommended Actions," MCZM asks that MBP consider including a
commitment to develop a long-term monitoring program for the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS).
Chapter IV, Plymouth Sewage Treatment Project, page IV-29: MCZM
questions the inclusion of the Plymouth Sewerage Treatment Project
in the "Projects of Regional Scope and Impact" section. This
project is similar in complexity and significance to ongoing work
in Gloucester and in Scituate, which were not included as "Mega-
Projects".
Chapter V. Action Plans: The goals of the Massachusetts Bays
Program are mentioned in an introductory section and then are not
referenced, again in the text. A slight restructuring of the
chapter containing the CCMP's Action Plans might make the Action
Plan's relevance to the goals clearer.
The authority of the MassBays Program to require implementation of
Action Plans is unclear in the current text. It is MCZM's
understanding that an NEP's authority is, to a large degree,
persuasive. MCZM suggests that the MassBays Program reconsider the
presentation of its recommendations, which are all stated in terms
of an agency "should" perform the task specified. Rather than
G-76
-------
"Municipalities with Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
should work cooperatively with ...", the CCMP might, for example,
read "The Massachusetts Says Program recommends that municipalities
with Areas of Critical Environmental" Concern (ACEC) work
cooperatively with .. ." . If the agencies being so directed have
agreed to implement the recommendation, that fact could be noted in
the Implementation Strategy far the recommendation. MCZM believes
that this approach will emphasize the cooperative nature of this
proj ect.
Throughout the Action Plans, there are disagreements in tense
between the recommended action and the implementation sections.
From the text, it is very difficult for the reader to know if the
Implementation Strategy is proposed or already underway (as many
actions are). For example, DPH Action 1.1 recommends the
establishment of a clearing house. The text states that DPH "will
be the lead agent", DPH "will create" a data base, yet the section
on target dates indicates that this task began in July, 1995.
Again, notation of agreements with Responsible Agents to carry
these proposals forward would be helpful.
Chapter V, Action Plan #3, page V-32: MCZM recommends that the
7 nominators of an ACEC designation be included among the Responsible
Agent(s) for the development of resource management plans.
Chapter V, Action Plan #4, page V-56, second 1: MCZM suggests that
the last sentence in this paragraph read: "DEP is developing a
8 guidance manual, " instead of "DEP has developed a guidance
manual,...."
Chapter V, Action Plan #4.3, page V-61, first f: The state
rt Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) ie producing, not ' has
9 produced two excellent guidsince documents...." In addition, DEP
has shelved plans to reproduce the /fegamanual since there appears
to be considerable overlap with the Urban Stormwater guidance,
currently in progress. The. Megamanual was also not especially
useful for local -officials for implementing nonpoint pollution
controls. DEP will wait until the Urban Stormwater guidance is
finalized and then determine whether some portions, of the
Megamanual are not covered, such as the section on landfills, and
could beneficially be reproduced for local boards.
Chapt«r V, Action Plan #4.5, page V-65: MCZM suggests that the
state is, more properly the lead agency in providing technical
IQ assistance to communities in the development of comprehensive
Stormwater management progreims.
Chapter V, Action Plan #4.5, page 65, first 1: The Action Plan
indicates that EPA will work to reduce Stormwater pollution by
11 industrial Stormwater disch«irgers through the use of the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit compliance.
G-77
-------
However, EPA also requires NPDES stormwater general permits for
construction activities that disturb more than five acres since
these activities have been identified as major contributors to
nonpoint source pollution. MCZM suggests MBP mention this
additional requirement in the Action Plan, especially because both
sources are important issues for the Charles and the Neponset River
basins.
Chapter V, Action Plan #5.5, page 85: MCZM feels that this Action
+ ~ Plan does not greatly differ from Action Plan 4.5 in that both
A^ Action Plans address stormwater pollution issues from industrial
sites. MCZM suggests that MBP consider combining the two Action
Plans or make a reference in this Action Plan back to Action Plan
4.5.
Chapter V, Action Plan #7, page 97: It is our understanding that
this text is meant to suggest that a variety of wastewater
<-a treatment options be considered, however, the opening
•*••' characterization of wastewater facilities as causing a local
decline in water quality is easily misread as suggesting that
wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) have systematic adverse impacts.
MCZM suggests that the overview first discuss the benefits that can
be realized from centralized and on-site sewage treatment
facilities and the successes associated with these approaches.
MCZM recogni-zea -that WWTPs are not-without -local impacts for most
urban and suburban locations, but WWTPs are often an appropriate
solution that provides water quality protection. Many WWTPs are
built and operated correctly, and, in some areas, WWTPs offer the
best available protection for drinking water supplies and
shellfish. Often on-site systems have a finite life from the day
operation of the system begins. When they fail the best local
management systems are often unable to detect the adverse effects
on drinking water supplies and shellfish beds until considerable
harm has been done.
Chapter V, Action Plan #7A, page 99: MCZM agrees that the level of
. treatment at WWTPs is a concern and that advanced treatment be
14 added to facilities where needed. MCZM also agrees that there are
impacts from outfalls, but impacts can be managed, identified, and
mitigated in ways that decentralized systems impacts often cannot.
*c Chapter V, Action Plan #7A/ page 99: MCZM suggests that MBP
13 consider not characterizing sludge as "unpleasant." This
characterization is somewhat subjective.
Chapter V, Action Plan #7A, page 100: MCZM agrees that there are
j(j coastal WWTPs with flows that are at or above capacity, however the
majority of the coastal WWTPs have available capacity to handle
additional flows. Therefore, MCZM suggests the statement that many
WWTPs "will not be able to handle increased flows" and "have
antiquated and undersized collection systems..." is not broadly
applicable. While centralized municipal treatment systems are not
G-78
-------
all in perfect working condition and that they are a major point
source of pollution, MCZM considers poorly designed, inadequate or
poorly functioning individual septic systems and stpaaawata-r TCHOff
to be the biggest threat to near coastal water* and dniiKIttg -water
supplies-.
+ - Chapter V, Action Plan #7A.2, page 103: MCZM suggests that this
17 Action Plan cite EPA's 1994 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control
Policy and the 1990 Massachusetts Water Quality Standards
Implementation Policy for the Abatement of Pollution from Combined
Sewer Overflows.
Chapter V, Action Plan #7A,3, page 105: MCZM supports thja
18 delegation of the NPDES permit: responsibility to the state. MCZM
is a participant in an advisory committee addressing the delegation
process and specifically MCJSM's federal consistency review of
future delegated NPDES permits.
Chapter V, Action Plan #7B, page 107: MCZM suggests that this
10 Action Plan identify the issu« of toxics as a serious concern when
managing on-site systems ibecause of potential impacts to
groundwater quality, and the longevity and efficiency of the
overall on-site system.
Chapter V, Action Plan #7B.l, page 111: This Action Plan does an
,.n appropriate job of addressing the need for on-site ""^f^ment awl
20 planning, specifically in sensitive resource areas. However, MCZM
suggest! that the "Estimated Cost" section of this Action Plan also
emphasize that this planning requires that there be a bottom line-
of environmental protection that must be met. Sensitive resources
should not and cannot be forsaken by municipalities or property
owners solely because of high costs.
-« Chapter V, Action Plan #7B.2, page 113: MCZM recommends that the
21 CCMP recommend that municipalities work cooperatively with the DEP
in the development of a regular inspection and maintenance program
for on-site systems.
Chapter V, Action Plan #7C, page 121: When this Action Plan is
rewritten, MCZM recommends that local responsibility for waste
22 treatment be emphasized.. Decisions about growth management and
development will influence what wastewater treatment solutions are
viableT desirable, and allowable. There is a spectrum of
solutions, but less stringent: local planning and growth management
tend to drive the solution towards centralized WWTPs.
Chapter V. Action Plan #8.1, page 127: Implementation of this
Action Plan depends on availability of funding from the i^"-1
23 Clean Vessel Act (CVA) Pump Out Grants Program. According to the
stall Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Environmental Law
Enforcement (DFWELE), the office that manages the CVA grants
program, there is only one more funding year left in this program.
G-79
-------
24
27
In addition, we suggest that the CCMP note that the CVA grants-
program has resulted in the placement of over 50 new pump-cut
facilities in the coastal waters of Massachusetts.
Chapter V, Action Plan f!2, page 153: Twice on this page there is
a reference to "Comprehensive Harbor Plans" (second and fifth
paragraphs). These should be changed to read "Municipal Harbor
Plans." The language is correct on page 154 of this Action Plan.
Chapter V, Action Plan #13, Planning for a Shifting Shoreline: In
the Implementation Strategy it is stated that MCZM has maps
depicting areas subject to sea level rise. In fact, MCZM has
25 relative sea level rise inundation maps for only three harbor
locations. The Coastal Submergence Program document, from which
the maps are taken, includes data on total acreage lost and
projected loss per year per community, but not maps.
MCZM suggests that the section on "no new direct, untreated
stormwater discharge..." does not appear to fit into the theme of
shifting shorelines.
On page 168, reference is made to the availability from MCZM of
the draft document "Scientific Recommendations for Performance
Standards for Land Subject to Coast Storm Flowage"-. This document
is a draft and has not yet been reviewed or approved by EOEA or
DEP. The document is not yet ready for general distribution.
Chapter VII. Financing the CCMP: Complete implementation of the
CCMP will be costly. This chapter describes the content of the
25 Financing Report but is silent "on its conclusions. It would be
helpful to understand the fiscal context for the recommendations of
the CCMP and MCZM therefore. recommends' that the chapter provide
this a summary of this information.
Chapter VIII. Monitoring CCMP Implementation: First mention of four
"Measurable Goals" for scientific monitoring is included in this
chapter. As these are the measures by which the CCMP will be
evaluated, MCZM suggests that these goals be discussed in the
introductory chapter described above.
Chapter X. Federal Consistency Analysis and Appendix F. Federal
Consistency Analysis: MCZM has worked closely with the MassBays
28 Program and EPA to develop an innovative approach to future federal
consistency reviews in the Massachusetts Bay watershed. We look
forward to reviewing this chapter and Appendix when they are
completed.
G-80
-------
MBP Response to Peg Brady, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Chapter 1 (Introduction) of toe CCMP describes
the National Estuary Program, die structure and
purpose of die CCMP, die process by which die
MBP developed its scientific and management
recommendations, and die authorities under which
the NEP operates. It also describes the partici-
pants in die Plan's development. (Note: for a list
of individual MBP committee members and staff,
please refer to die Acknowledgements section in
the front of the document). Commitments by
federal, state, regional, and local entities to imple-
ment the Plan are provided in Appendix L.
The "Shellfish Bed Contamination" discussion in
Chapter n (The State of the Bays) has been ex-
panded to include the citation for die US Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services, Food and
Drug Administration's 1989 Revision of die
National Sheltfish Sanitation Program's (NSSP)
Manual of Operations, Parti, Sanitation of Shell-
fish Growing Areas.
The large body of research funded by die MBP is
described in Chapter n (The State of the Bays).
The location and availability of MBP research
reports is discussed in the "Data Management"
section of Chapter vm (Monitoring CCMP
Implementation). Finally, Appendix H lists all
research reports funded by the MBP.
For purposes of consistency, directories of Pro-
jects, Programs, and Sources of Assistance have
been added to bom die Metro Boston and South
Shore Region sections of Chapter in. Fara Court-
ney's name as MCZM Norm Shore Coordinator
has been deleted from the Upper Norm Shore and
Salem Sound directories.
With respect to the development of a long-term
i for die MBDS, please refer to
the "Site Management and Monitoring" discussion
in die "Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site" section
of Chapter IV.
The discussion of the Plymouth Sewage Treatment
Project in Chapter IV was presented as an exam-
ple of Massachusetts municipalities diat are in-
volved in die complexities of long-term waste water
facilities planning. A note to this effect has been
added to die "Background" section of the Plym-
outh Sewage Treatment Project discussion.
