DOCSLIB.ORG

Second Five-Year Review Report for the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Was September 26, 2007 Completed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Second Five-Year Review Report for the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Was September 26, 2007 Completed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Second Five-Year Review Report for the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Bainbridge Island, Washington September 26, 2007 Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Bainbridge Island, Washington Second Five-Year Review Report Table of Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................ix FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM.............................................................................................xi 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ................................................................................................1 1.2 AUTHORITY FOR CONDUCTING THE FIVE-YEAR REVIEW...................................................................1 1.3 WHO CONDUCTED THE FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ......................................................................................2 1.4 REVIEW STATUS.................................................................................................................................2 2. SITE CHRONOLOGY..........................................................................................................................3 3. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................9 3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND LAND USES..................................................................................9 3.1.1 Current Land Use ......................................................................................................................9 3.1.2 Reasonably Anticipated Future Land Uses for the Wyckoff Site............................................10 3.2 HISTORY OF CONTAMINATION .........................................................................................................11 3.3 INITIAL RESPONSE............................................................................................................................12 3.4 BASIS FOR TAKING ACTION .............................................................................................................13 3.4.1 Soil OU....................................................................................................................................13 3.4.2 Groundwater OU .....................................................................................................................14 3.4.3 West Harbor OU......................................................................................................................16 3.4.4 East Harbor OU.......................................................................................................................17 4. REMEDIAL ACTION.........................................................................................................................19 4.1 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER OUS .......................................................................................................19 4.1.1 Remedy Selection....................................................................................................................19 4.1.2 Remedy Implementation .........................................................................................................21 4.1.3 System Operations/O&M ........................................................................................................23 4.2 WEST HARBOR OU ..........................................................................................................................24 4.2.1 Remedy Selection....................................................................................................................24 4.2.2 Remedy Implementation .........................................................................................................26 4.2.3 System Operations/O&M ........................................................................................................27 4.3 EAST HARBOR OU ...........................................................................................................................27 4.3.1 Remedy Selection....................................................................................................................27 4.3.2 Remedy Implementation .........................................................................................................27 4.3.3 System Operations/O&M ........................................................................................................29 i Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Bainbridge Island, Washington Second Five-Year Review Report 5. PROGRESS SINCE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW .........................................................................31 5.1 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS FROM 2002 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ....................................................31 5.1.1 Soil and Groundwater OUs .....................................................................................................31 5.1.2 West Harbor OU......................................................................................................................31 5.1.3 East Harbor OU.......................................................................................................................31 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2002 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW..............................................................32 5.3 STATUS AND RESULTS OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS FROM THE 2002 FIVE- YEAR REVIEW ............................................................................................................................32 5.3.1 Soil and Groundwater OUs .....................................................................................................32 5.3.2 West Harbor OU......................................................................................................................32 5.3.3 East Harbor OU.......................................................................................................................33 6. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS.....................................................................................................35 6.1 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPONENTS, COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION, AND DOCUMENT REVIEW ..............35 6.1.1 Administrative Components of the Five-Year Review Process ..............................................35 6.1.2 Community Notification and Involvement..............................................................................35 6.2 DOCUMENT REVIEW ........................................................................................................................37 6.3 DATA REVIEW..................................................................................................................................37 6.3.1 Relevant Trends.......................................................................................................................37 6.3.2 Recommended Changes to Monitoring Programs...................................................................44 6.4 SITE INSPECTIONS ............................................................................................................................45 6.4.1 Soil and Groundwater OUs .....................................