The "Base Programs Analysis" (or Management
Characterization) of die CCMP (Appendix E)
discusses die relationship between die MBP's
goals and the Action Plans. In particular, die
Analysis identifies bom die MBP's overall goal for
die Massachusetts Bays (I.e., "...die preservation
and management of a healthy ecosystem of living
resources, useable by die public...") and its four
measurable goals (e.g., improved habitat quality).
The Analysis describes in detail how implementa-
tion of die IS Action Plans will support mese
goals; for example, die relationship between die
Action Plan for Reducing and Preventing Oil
Pollution and die measurable goal of Reduction of
Toxic Contaminants.
Generally, the CCMPs which have already been
developed by the other 27 National Estuary Pro-
grams in the country use me term "should" in
establishing their recommended actions. With
respect to die MBP, die use of "should" in the
Action Plan text represents me prior commitment
of the responsible agency to implement a given
action. In particular, all of die actions represent a
significant level of effort by both die MBP and die
agency in developing the recommendation, as well
as to undertake its implementation. This effort is
represented in the letters of commitment from the
implementing agencies, as found in Appendix L.
As recommended, die nominators of an ACEC
designation have been added to die list of "Re-
sponsible Agents" in Municipal Action #3.3 in
Chapter V (Action Plans).
G-81
-------
8 As recommended, the reference to the DEP
guidance manual, Urban Best Management Prac-
tices for Massachusetts, has been revised to reflect
me feet mat me manual is still under development.
Please refer to the introductory section of Action
Plan #4 (Reducing and Preventing Stormwater
Pollution) in Chapter V.
sewage systems in the Massachusetts Bays re-
gion../, rather than "many". It is important to
recognize, however, that the Massachusetts Bays
region includes the entire watershed area draining
to the Bays, and therefore includes many more
centralized wastewater treatment systems than
those located in the coastal zone alone.
As in #8, above, the reference to the DEP BMP
guidance document in Action Plan #4.3 has been
revised to reflect its status as a document still
under development.
While it is true mat DEP has shelved plans to
reproduce the complete Megamanual, copies of
selected chapters and appendices are available on
request from the DEP Nonpoint Source Program
Office in Grafton.
10 Edits have been made to EPA Action #4.5 in
Chapter V to address this comment.
11 Efforts by EPA to reduce stormwater pollution
under NPDES do not preclude additional NPDES
actions by EPA.
12 The last paragraph in the "Rationale" section of
EPA Action #5.5 in Chapter V has been expanded
to address this comment.
17 The "Responsible Agents" section of EPA Action
#7A.2 has been expanded to address this com-
ment.
18 No response required.
19 The introduction to Action Plan 7B ("Managing
On-site Sewage Disposal Systems") in Chapter V
has been expanded to include a discussion of the
potential adverse impacts of toxic substances on
septic system management and groundwater
quality.
20 The CCMP recognizes that there must be a bottom
line of environmental protection in wastewater
management planning (See the Introduction to
Action Plan #7, "Managing Municipal Waste-
water.") The MBP agrees that sensitive resources
should not be forsaken by municipalities or prop-
erty owners solely because of high costs.
13 The second paragraph of the introduction to
Action Plan #7 (Managing Municipal Wastewater)
has been expanded to address this comment.
21 Municipal Action #76.2 has been revised to
include the recommendation that municipalities
work cooperatively with DEP in the development
of a local I/M program for on-site systems.
14 Additional language has been added to the first
page of Action Plan 7A ("Action Plan for Manag-
ing Centralized Wastewater Treatment Facilities")
to address this comment.
22 The first paragraph of the "Description" section of
Action Plan #7C (Action Plan for Decentralized
Wastewater Management and Treatment) has been
expanded to address this comment.
15 The characterization of sludge as "unpleasant" has
been deleted from the first page of Action Plan 7 A
in Chapter V.
16 The language on the second page of Action Plan
7A has been changed to read "...some centralized
23 Municipal Action #8.1 in Chapter V has been
expanded to include references to: 1) the over 50
new boat pump-out faculties that have been placed
in Massachusetts coastal waters through the C VA
grants program; and 2) the one year of fanning
remaining in the program.
G-82
-------
24 The references to "comprehensive" harbor plans
in Municipal Action #12.1 in Chapter V have been
revised to read "municipal" harbor plans.
25 Municipal Action #13.1 in chapter V has been
revised to delete die references to: 1) CZM sea
level rise maps, 2) die "no new, direct stormwater
discharges..." performance standard, and 3) the
draft document, Scientific Recommendations for
Performance Standards for Land Subject to Coas-
tal Storm Flawage.
26 The MBP "Financing Report", a companion
document to die CCMP, is intended to serve as a
technical assistance document for communities and
others to use in implementing the CCMP's recom-
mendations and actions. For example, the "Re-
port" provides information regarding sources of
financial assistance in the form of grants, reve-
nues, etc., and can also be used to establish a
framework through which a community can
calculate its cost to implement applicable CCMP
actions. The "Report" intentionally does not reach
conclusions regarding the overall cost of imple-
menting the CCMP, since the information which
would be used to calculate these costs (e.g.,
individual site conditions, consulting fees, con-
struction materials, etc.) is highly variable over
time and is not germane to the implementation of
every action.
27 The MBP's "measurable goals" for scientific
monitoring are also discussed in Chapter I (Intro-
duction).
28 Chapter X (Federal Consistency Analysis) and
Appendix F (Federal Consistency Analysis) were
developed in consultation with CZM staff and
have been presented to CZM for review and
comment.
G-83
-------
G-84
-------
appendices
Appendix H.
MBP- Funded
Research Reports
(1990-1996)
-------
MBB ~ fftimm BESEAECH BE^QETS (1990 -
, '«„*'„
Report Title
Sources and Loadings of Pollutants to the
Massachusetts Bays (337 pgs.)
Evaluation of Elemental Tracers for Mon-
itoring the Transport of Sewage Sludge in
the Marine Environment (57 pgsj^
Physical Oceanographic Investigation of
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays (445
pgs. plus figures and appendices).
Survival and Deposition of Fecal Bacteria
in Boston Harbor Sediments (94 pgs.)
The Massachusetts Bays Management
System: a Valuation of Bays Resources
and Uses and an Analysis of its
Regulatory and Management Structure
(309 pgs.)
Bioavailability and Biotrans formation of
Hydrocarbons in Boston Harbor (68 pgs.)
Examining Linkages between
Contaminant Inputs and their Impacts on
Living Marine Resources of the
Massachusetts Bays Ecosystem through
Application of the Sediment Quality Triad
Method (210 pgs.)
Organic Loadings from the Merrimack
River to Massachusetts Bay (1 82j>gs.)
Evaluation of Chemical Contaminant
Effects in the Massachusetts Bays (120
Pgs.)
Measurements and Loadings ofPotycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in Storm-
Water, Combined Sewer Overflows,
Rivers, and Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs) Discharging to
Massachusetts Bays (236 pgs.)
Atmospheric Deposition of Contaminants
onto Massachusetts & Cape Cod Bays
Principal Author/Grantee
Charles Menzie, Principal Investigator,
Menzie-Cura & Associates
David K. Ryan
Univ. of Massachusetts/Lowell et al.
W. Rockwell Geyer
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, et
al.
Michael Shiaris
Univ. of Massachusetts/Boston
Robert Bowen
Univ. of Massachusetts/Boston et al.
Anne McElroy, Principal Investigator,
State University New York/Stonybrook;
New York Sea Grant, et al.
JeffHyland
Helder Costa
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Charles Menzie, Principal Investigator,
Menzie-Cura and Associates, et al.
Michael Moore, Principal Investigator,
Biology Dept. Woods Hole
Oceanographic institution, et al.
Charles Menzie, Principal Investigator,
Menzie-Cura & Associates, et al.
Dan Golomb, Principal Investigator,
Univ. of Massachusetts at Lowell, et al.
Status
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Draft Rec'd
Doe. Numbei
MBP-91-01
October 1991
MBP-92-02
February 1992
MBP-92-03
October 1992
MBP-92-04S
MBP-92-05
(Full)
October 1992
MBP-93-01
June 1993
MBP-95-02
November 1994
MBP-95-03
March 1995
MBP-95-04
April 1995
MBP-95-05
July 1995
MBP-95-06
August 1995
In Final Review
Print 4/96
(MBP-95-07)
H-l
-------
Report Title
Evaluating Costs to Communities of
Management Measures to Reduce Loads
to Sediments of Urban and Semi-Urban
Harbors in Massachusetts Bays
Biological and Physical Processes
Controlling Nutrient Dynamics and
Primary Production in Cape Cod Bay
Inventories and Concentration Profiles of
Organic Contaminants in Sediment Cores
from Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays
Population Processes ofMyaArenaria
from Contaminated Habitats in
Massachusetts Bay
Geographic Analysis of Bacterial
Loadings to Selected Massachusetts Beys
Program Embayments
Other Funded Studies
Identify/ing Southeast Asian Immigrant
Populations at Risk from Eating
Contaminated Shellfish
The Functions of Coastal Wetlands and
the Economic Value of Coastal Wetland
Restoration in Massachusetts
Impact of Contamination and Overfishing
to Fisheries Resources
Biological and Oceanographic Factors
Controlling the Nuisance Algal Bloom of
Pilavella Littoralis in NahantBay.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Bays Monitoring
Plan Components
An Inventory of Organic and Metal
Contamination in Massachusetts Bay,
Cape Cod Bay, and Boston Harbor
Sediments and Assessment of Regional
Sediment Quality
Identification of Embayments at Risk of
Eutrophication
Assessing the Health of Mussels, mytilus
edulis L, sampled during the 1995 Gulf-
Watch Project.
Principal Author/Grantee
Marie D. Curran
Battelle Ocean Sciences
Duxbuty, MA. 02332
George B. Gardner, Principal
Investigator, Univ. of
Massachusetts/Boston, et al.
Damian Shea, Principal Investigator, No.
Carolina State University, et al.
Judith E. McDowell, Woods Hole Ocean-
ographic Institution, et al.
Scott Horsley, Vice President Horsley &
Witten,Inc.
Jennifer Charles, Charles Consulting;
Charles Menzie, Menzie-Cura &
Associates
Dennis King, Project Manager, King &
Associates
Robert Buchsbaum, Mass. Audubon:
North Shore
Don Cheney and Verena Gross,
Northeastern University Marine Science
Lab
Jeanne Cahill and Karen Imbalzano, U.
Mass./Boston
Charles Menzie, Menzie-Cura &
Associates
William Robinson, U.Mass./Boston
Status
Draft Rec'd
In Process
In Process
In Process
In Process
Final
In Process
In Process
In Process
Final
1991
In Process
In Process
Doc Number
In Final Review
Print 5/96
Draft Due 4/96
Draft Due 4/96
Draft Due 4/96
Draft Due 4/96
MBP-95-1D
May 1995
Draft Due 3/96
Draft Due 3/96
Draft Due 4/96
-
N/A
Due 4/96
Due 6/96
H-2
-------
appendices
Appendix H.
MBP — Funded
Research Reports
(1990-1996)
-------
,r s & ' -«
q»ov *99&) y &
1991«1992
North Shore
Gloucester Dye Testing
$16,000 I Expansion of an existing dye-testing project
! conducted by City of Gloucester Health De-
j partment. Intended result: to control direct
j sewage discharges from inadequate septic
[systems.
| Walter Meyer, Health Agent
j City of Gloucester Health Dept
| Poplar Street
j Gloucester, MA 01930
1(508)281-9771
Boston
Quincy Tidegate Project
$35,000 ! Installation of a tidegafe: to control tidal influx | Michael C. Wheelwright
! into the storm water system for the City of
j Quincy.
! Program Manager
j Quincy Dept of Public Works
i 55 Sea Street
! Quincy, MA 02169-2572
j(617)376-1900
i
South Shore
Stormwater Drainage Sys-
tem Monitoring
$33,000 ! Maintenance, upgrade, and monitoring of | Debbie Lenehan, Executive Director
! Stormwater drainage systems discharging into ! No. & So. Rivers Watershed Assn.
j the North River in Mar shfield, Norwell,
! Hanover, and Pembroke.
j P.O. Box 43
i Norwell, MA 02061
1(617)659-8168
Cape Cod
Scudder Lane Stormwater
Infiltration System Instal-
lation
$15,000 I Installation and subsequent monitoring of a j Stephen Seymour, Proj. Engineer
! Stormwater infiltration :?ystem at the parking ! Town of Barnstable
j area and boat ramp at Scudder Lane in Bam- {367 Main Street
! stable, an important shellfish relay area in j Hyannis, MA 02601
j Cape Cod Bay. j (508)790-6300
1992 -1993
Boston
Winthrop Conservation
Commission and
Board of Selectmen
$31,000 j "Lewis Lake Restoration Project": to improve | Mary Kelly, Chair
! water quality in a degraded coastal lake ! Winthrop Conservation Commission
j through a quantitative baseline assessment of j Town Hall
i the water quality, vegetation, and hydrology j One Metcalf Square
! of the lake. Automate the existing manually ! Winthrop, MA 02150
| operated tidegate, clean the area of debris, j (617)846-1077
j review the use of fertilizers and pesticides in |
! the adjacent golf course, stencil storm drains !
j which empty into the lake, and monitor recov- j
jery.
1-1
-------
1992 -1993 (con'd)
Boston (con'd)
Friends of the Boston
Harbor Islands
{Marsha Bach
! Friends of the Boston Harbor
j Islands, Inc.
$15,000 ["Greater Boston Harbor Eelgrass Study and
! Island Revegetation Project" to renew and
j protect the native and naturalized vegetation
! on the harbor islands through data collection, j P.O. Box 9025
! propagation, and transplanting. Create an on-! Boston, MA 02114
j island nursery with seeds and cuttings col- j (617)740-4290
Elected from all of the islands. Create a better |
! understanding of coastal erosion techniques !
j through bioengineering which can be used [
! throughout the islands and along the New |
{England coast !
Cape Cod
Orleans/Brewster/East-
ham Groundwater Protec-
tion District and Bourne
Board of Health
$15,000 ! "De-nitrifying septic system" to perform site
! evaluation, and install and monitor an alterna-
! Wayne McDonald
! District Administrator
[ live on-site septic system: a peat system in | Orleans, Brewster, Eastham Ground-
jEastham. This system has the capacity to de-
! nitrify wastes. Work with DEP to get these
j systems approved as alternatives to the cur-
! rent Title 5 system. Conduct one educational
! workshop on the operation, maintenance, and
j regulations necessary for these systems.
! water Protection DisL
! Overland Way - P.O. Box 2773
J Orleans, MA 02653
1(508)255-5744
1993.1994
South Shore
Duxbury/Kingston/
Plymouth: Bluefish River
Water Quality Monitor-
ing/Habitat Restoration
$32,000 ! Goal of the project is improvement of near- j Joseph M. Grady, Jr.
! shore water quality of Kingston/Plymouth/
j Duxbury embayment to enable opening of
j shellfish beds for commercial and recrea-
Itional harvest Cooperative working agree-
jment among the three towns. Engineering
! study conducted to develop remediation strat-
i
i Duxbury Conservation Commission
1878 Tremont Street
i Duxbury, MA 02332
1(617)934-6586
i egy for failing septic systems.
Other 1993 Demonstration Project funding was based upon projects submitted by the five regional Local Governance
Committees (LGCs). Included is a 25% non-federal match from local communities, agencies, or companies. Award:
September, 1993.
North Shore LGC (8 Towns & the Bay)
Coastal Water Quality
Task Force Development
$18,090 i Task forces to be established in each |LisaNicol
i community in a cooperative effort to identify, IMBP Technical Assistant
j monitor and mitigate non-point pollution j M. V.P.C.
j sources. Perform shoreline surveys, conduct j 160 Main Street
! water quality sampling and data analysis, and ! Haverhill, MA 01830
j enter into agreements with local sewer and j (508)374-0519
! water filtration labs for fecal coliform testing. |
1-2
-------
1993-199l(con'd)
Salem Sound 2000 LGC
Salem Sound Monitoring
Project and Source
Identification Survey
Metro Boston LGC
Pilayella littoralis Re-
search
South Shore LGC
Water Quality Monitoring
Project
$17,000 j Shoreline survey and source identification [Nancy Goodman
! project; teams of volunteer monitors collected ! MBP Technical Assistant
i and analyzed weekly water samples for fecal j M.A.P.C.
! coliform bacteria. Data were shared with j 60 Temple Place
! appropriate municipal c ifficials and Program ! Boston, MA 02 1 1 1
jstaff. [(617)451-2770
i i
i i
i i
$6,000 j Funding to Northeaster a University's Marine i Dr. Don Cheney
j Science Lab in Nahant for study of the ! Northeastern University
j biology of Pilayella littoralis. Results to J East Point Marine Science Lab.
! provide information for the successful timing | Nahant, MA 01 908
j and location of harvesting efforts. j (617)581 -7370
i i
i i
$17,000 ! Monitoring to occur in the communities of | Bill Clark, MBP TeckAsst
! Weymouth, Cohasset, IJcituate, and Marsh- j M.A.P.C.
| field. 1 60 Temple Place
i iBoston,MA02111
j j (61 7)45 1-2770
i i
1994- 1995
North Shore (8 Towns & the Bay)
Town of Essex Septic
System Evaluation
Salem Sound 2000
Water Quality Monitoring
Metro Boston LGC
Waste Oil Collection Cen-
ter
$ 1 9,000 ! Town-wide door-to-dcor survey of existing
! septic systems, examination of Board of
j Health records, and compilation of data
I resulting in remediation recommendations.
i
i
i
$ 1 9,000 j Ongoing water quality monitoring program
! and establishment of coastal water quality
j task forces in each community to work on
I specific projects (continuation funding).
i
t
i
i
$4,400 ! Establishment of waste oil collection center in
! Revere to reduce pollutants entering
j municipal storm water systems. A tank was
I purchased and installed, and will be operated
! for several years. It is: the city's responsibility
jfor additional construction costs, operation,
i promotion, and disposal.
i
i
i
i Lisa Nicol, MBP Tech. AssL
IM.V.P.C.
] 160 Main Street
IHaverhUl, MA 01830
1(508)374-0519
i Nancy Goodman, MBP Tech. Asst
IMA.P.C.
1 60 Temple Place
[Boston, MA 021 11
|(617)451-2770
i
i
jBill Clark
! MBP Technical Assistant
JM.A.P.C.
|60 Temple Place
!Boston,MA02111
{(617)451-2770
i
i
i
i
1-3
-------
1994-1995 (con'd)
Metro Boston LGC (con'd)
Metro Boston Area
Contaminated Shellfish
Harvesting Study
$5,000 ! Phase I of project to identify geographic areas | Nancy Goodman
! and ethnic populations that are at risk from IMA.P.C.
j eating contaminated shellfish. j 60 Temple Place
i {Boston, MA 021 11
! 1(617)451-2770
1 1 , . .C — "
Neponset River
Watershed Bylaw
Development
$8,000 i Development of a stormwater bylaw, based | Martin Pillsbuiy
! on stormwater modeling, for communities in IMA.P.C.
j the Neponset River basin. Developed by j 60 Temple Place
JMAPC in partnership with MA Coastal Zone {Boston, MA 02111
! Management, US Natural Resources j (617)451-2770
[ Conservation Service, Boston Water & Sewer j
! Dept, and Neponset River Watershed i
[Association. !
South Shore
Water Quality Monitoring
$2,000 ! To identify pollution sources in the Herring
! River in Scituate.
| Debbie I^nehan
! No. & So. Rivers Watershed Assn.
| P.O. Box 43
INorwell, Ma 02061
1(617)659-8168
Cape Cod LGC
Alternative On-Site Waste
Technologies
Development
$17,400 i Hiring of part-time technical assistant to work | Julie Early, MBP Tech. Asst
! with Cape Cod communities in the ! Cape Cod Commission
j development of alternative septic tech- j 3225 Main Street
j nologies. | Barnstable, MA 02630
! 1(508)362-3828
1995-1996
North Shore (8 Towns & the Bay)
Four Community Projects
(in the planning stages)
Salem Sound 2000
Water Quality Monitoring
Metro Boston Area
Youth Environmental
Action Summer Program
$15,000 j
i
i
i
i
i
i
$ 1 5,500 ! Ongoing water quality monitoring program
! and establishment of coastal water quality
| task forces in each community to work on
j specific projects they develop (continuation
! funding).
i
i
i
i
$5,000 i Funding of 10-week "Harbor Vision Crew
! '95" peer education and service program for
j schools in the cities of Cambridge, Chelsea,
! Somerville, and Boston.
i
i
i
i
i
[LisaNicol
IMV.P.C.
1 160 Main Street
iHaverhill,MA01830
j (508)374-05 19
j Nancy Goodman
! MBP Technical Assistant
JMA.P.C.
[60 Temple Place
iBoston,MA02111
j(617)451-2770
i
jJodi Sugennan
! Save the Harbor/Save the Bay
1 25 West Street
[Boston, MA 021 11
.(617)451-2860
i
i
1-4
-------
Metro Boston Area (con'd)
Neponset River Water
Quality Monitoring
Storm Drain Stenciling
South Shore
Water Quality Monitoring
Water Quality Monitoring
Title 5 Septic System
Municipal Data Base
Pollution Source
Identification
ACEC Management Plan
$2,500 j Citizen monitoring projp^m to identify | Ian Cook
I potential pollution sources in the Neponset ! Neponset River Watershed Assn.
j River between Mother Brook section and the j 2438 Washington Street
i Lower Mills Falls. | Canton, MA 0202 1
! |(617)575-0354
$4,000 [Stenciling of storm drains throughout the 1 Nancy Goodman
! metropolitan Boston arsa, indicating that the IM.A.P.C.
j storm drains dump directly into Boston j 60 Temple Place
IHarbor. j Boston, MA 021 11
| 1(617)451-2770
! !
$2,000 ! To identify pollution sources in the Herring j Debbie Lenehan
j River in Scituate. j North and South Rivers Watershed
j j Association
i i P.O. Box 43
! iNorweU, Ma 02061
| |(617)659-8168
i i
i i
$2,055 ! To determine nitrogen levels and fecal | Mike Conrad
! conform bacteria counts in the Billington Sea, ! Director of Water Monitoring
j Plymouth, in conjunction with Old Colony j Billington Sea Association
I Planning Council, Natural Resources ' 33 Hopkins Road
! Conservation Service, and Massachusetts ! Plymouth, MA 02360
j Department of Environmental Protection. | (508)747-55 10
i i
i i
i i
i i
j j
$11,400 i Purchase of FoxPro software, one copy for [Bill Clark
! each South Shore Loo J Governance i M.A.P.C.
j Committee municipal Board of Health, to j 60 Temple Place
! compile DEP-requirecl information on each j Boston, MA 021 11
! septic system in a municipality. 1(617)451-2770
i i
i i
i i
[Contract to develop database and translate i
! municipal assessor daia to the system. !
j Input data to municipal computers. j
$1,600 ! Purchase of smoke testing equipment for use {Bill Clark
j by all South Shore communities (via DPW JM.A.P.C.
j /Board of Health) in exjunction with the j 60 Temple Place
I Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. | Boston, MA 021 11
j |(617)451-2770
i i
$2,500 |Work with the Back River Committee in jTomBurbank
! Weymouth and Hingtam to develop a ! 1 7 Andrews Isle/P.O. Box 1 85
; resource management plan for their ACEC. j Hingham, MA 02043
i 1(617)749-9473
i i.
i i
1-5
-------
1995-1996 (con'd)
Cape Cod
Alternative On-Site Waste
Technologies
Development
$20,000 j Continuation of part-time technical assistant
! to work with Cape Cod communities in the
j development of alternative on-site systems
! technologies.
| Julie Early
! MBP Technical Assistant
j Cape Cod Commission
j 3225 Main Street
iBamstable, MA 02630
|(508)362-3828
MBP Mini-Bays Grant Awards (1991 -1996)
North Shore
Plum Island Sound
South Shore
Fore River Embayment
Cape Cod
Wellfleet Harbor
$235,000 I Develop, implement, and monitor a research,
! policy, and education plan to reduce nonpoint
j sources of pollution in the communities of
! Ipswich, Newbury, and Rowley
i
$235,000 i A tri-community effort of the Cities of Brain-
! tree and Quincy and the Town of Weymouth
j to identify sources of pollution in the Fore
I River and develop strategies to mitigate those
! problems.
$235,000 i The Town of Wellfleet, the Bamstable Coun-
! ty Health and Environment Department, the
j Bamstable County Cooperative Extension
! office, and the Water Resources Office of the
! Cape Cod Commission have joined together
j to develop a long term management plan for
! Wellfleet Harbor, based on research and
! monitoring information, to mitigate pathogen
j and nitrogen sources to the estuary.
! Dr. Robert Buchsbaum
! Mass. Audubon: North Shore
j 348 Grapevine Road
jWenham, MA 01984
1(508)927-1122
j FAX: 922-8487
i
i
i James Clarke, Jr.
! Planning & Community Development
5 Town Hall - 75 Middle Street
i Weymouth, MA 02189
j (617)335-2000
i
i
I George Heufelder
! Bamstable County Health &
j Environment Department
! Superior Court House
! P.O. Box 427
| Bamstable, MA 02630
1(508)362-2511
i
i
i
i
i
i
1-6
-------
appendices
Appendix J.
Endangered
Species Act
-------
^
The Action Plans and recommendations of the Massachusetts
Bays Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) seek to protect and enhance habitat for many
different wildlife species, including those categorized as
endangered or threatened. The CCMP is the product of the
Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) Management Confer-
ence, which has included representatives of both the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). An example of these CCMP
directives is the action for municipalities (with assistance
from knowledgeable sources) to prepare a "Barrier Beach
Management Plan* for locally-owned barrier beaches, which
provide significant nesting habitat for many species of
wading birds, shorebirds, and waterfowl (e.g., piping plover
and roseate tern, both of which are federally listed species
under the Endangered Species Act). Also, NMFS, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) are responsible for continu-
ing and expanding efforts to protect and restore eelgrass
habitat, a critical nearshore food source for many of the same
species of wading birds and waterfowl which nest on barrier
beaches. Lastly, the MBP has recently published Geographic
Information System Community Resource Atlases for each of
the 49 coastal communities along Massachusetts and Cape
Cod Bays; these atlases, which indicate locations at which
listed species have been observed, will be delivered to the
communities by mid-1996.
With respect to implementation of any CCMP Action Plans
and recommendations which could affect a federally listed
threatened or endangered species (or the designated critical
habitat of a listed species), a federal agency which authorizes,
funds, or otherwise carries out an implementation activity
must consult with USFWS and/or NMFS to ensure that
appropriate protections are in place, pursuant to Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition, federal
agencies must "conference" with USFWS and NMFS, as
appropriate under Section 7, to ensure that federal activities
consider potential jeopardy to species which have been
proposed for ESA listing but whose listing has not yet been
finalized.
J-l
-------
J-2
-------
appendices
Appendix K.
National Historic
Preservation Act
-------
At the request of the Director of the Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management Office (MCZM), the Massachusetts
Historical Commission (MHC)/State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) reviewed the Draft Final Massachusetts Bays
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) (December, 1995). As a result of this evaluation,
the MHC/SHPO offered a number of general suggestions
(e.g., implementation of the CCMP's Action Plans and
recommendations relative to the work of the MHC/SHPO)
and specific suggestions (e.g., inclusion of additional
information) regarding the protection of the Commonwealth's
significant historic and archaeologic resources. These
constructive comments have been addressed and otherwise
incorporated into die Final CCMP (please refer to Chapter XI
and Appendix G).
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), federal agencies must take into account the effects
of proposed federal or federally-assisted undertakings on
historic properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the
National Register of Historic Places. The NHPA and its
implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) also generally
provide for the federal agency or its designee to consult with
the SHPO and, as applicable, with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation on such undertakings. In addition,
applicable compliance with State historic preservation laws
and regulations must be achieved
If any federal agency implements, funds, or approves actions
contemplated under this CCMP, it shall be the responsibility
of that agency, in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA
and its implementing regulations, to notify the SHPO. In
addition, if any such activities would result in effects on
historic properties under this Plan, the federal agency shall
complete Section 106 consultation prior to initiating the
activity. Moreover, all entities implementing activities under
the Plan must satisfy any applicable requirements to consult
with the SHPO under state law. Finally, it will be the policy
of the Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) that any CCMP
implementation projects directly funded by the MBP will be
undertaken in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and
its implementing regulations. It should be noted that since
the MBP does not anticipate having excess funding to
support many of these projects, it will notify an agency
directly undertaking implementation (e.g., local Conservation
Commission) that its project may be subject to MHC/SHPO
regulations and policies. This will be accomplished when
feasible, recognizing that the MBP may not be directly
involved in all implementation activities (e.g., adoption of a
local wetlands protection bylaw without hands-on technical
assistance from MBP staff).
K-l
-------
K-2
-------
appendices
Appendix L.
Agency and
Community
Letters/Resolutions
of Commitment
-------
All of the state, federal, and regional agencies responsible for
CCMP action recommendations were asked to provide letters
affirming their support for the CCMP and their commitment
to implementation. These letters follow.
In addition, Massachusetts Bays cities and towns in each of
the five coastal subregions are being asked to sign a Resolu-
tion of support for the CCMP, affirming their voluntary
commitment to work towards implementing the actions
appropriate for their particular community. Copies of all
signed Resolutions that have been received to date follow.
Throughout the CCMP implementation process, the Massa-
chusetts Bays Program will provide guidance and technical
assistance through the MBP Local Governance Committees
and MBP/Regional Planning Agency Technical Assistance
staff. In addition, the MBP will serve these communities as
liaison to the participating state, federal, and regional
agencies of the Management Conference.
The commitment letters and resolutions of support which
follow set the stage for CCMP implementation. They serve
as our commitment to the citizens of Massachusetts that we
will work together to restore and protect our Bays resources
for the present and future generations.
L-l
-------
L-2
-------
$ A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203-0001
February 22, 1996
Ms. Trudy Coxe, Secretary
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs OFFICE OFTHE
1 00 Cambridge Street REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
Boston, MA 02202
RE: EPA Commitment to the Massachusetts Bays Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan
Dear Secretary Coxe:
As you know, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken an active role
in the development of the Massachusetts Bays Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP). Since the inception of the Massachusetts Bays Program
(MBP) in 1990, EPA has supported the MBP's goals and objectives, as articulated in the
CCMP. Accordingly, I believe that the purposes of the CCMP can be met by continuing
the cooperative relationship of EPA, state and regional agencies, local environmental
officials, as well as our other Federal partners. Specifically and through this letter, EPA
establishes its commitment to the following in support of the CCMP:
ACTION PLANS: EPA-New England will undertake 6 individual actions to directly support
implementation of 4 of the Action Plans in the CCMP.
Protecting and Enhancing Coastal Habitat. EPA, in partnership with the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the Army Corps of Engineers, will continue and expand current
efforts to support eelgrass habitat protection and restoration in Massachusetts and Cape
Cod Bays.
Reducing and Preventing] Stormwater Pollution: EPA will (a) provide technical assistance
to communities in developing comprehensive Stormwater management programs (lower
Charles River); and (b) target National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting and compliance for industrial Stormwater dischargers (Neponset River).
Reducing and Preventing Toxic Pollution: EPA will target NPDES permitting of significant
discharges in the Massachusetts Bays; in particular, oil tank farms along Chelsea Creek
and the Island End River.
Managing Centralized Wastewater Treatment Facilities: EPA will (a) support the control
of combined sewer overflows in the Massachusetts Bays watersheds, especially the lower
Charles River; and (b) target NPDES permitting to implement technology and water
quality-based requirements in the Merrimack River watershed.
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)
-------
Ms. Trudy Coxe, Secretaryx
Page 2
February 22, 1996
PROGRAMMATIC SUPPORT: This section identifies those EPA-New England programs
and initiatives which provide firsthand support to CCMP implementation. Further,
discussions with these program managers continue regarding programs in addition to
those listed which may also support CCMP implementation.
Municipal Assistance: In support of CCMP recommendations regarding wastewater
management, EPA's Center for Environmental Industry and Technology is currently
leading an effort to analyze and ideally establish consistent performance standards for
alternative residential on-site wastewater disposal systems. Refer also to the
"Enforcement/Compliance" section on this page.
Technical Development: Through both the Environmental Technology Initiative and the
Center for Environmental Technology and Industry, EPA is already providing significant
support to the recently commenced effort on Cape Cod which is developing a testing and
demonstration project for innovative and alternative design on-site sewage disposal
systems.
Emergency Response: The partnership of EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will collaborate with the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to implement the "Policy on the Use of Oil
Spill Chemical Counter Measures (Dispersants)", supporting implementation of CCMP
recommendations regarding oil pollution reduction.
Compliance/Enforcement EPA, through its Office of Environmental Stewardship, has
designated the South Coastal watershed for targeted enforcement and technical
assistance activity, consistent with CCMP recommendations regarding wastewater, toxics,
and nutrient management. Also, EPA's Underground Storage Tank Program will target
inspections in wellhead protection areas situated in the Neponset and South Coastal
watersheds, supporting CCMP recommendations regarding the reduction of oil and toxic
pollution.
-------
Ms. Trudy Coxe, Secretary
PageS
February 22, 1996
FINANCIAL SUPPORT: EPA-New England's commitments to those financial programs
which could advance implementation of the CCMP are described in this section.
Sfate Revolving Fund: EPA will work with the Massachusetts DEP to continue to access
the State Revolving Fund for authorized nonpoint source pollution control projects (e.g.,
stormwater mitigation).
Grant Programs: EPA will continue to support implementation of CCMP actions and
recommendations through existing grant programs (e.g., the Gloucester stormwater
mitigation project funded under §319, Clean Water Act in support of shellfish bed
restoration).
Management and staff of EPA-New England take these commitments seriously; in fact, we
have articulated our responsibility to the CCMP in both the Massachusetts Office of
Ecosystem Protection Annual Workplan and in our ongoing negotiations with the
Commonwealth regarding the Base Program Requirements of their annual Federal grant.
I appreciate the opportunity to formally present these commitments to you, and look
forward to continued collaboration as we begin full implementation of the CCMP. You, the
Massachusetts Bays Program staff, and all the Program's partners are to be congratulated
for developing this consensus- and community-based approach to improving and
protecting public health and our critical coastal resources.
Very truly yours,
John DeVillars
Regional Administrator
cc: Ms. Margaret M. Brady, Director, Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone
Management
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
NORTHEAST REGION
One Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA01930
February?, 1996
Margaret Brady, Director
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program
Room 2006
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202 ; .
Dear Ms. Brady:
This is in reference to the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for the
Massachusetts Bays Program. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the
draft CCMP and we are familiar with the goals, objectives, and action plans outlined in the
document. Clearly, cooperation between federal, state, and local agencies, as well as concerned
interest groups, will be the key to accomplishing the ambitious steps described in the CCMP.
NMFS offers our strong support for the CCMP. In particular, we are committed to assisting
Massachusetts with the implementation of Action Plan #3, "Protecting and Enhancing Coastal
Habitat." As discussed in Action #3.14, NMFS will continue our efforts with the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to support eelgrass habitat protection and
restoration in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. We will also continue to support greater
awareness of and protection for other important coastal habitats.
I look forward to working together with you and the others involved to make the Massachusetts
Bays CCMP successful.
Sincerely,
Chris Mantzaris
Chief, Habitat and Protected Resources Division
cc: Tara Tracy, EPA
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
424 TRAPELO ROAD
WALTHAM , MASSACHUSETTS 02254-9149
REPLYTO T- L n innt
ATTENTION OF February 2, 1996
Planning Directorate
Evaluation Division
Ms. Margaret Brady, Director ; ; - ; . , . - .
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program
Room 2006
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
Dear Ms. Brady:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division (Corps) has taken an
active role in the development of the Massachusetts Bays Program Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). The Corps has reviewed the excerpts from
the December 1995 draft Final Massachusetts Bays CCMP and has the following general
comments. Specific comments are attached.
Over the past few months and as part of our review, the Corps has evaluated the
goals and objectives outlined in the draft CCMP. Based on this review, we believe that
the goals of the CCMP can be met by the cooperative relationship of the Corps, and other
Federal, State and local agencies as well as other environmental organizations. In
particular and through this letter, the Corps confirms its commitment to the following
actions:
Action Plan for Protecting and Enhancing Coastal Habitat: The partnership
of the Corps, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), will continue and expand current efforts to support eelgrass
and saltmarsh habitat protection and restoration of the Massachusetts Bays region. We
suggest inclusion of the following paragraph in the CCMP.
These actions are critical to the protection and restoration of eelgrass and
saltmarsh habitat, which provide valuable breeding, nursery, nutritional, and stabilization
functions in the aquatic ecosystem. These efforts are ongoing by the Corps. EPA, and
NMFS as partnership agencies, and will be funded through their annual operating budgets.
Primed on f^CJ Recycled Paper
-------
-2-
Action Plan for Managing Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal: The
Corps, in coordination with other Federal and State agencies, will continue to monitor
dredged material disposal sites in the Massachusetts Bays region. The Corps will also
initiate the planning necessary to begin a capping demonstration project at the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. In addition, the coordination, planning, and possible
designation of a disposal site suitable for containment of contaminated material will need
to be initiated by the Corps, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, and
Massport, as well as EPA and NMFS. We suggest inclusion of the following paragraph in
the CCMP.
The impact of dredged material disposal on the aquatic environment (e.g. the
Massachusetts Bays Disposal Site) is monitored by the Corps Disposal Area Monitoring
System (DAMPS'). Further, dredged material unsuitable for unconfined open water
disposal is prohibited at the MBDS until capping's efficacy can be effectively
demonstrated. The Corps will begin efforts to research the efficacy of confined (i.e.
capped) disposal at the MBDS. Planning efforts to identify an appropriate disposal site
for future maintenance material from Boston Harbor will be initiated.
The Corps is committed towards implementing the goals of the Massachusetts
Bays CCMP. We look forward to working together to make the CCMP successful in
protecting the important resources of the Bays.
Any questions or comments can be addressed to Ms. Catherine Demos of my staff
at (617) 647-8231.
Sincerely,
-------
U S Department /^^••V Commander 408 Atlantic Avenue
nf Trancnnrtatinn ff^ff^f First Coast Guard District Boston, MA 02210-3350
Ot I ransportation /fc^^J Staff Symbol: (mep)
ImmSjlm Plone: 617/223-8434
United States l^^u^^m S.LundgrerVD1m@cgsmtp.uscg.mil
Coast Guard jfffjfg
16471
February 12, 1996
Ms. Margaret Brady, Director
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program
Room 2006
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
Dear Ms. Brady:
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has taken an active role in the
development of the Massachusetts Bays Program Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). We believe that the
goals of the CCMP can be met by the cooperative relationship of
the USCG, state and regional agencies, local environmental
officials, along with other Federal agencies such as the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In particular and through
this letter, the USCG confirms its commitment to the following
actions:
Action Plan for Reducing and Preventing Oil Pollution:
The USCG will collaborate with agencies such as the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, EPA, and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to implement the recently
developed "Policy on the Use of Oil Spill Chemical
Countermeasures (Dispersants)". In addition, the USCG will
collaborate with these and other agencies to update and implement
the Area Contingency Plans that apply to the Massachusetts Bays.
These actions are important to reduce oil pollution impacts on
the marine environment, especially in the case of major spills or
other releases. These efforts will be funded through the annual
operating budgets of the participating agencies.
The USCG takes these commitments seriously. I look forward to
working together to make the Massachusetts Bays CCMP successful
in protecting the important resources of the Bays.
Sincerely,
S. P. GARRITY
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Chief, Marine Environmental Protection Branch
By direction of the Commander,
First Coast Guard District
-------
WILLIAM F. WELD
GOVERNOR
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCC.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
TRUDYCOXE
SECRETARY
100
Sicbfon, 02202
Tel: <™> ^f -9800
Fax: (6 1 7) 727-2754
April 3, 1996
Re: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Commitment to the
Massachusetts Bays Program CCMP
To Whom it May Concern:
The Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
(EOEA) has actively participated in the development of the
Massachusetts Bays Program Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) . EOEA has evaluated the goals, objectives
and commitments outlined in the draft CCMP. Based on our review of
the draft document, we believe that the goals of the CCMP can be
met by the cooperative relationship of EOEA and other state
agencies, and local environmental officials, supported by EPA.
Several of the actions required by this important document
fall to EOEA for implementation. In particular, and through this
letter, EOEA affirms it commitment to the following actions:
Protecting and Enhancing Coastal Habitat
EOEA will continue the innovative Wetlands Restoration and Banking
Program to restore and protect degraded coastal and inland
wetlands .
Target Date : Ongoing
Reducing and Preventing Toxic Pollution
EOEA will work with municipalities and the private sector to
explore and form partnerships to facilitate the safe management of
hazardous products, encouraging reduced toxic products use and
recycling wherever possible.
Target Date : Ongoing
Managing Centralized Wastewater Treatment Facilities
EOEA will work collaboratively to develop and implement an
effective program for monitoring and enforcing point source
discharges from wastewater treatment plants and energy-producing
700% RECYCLED PAPER
-------
facilities. EOEA, with DEP and CZM, will pursue state legislation
to modify the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act to meet EPA
requirements for NPDES delegation. Legislation has been before the
state legislature for some time without additional action.
Managing Dredging and Dredged Materials Disposal .
EOEA will coordinate the development of a comprehensive Dredging
and Dredged Materials Disposal Plan to improve and maintain access
to the Commonwealth's ports, harbors, and channels, and to minimize
adverse impacts to the marine environment.
Target Date: Draft plan due in 1996.
Enhancing Public Access and the Working Waterfront
EOEA will, in collaboration with coastal municipalities, develop
and implement an Access-Via-Trails program to enhance public access
along the coast.
Target Date: A coastal trails program should be ready for full-
scale operation by the end of fiscal year 1996.
Educating Teachers, Students, and the Public About the Bays
EOEA will continue to work closely with the Department of Education
(DOE) through the Secretary's Advisory Group on Environmental
Education (SAGEE) in order to develop a strategy for the
implementation of the "Benchmarks for Environmental Education."
Further, EOEA will continue to place a priority on the role of
environmental education to insure that appropriate state leadership
is maintained.
Target Date: 1996
EOEA will, in cooperation with the Department of Education,
continue to develop a grant relationship with the National Science
Foundation and other funding agencies in order to provide
technological outreach aimed at enhancing environmental literacy.
The goal is to make resource and curriculum materials widely
accessible and to provide ongoing coordination among the various
members of the educational community.
Target Date: 1996
EOEA will, with the DOE, empower exemplary teachers,
administrators, and/or schools, who demonstrate the competence, to
carry out formal and non-formal environmental education initiatives
that complement the Commonwealth's environmental education program.
Target Date: 1996
-------
Develop a State Non-Point Source Education and Outreach Strategy
EOEA will develop and maintain a clearinghouse of NFS education,
information, and technical assistance materials, as well as a
database of available state NFS materials and programs.
Target Date : The clearinghouse/database could be completed by
July, 1996.
EOEA will develop and maintain a matrix, by topic, of NFS
education, information, and technical assistance materials produced
by state agencies and associated organizations.
Target Date: March, 1996
EOEA will expand upon Massachusetts Bays Program efforts and
develop a strategy for NFS outreach and technical assistance
statewide that would coordinate the development and production of
NFS education, information, and technical assistance in order to
implement NFS pollution controls.
Target Date: July, 1996
I look forward to continuing to work to make the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan successful in protecting the
important resources of the Bays.
Cordially,
cc: Diane M. Gould, Ph.D., MBP
Peg Brady, CZM
-------
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
1OO CAMBRIDGE STREET, BOSTON, MA O22O2
(617)727-9530 FAX, (6 I 7) 727-2754
April 3, 1996
Re: Coastal Zone Management Office Commitment to the Massachusetts
Bays Program CCMP
To Whom it May Concern:
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office (CZM) has taken an
active role in the development of the Massachusetts Bays Program
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) . Through this
letter, CZM confirms its commitment to the following actions:
Action Plan for Managing Centralized Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
CZM will work collaboratively to develop and implement an effective
program for monitoring and enforcing point source discharges from
wastewater treatment plants and energy-producing facilities.
Consistent with the EOEA Basin Management Initiative, DEP and CZM
will re-evaluate the effectiveness of the current NPDES program
and, with EPA, will redesign the program to achieve effective
pollution reduction, including pollution trading and other
innovative "offsets/credits" models. CZM, with DEP and EOEA, will
pursue state legislation to modify the Massachusetts Clean Waters
Act to meet EPA requirements for NPDES delegation. Legislation has
been before the state legislature for some time without additional
action. CZM, with DEP, will assemble an interagency team to
develop criteria for a routine comprehensive evaluation of coastal
WWTP discharges. The evaluation will focus on permit compliance and
pollution removal effectiveness to assist in prioritizing key
issues within coastal watersheds. Priorities thus identified will
be used to focus state agency actions.
Action Plan for Enhancing Public Access and the Working Waterfront
CZM will enhance the Designated Port Area program with new planning
and promotional initiatives.
Target Date: Initial steps toward development of a DPA
Planning/Promotion Program is being given high priority within CZM
during the 1995-1996 fiscal year.
CZM will establish a new technical assistance program to accelerate
municipal efforts to identify and legally reclaim historic rights-
of-way to the sea. Phase One will include support resources for
municipal use, including a case history, a "practioners handbook"
and a series of workshops.
WILLIAM F. WELD, GOVERNOR; ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR; TRUDY COXE, SECRETARY; MARGARET M. BRADY, DIRECTOR
-------
Target Date: Phase One will be completed during FY 1995-1996; Phase
Two will be initiated during FY 1996-1997.
CZM, in collaboration with the Department of Environmental
Management and MassGIS, will prepare and distribute a statewide
Coastal Access Guide to facilitate public access to the shoreline.
Target Date: The first volume of the public access guide was
published during the summer of 1995. Other volumes will follow as
soon thereafter as the necessary CIS information becomes available.
I look forward to working together to make the Massachusetts Bays
CCMP successful in protecting the important resources of the Bays.
Sincerely,
Margaret Brady
Director
cc: Diane M. Gould, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Massachusetts Bays Program
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ONE WINTER STREET, BOSTON MA 02108 (617) 292-5500
WILLIAM F. WELD JC* *~*~ TRUDY COXE
Governor 5 s £* 1* |**-.k Secretary
^ **•
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI
Lt. Governor
27 February 1996
Peg Brady
Director
Coastal Zone Management Program
100 Cambridge Street, Room 2006
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
RE: DEP Commitment to the Massachusetts Bays Program CCMP Actions
Dear Peg:
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has taken an active role in the development of
the Massachusetts Bays Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP).
Over the past few months, DEP has evaluated the goals, objectives, and commitments outlined in the
draft CCMP. Many of the actions required by this important document fall to DEP for implementa-
tion. We take this responsibility seriously. The following attachment summarizes the major. DEP
commitments and target dates for completing them.
I believe that the single most critical ingredient that will contribute to the overall success of the
Mass Bays CCMP is its integration into EOEA's basin schedule. While the recommended actions in
this plan are important, they can be further strengthened by integrating the Mass Bays program into
the watershed initiative schedule. This will allow all the agencies to better implement the CCMP,
identify "hot spots," and strategically target limited resources to address the most critical issues in
the contributing watersheds in the most cost-effective manner.
Based on our review of the draft document, we believe that the goals of the CCMP can be met by
the cooperative relationship of DEP and local environmental officials, with financial support from
EPA and the state budget. I look forward to working together to make the Massachusetts Bays
CCMP successful in protecting the important resources of the Bays.
Sincerely,
David B. Struhs
Commissioner
Attachment
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
DEF COMMITMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CCMP
Protecting and Enhancing Coastal Habitat
DEP will complete its statewide inventorying and mapping of
coastal and inland wetlands, and provide local conservation
commissions with: 1) accurate base maps depicting wetlands
boundaries and 2) instruction on proper wetlands map
interpretation and use.
Target Date:
Funding permitting, orthophoto wetlands maps for the following
regions are projected to be available by the end of 1996:
Metro/Suburban Boston
Buzzards Bay (West Shore)
MDC Watersheds (Sudbury, Quabbin, Wachusett)
Portions of North Shore (Ipswich, Rowley and Parker River
Watershed)
City of Cambridge Water Supply Watershed Area
Fort Devens Area
Merrimack Valley
Reducing and Preventing Stormwater Pollution
DEP, in collaboration with Regional Planning Agencies, Natural
Resources Conservation Service/MassCAP, and Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management Office, will: 1) disseminate its Nonpoint Source
Management Manual and Urban Best Management Practices for
Massachusetts. and 2) sponsor public workshops to educate local
officials about best management practices and performance
standards for controlling stormwater runoff.
Target Date:
Planning and development of workshops and handout materials -
1996
Publicizing and holding of workshops - 1996 and 1997
DEP will develop a coordinated and streamlined regulatory system
within DEP to assure effective implementation of the stormwater
components of the Massachusetts Clean Water Act, Wetlands
Protection Act, and Federal Stormmwater Program (Federal Clean
Water Act, Sections 401 and 402).
Target Date:
This action is expected to be implemented by DEP according to the
following schedule:
-------
Projected Completion Date
Develop/adopt stonnwater
performance standards
Develop BMP manual and related
guidance
Revise policies/regulations
Prepare/distribute outreach
materials
Select implementation target
areas (as part of the EOEA basin
program)
Spring 1996
June 1996
June 1997
Winter-Spring 1996
1996
Reducing and Preventing Oil Pollution
DEP, in collaboration with the U.S. Coast Guard, EPA, and NOAA,
will implement the recently developed Policy on the Use of Oil
Spill Chemical Counter Measures (Dispersants) to protect coastal
resources from the adverse effects of oil spills.
Target Date:
1996 for developing an implementation strategy. Implementation of
the policy on dispersants will be ongoing.
Managing Municipal Wastewater
DEP will evaluate and build upon the centralized statewide
repository for testing information on alternative technologies,
to be established as part of the Buzzards Bay Project's two-year
Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI) Project.
Target Date:
The ETI model will begin in 1996 and conclude in 1998. DEP
evaluation of the clearinghouse function will take place
throughout the project, with a follow-up DEP implementation
strategy in place at the conclusion of the project.
DEP will work collaboratively with EPA, EOEA, and CZM to develop
and implement an effective program for monitoring and enforcing
point source discharges from wastewater treatment plants and
energy producing facilities. Consistent with the EOEA Basin
Management Initiative, DEP will work with CZM to re-evaluate the
-------
effectiveness of the; current NPDES program and with EPA, redesign
the program to achieve effective pollution reduction, including
pollution trading and other innovative "offsets/credits" models.
DEP, in coordination with EOEA and CZM, will pursue state
legislation to modify the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act to meet
EPA requirements for NPDES delegation. DEP, with CZM, will
assemble an interagency team to develop criteria for routine
comprehensive evaluation of coastal wastewater treatment plant
discharges. The evaluation will focus on permit compliance and
pollution removal effectiveness to assist in prioritizing key
issues within coastal watersheds, priorities thus established
will be used to focus state agency program actions.
Managing Nitrogen-Sensitive Embayments
DEP will strengthen Massachusetts Water Quality Standards to
enhance and protect nitrogen-sensitive coastal embayments.
Target Date:
Initial proposal(s) ifor designating nitrogen-sensitive embayments
-1998 revisions to Massachusetts Water Quality Standards.
DEP will collaborate with municipalities and Regional Planning
Agencies to expand upon current Massachusetts Bays Program
efforts to identify nitrogen-sensitive embayments, determine
critical loading rates, and recommend actions to manage nitrogen
so as to prevent or reduce excessive nitrogen loading to coastal
waters and ground water.
Target Date:
Mass Bays Program, in conjunction with DEP and CZM, will begin
identifying and prioritizing nitrogen-sensitive embayments in
1996/1997. The development and implementation of appropriate
local and areawide nitrogen management measures should begin in
1997/1998.
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
100 CAMBRIDGE ST.. BOSTON, MA 02202 617-727-3180 FAX 727-9402
William F. Weld
GOVERNOR
Argeo Paul Cellucci
LT. GOVERNOR
Trudy Coxe
SECRETARY
Peter C. Webber
COMMISSIONER
January 31, 1996
Peg Brady, Director
Coastal Zone Management Program
100 Cambridge Street, Room 2006
Boston MA 02202
Re: DEM Commitment to the Massachusetts Bays Program
CCMP Actions
Dear Peg:
The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) has taken
an active role in the development of the Massachusetts Bays
Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) . Over the past few months, DEM has evaluated the
goals, objectives and commitments outlined in the draft
CCMP. Based on this review, we believe that the goals of
the CCMP can be met by the cooperative relationship of DEM
and other state agencies and local environmental officials,
supported by federal agencies such as EPA. In particular,
and through this letter, DEM confirms its commitment to the
following actions:
Action Plan for Protecting and Enhancing coastal Habitat
• DEM will develop and implement Resource Management Plans
for all OEM-owned coastal properties. Target date: 1996-
1998.
• DEM will develop and promote the use of river basin
planning data and analyses to facilitate responsible water
resources planning and management at the local and regional
level. Target date: DEM will participate in the ongoing
EOEA five-year planning schedule.
• DEM will acquire and protect coastal properties that
possess outstanding resources and public recreation
opportunities. Target date: Ongoing as opportunities and
additional funding becomes available.
Action Plan for Managing Municipal Wastewater
• In collaboration with other state and federal agencies,
DEM will continue to implement the Ocean Sanctuaries Act by
closely monitoring all facilities plans which propose to
increase wastewater treatment plant discharges into an
ocean sanctuary. Target date: Ongoing.
printed on recycled paper
-------
Action Plan for Planning for a shifting coastline
• DEM will assist communities in the development of effective
Floodplain Management by-laws that address this issue. Target date:
Ongoing.
Saugus River Flood Control Project
• DEM will continue to work with coastal communities and the COE to
implement cost-effective and environmentally-sound flood control
measures and to strengthen local flood protection by-laws as
appropriate.
I look forward to working together to make the Massachusetts Bays CCMP
successful in protecting the important resources of the Bays.
Very
commissioner
cc: Leslie Luchonok, DEM
Deborah Graham, DEM
Diane Gould, Mass Bays Program
-------
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department off
Fisheries Wildlife &
Environmental law Enforcement
John C. Phillips, Commissioner
February 23, 1996
Ms. Peg Brady, Director
Coastal Zone Management Program
100 Cambridge Street, Room 2006
Boston, MA 02202
RE: DFWELE Commitment to the Massachusetts Bay Program CCMP
Actions
Dear Peg:
The Department of Fisheries, Wildlife & Environmental Law
Enforcement (DFWELE) has taken an active role in the development of
the Massachusetts Bays Program Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) . Over the past few months, DFWELE has
evaluated the goals, objectives and commitments outlined in the
draft CCMP. Based on this review, we believe that the goals of the
CCMP can be met by the cooperative relationship of DFWELE and other
state agencies and local environmental officials, and through this
letter, DFWELE confirms its commitment to the following actions:
Action Plan for Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resources
The Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) will conduct three Sanitary
Survey Training Sessions annually - one each on the North Shore,
Metro-Boston/South Shore, and Cape Cod - to educate local shellfish
constables and health officers on the proper techniques for
identifying and evaluating pathogen inputs into shellfish
harvesting areas.
Target Date: Ongoing
DMF will develop and administer a local Shellfish Management Grants
Program to help communities finance the development and
implementation of effective local shellfish management plans.
Target Date: This program will be developed as soon as funding is
authorized and implement shortly thereafter.
100 Cambridge Street • Room 1901 • Boston, MA 02202 (617)727-1614 FAX 727-2566
An Agency of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Trudy Coxe, Secretary
-------
-2-
Protecting and Enhancing Coastal Habitat
DMF will prepare an up-to-date inventory of anadromous fish runs in
the Massachusetts Bays region and develop a strategy to prioritize,
restore and maintain these runs.
Target Date: 1996
DMF, in collaboration with the Riverways Program, will develop and
implement a citizen-based Fishway Stewardship Program to restore
and maintain anadromous fish runs along the Massachusetts Bays
coast.
Target Date: Ongoing
DFWELE takes these commitments seriously. I look forward to
working together to make the Massachusetts Bays CCMP successful in
protecting the important resources of the Bays.
Sine
John C. Phillips
Commissioner
JCP/dmm
-------
WILLIAM F. WELD
GOVERNOR Tel: (617)727-3260
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI Fax: <617> 727'3827
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
TRUDY COXE
SECRETARY
BARBARA KELLEY
DIRECTOR
February 2, 1996
Peg Brady
Director
Coastal Zone Management Program
Room #2006
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
Re: Office of Technical Assistance Commitment to the Massachusetts Bays Program CCMP
Actions
Dear Ms. Brady:
The EOEA Office of Technical Assistance (OTA) has taken an active role in the development
of the Massachusetts Bays Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP). Over the past few months, OTA has evaluated the goals, objectives and
commitments outlined in the draft CCMP. Based on this review, we believe that the goals of
the CCMP can be met by the cooperative relationship of MHD, other state agencies and local
environmental officials, supported by federal agencies such as EPA. In particular, and through
this letter, OTA confirms its commitment to the following action:
Action Plan for Reducing and Preventing Toxic Pollution
OTA will perform on-site assessments and provide instructional materials to help businesses
and industries in the Massachusetts Bays region reduce the use of toxic substances.
Implementation Strategy - OTA will implement its Toxics Use Reduction (TUR) program by
offering the following non-regulatory services at no charge:
• Perform on-site assessments designed to help businesses.
100% RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Respond to telephone and written requests for general information about TUR and
specific information about the legal requirements of the Toxics Use Reduction Act.
• Sponsor conferences, workshops, seminars, and trade fairs to disseminate information
about TUR technologies.
• Promote alternative manufacturing processes that reduce toxic substance use, hazardous
waste generation, toxic air emissions, and wastewater discharge.
Target Date - 1996 and annually thereafter.
OTA takes this commitment seriously. I look forward to working together to make the
Massachusetts Bays CCMP successful in protecting the important resources of the Bays.
Very truly yours,
Barbara Kelley
Director
BGK/tdf
-------
WILLIAM F. WELD
Governor
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI
Lieutenant Governor
GERALD WHITBURN
Secretary
DAVID H. MULLIGAN
Commissioner
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Health and Human Services
Department of Public Health
250 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02108-4619
BECEJVEn
MAR 11 1996
March 5, 1996
3l5i-. ^Ji.^&iS.:.,.,,„,-,,
Ms. Peg Brady, Director
Coastal Zone Management
100 Cambridge Street
Room 2006
Boston, MA 02202
Dear Ms. Brady:
As you know, the Department of Public Health (DPH) supports the efforts of the
Massachusetts Bays Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP).
Over the past few months the Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment (BEHA), under
its Director Suzanne Condon, has evaluated and reviewed the goals and commitments
outlined in the draft CCMP. Based on this review, we believe that the objectives of the
CCMP can be met through the cooperative relationships among DPH, other state and federal
agencies and local environmental officials. In particular, DPH confirms its commitment to
the following action:
Action Plan for Public Health
The DPH will establish a central clearinghouse program for all beach testing and closure
information generated for Massachusetts coastal public beaches.
Target Date
Initiation and implementation of this project has been ongoing within BEHA since July 1995.
Data collection for this project will continue into 1996. Dependant on annual funding the
project will become part of DPH's ongoing operation.
We look forward to working together to make the Massachusetts Bays CCMP successful.
Very truly yours,
David H. Mulligan
Commissioner
SKC/tp
-------
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Education
350 Main Street, Maiden, Massachusetts 02148-5023 (617)388-3300
(617) 388-3392 Fax
Robert V. Antonucci
Commissioner
Dr. Diane Gould
Mass Bays Program, Executive Director
100 Cambridge Street, Room 2006
Boston, MA 02202
Re: Department of Education Commitment to the Massachusetts Bays Program CCMP Actions
Dear Dr. Gould:
The Department of Education (DOE) has taken an active role in the development of the
Massachusetts Bays Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). DOE
has evaluated the goals, objectives and commitments outlined in the draft CCMP. Based on this
review, we believe that the goals of the CCMP can be met by the cooperative relationship of DOE,
other state agencies and local environmental officials, supported by federal agencies such as EPA.
In particular, and through this letter, DOE confirms its commitment to the following actions:
Action Plan for Enhancing Public Education and Participation
The DOE, in collaboration with the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, will continue to
develop and integrate environmental education as an important component of the curriculum
in the public schools of the Commonwealth, making broad use of the Benchmarks for
Environmental Education developed by the Secretary's Advisory Group on Education (SAGEE).
We believe that funding will occur through local school budgets.
Target date: 1996
DOE will empower exemplary teachers, administrators, and/or schools, who demonstrate the
competence, to carry out formal and non-formal education initiatives that complement the
Commonwealth's environmental education program.
Target date: 1996
DOE takes these commitments seriously. I look forward to working together to make the
Massachusetts Bays CCMP successful in protecting the important resources of the Bays.
Very truly yours,
Robert V. Antonucci
Commissioner of Education
-------
MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY
Charlestown Navy Yard
100 First Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02129
Telephone: (617) 242-6000
Facsimile: (617)241-6070
February 6,1996
Peg Brady
Director
Coastal Zone Management Program
Room 2006,100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
Dear Peg:
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority strongly supports the effort of the
Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) to develop research and action agendas to
protect, maintain, and where necessary, restore or improve the Massachusetts
Bay and Cape Cod Bay ecosystem.
Over the past several months MWRA along with others has provided input into
the development of the Massachusetts Bays Program Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), including the specific section
entitled "Boston Harbor Project: Upgrading Sewage Treatment in the Metro
Boston Area." This component of the CCMP includes actions which MBP believes
the MWRA should take.
A number of the recommended actions, specifically those which support
appropriate budgeting, operation and maintenance of the sewer system and
treatment facilities; continued agressive enforcement of industrial permits;
education of the public about proper use of the sewer system; elimination of CSOs
where deemed appropriate by a public review process; and appropriate
monitoring of the health of the ecological community, are ones to which the
MWRA has already committed itself and which it will continue to undertake
wholeheartedly. A small number of the recommendations refer to matters
subject to the ongoing decision-making processes of the MWRA Board of Directors
who will be informed of the CCMP at an upcoming meeting.
In general we believe that the goals of the CCMP can be met through the
cooperative commitment of MWRA, state and federal agencies and local
environmental officials to work together, and we look forward to continuing to
work with these groups to make the Massachusetts Bays CCMP successful in
protecting the resources of the bays.
Very
Douglas B. MacDonald
Executive Director
Primed on 100% Recycled Paper
-------
tHlKHuuMMw WilliamF. Weld ArgeoPaulCellucci James-J-:-1
-------
Brady February 15, 1996 -2-
administered by CZM and is expected to effect significant
improvements to coastal resources which have been adversely
impacted by roadway storm drainage systems. Additionally,
assessments of pollution threats throughout the state are being
conducted through the Mini Bays programs and through the EOEA
Watershed Basin Team studies. As noted in the rationale for this
particular Action Item, MassHighway is tasked with the
responsibility to maintain a safe and efficient roadway network for
the Commonwealth. This equates to the design and construction of
approximately $400 million of infrastructure improvements annually,
exclusive of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project. We
believe that the assessment and evaluation of stormwater concerns
on a statewide basis should rest with the environmental agencies.
In our efforts to put forth a comprehensive transportation
improvement program, priorities are based mainly on safety, access
and mobility issues. However, as existing stormwater pollution
priorities are developed under the aforementioned CZM, DEP and EOEA
programs, MassHighway will continue to internally evaluate the need
for stormwater improvements and incorporate assessment
recommendations on a project by project basis as roadway and bridge
work is scheduled.
3 . Item 4.8 Training Programs on Stormwater BMPs
MassHighway provides technical training and information
to municipal highway and public works departments through funding
of the Bay State Roads Program. This calendar year, three programs
on stormwater drainage are scheduled by Bay State Roads. As the
annual program is planned and any manuals and handbooks are
developed, current issues and topics of concern such as stormwater
BMPs will be included.
4. Item 4.9 Policy on Tie-ins to Highway Storm Drainage
Systems
Given the DEP's initiative on stormwater standards, it is
critical that tie-ins to state highway drainage systems address
water quality. I intend to discuss with the Chief Engineer the
formation of an internal task force at MassHighway to coordinate
the development of a policy regarding tie-ins to assure that cost-
effective and technically sound standards are applied to drainage
tie-in permits. In an effort to minimize the cost and extent of
infrastructure improvements which will be required by MassHighway
to meet DEP standards, a policy regarding tie-ins is warranted.
The policy must be "practicable," that is, require actions which
can be implemented at reasonable cost and effort in order to
achieve improved water quality while not prohibiting responsible
economic development.
-------
Brady February 15, 1996 -3-
I look forward to continuing the working relationship which
has been established with Coastal Zone Management and the MassBays
Program to successfully accomplish the goals of the CCMP. You are
to be commended on your keen foresight on the development of this
Plan.
Very truly yours,
Laurinda T. Bedingfield
Commissioner
-------
MASSPORT MARITIME DEPARTMENT, EAST BLDG. II, FISH PIER,
NORTHERN AVENUE, BOSTON, MA 02210 (617) 973-5354 FAX: (617) 973-5357
January 26, 1996
Margaret M. Brady, Director
Office of Coastal Zone Management /Ml v'*• -,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts ™- ?' - $98
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs ''. -; ~:; -• - -.--
100 Cambridge Street ; ;: ." :: -r. ••••-'.-•
Boston, MA 02202 " " - ••••'•-'-...
Dear Peg:
The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) has taken an active role in commenting on the Massachusetts
Bays Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). Over the past few months,
Massport has evaluated the goals, objectives, and commitments outlined in the draft CCMP. Based on this
review, we believe than many of the goals of the CCMP can be met by the cooperative relationship of
Massport, state agencies, local environmental offices, and federal agencies such as the Corps of Engineers and
EPA.
As you know, Massport is the local sponsor of the Corps of Engineers' Boston Harbor Navigation
Improvement Project, known also as the Boston Harbor dredging project. As project partners, Massport and
the Corps have moved the project in tandem, through the state and federal environmental review processes.
The project, as currently proposed, reflects environmental, economic, and engineering concerns of both the
project partners and many interested parties, including the state environmental agencies.
As a matter of federal law, the Corps will prepare the contract bid documents and issue the construction
contracts necessary to complete all aspects of the Boston Harbor dredging project. The contracts will
certainly require compliance with all environmental permits. In the development of the construction bid
documents, Massport will continue to work with the Corps to encourage including other appropriate
environmental performance standards into the construction contracts. Massport will, in all likelihood, have
no formal contractual relationship with the dredging contractor. Even in the privately-owned berths, it is
expected that the Corps will maintain control over the dredging contractor. Consequently, it remains a
Massport priority to have enforceable performance standards included in the dredging contract.
It is expected that the Corps will include specific monitoring requirements in the construction contract. In
addition, Massport will work with the Corps to assure that adequate independent monitoring of the dredging
and disposal work during construction and to assure periodic monitoring of the cap is conducted. Post-
construction monitoring is the sole responsibility of the Corps of Engineers.
Massport will provide planning assistance to the Commonwealth for future disposal of contaminated
maintenance material. In the Final Environmental Impact Report submitted to the Commonwealth in June
1995 Massport provided the results of a major information-gathering exercise in the area of alternative
technologies. We will continue to work with the state in pursuit of long-term solutions.
Massport takes these commitments very seriously. I look forward to working together to make the
Massachusetts Bays CCMP successful in protecting the important resources of the Bays.
Ve
OPERATING: BOSTON LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT • PORT OF BOSTON GENERAL CARGO AND PASSENGER TERMINALS - TOBIN
MEMORIAL BRIDGE' HANSCOM FIELD* BOSTON FISH PIER • COMMONWEALTH PIER (SITE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER BOSTON)
J7&
Qlij recycled paper
-------
MERRIMACK
VALLEY
PLANNING
COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
for the
"COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN"
for
MASSACHUSETTS AND CAPE COD BAYS
Luther E. Mcllwain
Chairman
Ronald O. Waite
Vice Chairman
John Stundza
Secretary
William E. Slusher
Treasurer
John Smolak
Asst. Treasurer
Gaylord Burke
Executive Director
Serving the
communities of:
Amesbury
Andover
Boxford
Georgetown
Groveland
Haverhill
Lawrence
Merrimac
Methuen
Newbury
Newburyport
North Andover
Rowley
Salisbury
West Newbury
160 Main Street
Haverhill, MA 01830
(508)374-0519
Fax:(508)372-4890
WHEREAS, the Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays are public resources of
inestimable value which contribute greatly to the environmental, economic,
recreational, and cultural well-being of the Merrimack Valley region and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and
WHEREAS, the Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays are threatened by deteriorating
environmental quality that poses a risk to the public and ecological health and
quality of life; and
WHEREAS, the watershed areas draining to Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays
cross multiple municipal boundaries; and the future health of the Bays depends on
the ability of neighboring communities to plan and work cooperatively to protect
their shared resources; and
WHEREAS, MVPC has actively participated in the development of the
Massachusetts Bays Program's Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP) that is designed to protect and enhance the Bays' resources; and has
sponsored and actively supported the Eight Towns and the Bay Committee
(8T&B) of the coastal communities of the Upper North Shore;
Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that MVPC agrees to work
cooperatively with the Massachusetts Bays Program, the Eight Towns and the
Bay Committee, the MVPC region's coastal and inland communities,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire Regional Planning Agencies, and appropriate
state and federal agencies to help implement the recommended actions contained
in the CCMP's fifteen major Action Plans, as follows:
1. Protecting Public Health
2. Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resources
3. Protecting and Enhancing Coastal Habitat
4. Reducing and Preventing Stormwater Pollution
5. Reducing and Preventing Toxic Pollution
6. Reducing and Preventing Oil Pollution
7. Managing Municipal Wastewater
8. Managing Boat Wastes and Marina Pollution
-------
9. Managing Dredging and Dredged Materials Disposal
10. Reducing Beach Debris and Marine Floatables
11. Protecting Nitrogen-Sensitive Embayments
12. Enhancing Public Access and the Working Waterfront
13. Planning for a Shifting Shoreline
14. Managing Local Land Use and Growth
15. Enhancing Public Education and Participation
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that MVPC embraces the model regional implementation
strategy developed by the partners of the Massachusetts Bays Program (Massachusetts
Bays Program, Regional Planning Agencies, and Local Governance Committees working
through Regional Planning Agencies) as the best mechanism for delivering the broad array
of technical and financial services needed by communities to implement the CCMP in a
timely and cost-efficient manner so as to achieve lasting protection for the Bays and their
resources.
Adopted by Vote
Date
Luther E. Mcllwain, Chairman
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
-------
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
60 Temple Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02111 617/451-2770 Fax 617/482-7185
Serving 101 cities and towns in metropolitan Boston
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
for the
"COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN"
for
MASSACHUSETTS AND CAPE COD BAYS
Whereas, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (M.A.P.C.) recognizes Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays as
significant public resources that contribute to the environmental, economic, recreational and societal health of the
region; and
Whereas, MAPC recognizes that Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays are threatened by deteriorating environmental
quality that poses a threat to public health and quality of life; and
Whereas, MAPC recognizes that the drainage basins of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays cross municipal
boundaries; that the future of the Bays depends upon the ability of neighboring communities to control the quality of
their environment through regional communication and cooperation among municipal, regional, state, and federal
agencies responsible for managing the Bays and their watersheds;
Whereas, MAPC has contributed to and reviewed the Massachusetts Bays Program's Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) that is designed to protect and enhance the Bays' resources; and,
Whereas, the CCMP is consistent with and furthers the interests of MetroPIan 2000;
Be it therefore resolved, that MAPC endorses the Massachusetts Bays Program's CCMP, and agrees to cooperate
in the implementation of the CCMP recommendations, including:
• to protect and enhance shellfish resources and coastal habitats:
• to reduce and prevent stormwater, oil and toxic pollution;
• to manage wastes from on-site sewage treatment systems, sewage treatment plants, and boats;
• to manage dredging and the disposal of dredged materials;
• to reduce beach debris;
• to protect nitrogen sensitive embayments;
• to enhance public access and the working waterfront;
• to plan for a shifting shoreline;
• to manage local land use and growth.
Adopted by vote of the Executive Committee
Date February 21. 1996 William G. Constable, President
William G. Constable, President Richard A. Easier, Vice-President Grace S. Shepard, Secretary Leland G. Wood, Treasurer
David C. Soule, Executive Director
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Old Colony Planning Council
John G. Mather ^CnP^^^^ Daniel M. Crane
President ^ Executive Director
70 School Street, Brockton, MA 02401-4097 ^/^^V^Telephone: (508) 583-1833
"" ' ' ' ' "" Fax: (508) 559-8768
February 29, 1996
Ms. Peg Brady, Director
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Massachusetts Bays Program
100 Cambridge Street, Room 2006
Boston, MA 02202
Dear Ms. Brady:
This is to advise that the Old Colony Planning Council formally voted at their meeting last night
to endorse the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Massachusetts and Cape
Cod Bays. The Old Colony Planning Council is pleased to have been part of the process in
contributing to and reviewing the Massachusetts Bays Program's Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan that is designed to protect and enhance the Bays' resources. The Council
feels very strongly that these important resources must be protected for future generations.
We recognize that the drainage basins of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays cross municipal
boundaries; that the future of the Bays depends upon the ability of neighboring communities to
control the quality of their environment through regional communication and cooperation among
municipal, regional, state, and federal agencies responsible for managing the Bays. We therefore
look forward to working closely with your office in the future in carrying out our responsibilities
in coordinating and implementing the strategies outlined in the Plan.
Sincerely,
John G. Mather
President
DMC/mc
cc: Dr. Diane Gould, Executive Director
Massachusetts Bays Program
-------
rrr
CAPE COD COMMISSION
3225 MAIN STREET
P.O. Box 226
BARNSTABLE, MA 02630
508-362-3828
FAX: 508-362-3136
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
for the
"COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
for
MASSACHUSETTS AND CAPE COD BAYS
Whereas, Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays are public resources of inestimable
value that contribute greatly to the environmental, economic, recreational, and
cultural well-being of the Cape Cod region as well as the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts; and
Whereas, Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays are threatened by deteriorating
environmental quality that poses a risk to the public's health and quality of life, and
to the ecological health of the bays; and
Whereas, the watershed areas of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays cross municipal
boundaries and the future of the Bays depends upon the ability of neighboring
communities to control the quality of their environment through regional
communication and cooperation among municipal, regional, state, and federal
agencies responsible for managing the Bays and their watersheds; and
Whereas, the Cape Cod Commission has actively participated in the development of
the Massachusetts Bays Program's Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP), designed to protect and enhance the Bays' resources; and has actively
supported the Cape Cod Coastal Resources Committee in its work;
Now/Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Cape Cod Commission agrees to work
cooperatively with the Massachusetts Bays Program, the fifteen Cape Cod towns, the
Cape Cod Coastal Resources Committee, the other Massachusetts Regional Planning
Agencies, and appropriate state and federal agencies to implement the CCMP's
recommended actions to:
JL. Protect public health
2. Protect and enhance shellfish resources and coastal habitats
3. Reduce and prevent stormwater, oil and toxic pollution
4. Manage municipal wastewater
5. Manage boat wastes and marina pollution
6. Manage dredging and disposal of dredged materials
7. Reduce beach debris
8. Protect nitrogen sensitive embayments
-------
9. Enhance public access and the working waterfront
10. Plan for a shifting shoreline
11. Manage local land use and growth
Be It Further Resolved, that the Cape Cod Commission embraces the model regional
implementation strategy developed by the Regional Planning Agencies the Local
Governance Committees in partnership with the Massachusetts Bays Program, as
the appropriate mechanism for providing technical and financial assistance to the
Bays' communities to assist in implementing the CCMP in a timely and cost
effective manner, so as to achieve long term protection of the Bays and their
resources.
Adopted by vote
February 15,1996
?umner Kaufman
Chair
-------
MASSACHUSETTS BAYS PROGRAM
100 Cambridge Street, Room 2006, Boston, Massachusetts 02202 (617) 727-9530 fax (617) 727-2754
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
for the
"COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN'
for
MASSACHUSETTS AND CAPE COD BAYS
Whereas, the undersigned municipalities recognize Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays as significant
public resources that contribute to the environmental, economic, recreational and societal health of
the region; and
Whereas, we recognize that Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays are threatened by deteriorating
environmental quality that poses a threat to public health and quality of life; and
Whereas, we recognize that the drainage basins of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays cross munici-
pal boundaries; that the future of the Bays depends upon the ability of neighboring communities to
control the quality of their environment through regional communication and cooperation among
municipal, state, and federal agencies responsible for managing the Bays and their watersheds; and
Whereas, we have contributed to and reviewed the Massachusetts Bays Program's Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) that is designed to protect ana enhance the Bays'
resources;
Be it therefore resolved, that we agree to voluntarily implement the CCMP recommendations - both
individually and cooperatively - that are most appropriate for the communities. We will voluntarily
work to:
- protect and enhance shellfish resources and coastal
habitats;
- reduce and prevent stormwater, oil and toxic pollution;
- manage wastes from on-site sewage treatment systems,
sewage treatment plants, and boats;
- manage dredging and the disposal of dredged materials;
- reduce beach debris;
- protect nitrogen sensitive embayments;
- enhance public access and the working waterfront;
- plan for a shifting shoreline;
- manage local land use and growth.
The Massachusetts Bays Program is sponsored by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs through the Coastal Zone Management Office
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203.
-------
Signatures of Support for the
"COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN"
.
Mayor, City of Newburyport
Chair, Rowley Board of Selectmen
Chair, Ipswich Board of Selectmen c/
(
Chair, Essex Board of Selectmen
n. I
Mayor, City of Gloucester )
Chair, Rockport Board of Selectmen
-------
Signatures of Support
for the
"COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN"
fir, Beverly City Council
ii, I$abody City Council
(/7
I J C3iair, Salem City Council
Chair, Danvers Board of Selectmen
Cnair, Marblehi
Chair, Manchesfer-by^the-Sea Boa^d of Selectmen
-------
'COMPREHENS
of Support for the
rATK)N AND MANAGEMENT PLAN"
Mayor, City df Boston
Chair, Nahant Board of Selectmen
/-' V
/JZhair, Swampscott Board of Selectmen
ayor, Qty of Revere
I Chair, Braintree Board of Selectmen
Mayor, City of Everett
ir, Saugus Board of Selectmen
-------
Signatures of Support for the
"COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN'
Chair, Weymouth Board of Selectmen
Chair, Hingham Board of Selectmen
'ff •£"-"*!, Jc,f r- -""^ '
Chair, Cohaiset Board of Selectmen
Chak, Norwell Board of Selectmen
Chak, Hanover Board of Selectmen
(No commitment of any
Chair, PembrofcelJo<£d of Selectmen monetary obligation)
/
•fAtU
ield Board/w Selectmen
Chair, Duxbury Bs^ard of Selectmen
— ^/ y-—; /• •«- —>^
Chair, KingsK}nJ5<5ard of Selectmen
/
/
) Chair, Plymouth BoarcKof Selectmen
J 3
-------
Signatures of Support
for the
"COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN"
Cj^xj^^
Chair, Provincetown Board .of Selectmen
^&C
""/ Chair, T^rb BQaroTof Selectmen
/A *<
_Qr
A5
jr, Wellfleet Bjsird of Selectmen
Chair, Eastham Boardxjf Selectmen
^^-<^
Chair, Orleans Board of Selectmen
ir, Brewsteroard of
Chair, Dennis Board of Selectmen
Chair, Yarmouth Board of Selectmen
MT, Sandwich Board of Selectmen
Chain, Bourne Board pi Selectmen
-------
Photo Credits
Front Cover:
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Sandy Macfarlane
Town of Orleans
Chapter 1:
Massachusetts Riverways Programs, DFWELE
Chapter 3:
J.K. Moore
Upper North Shore Region:
Sam Cleaves
Salem Sound Region:
Christy Jones
Cape Cod Region:
Cape Cod Commission
Chapter 4:
MA Water Resources Authority
Chapter 5:
Massachusetts Riverways Programs, DFWELE
Action Plan 1:
Cape Cod Commission
Action Plan 4:
Sam Cleaves
Action Plan 5 and 6:
Bill Clark
Massachusetts Bays Program
Action Plan 7:
Cape Cod Commission
Action Plan 9:
Deerin Babb-Brott
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Action Plan 13:
Jim O'Connell
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Action Plan 14:
Cape Cod Commission
Action Plan 15:
Harbor Explorations
Chapter 7:
Massachusetts Bays Program
Chapter 8:
Joan Kimball
Massachusetts Riverways Programs, DFWELE
Chapter 9:
Massachusetts Bays Program
Chapter 11:
Joan Cannon
New England Power Company
Action Plan 12:
Sharon Pelosi
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
------- |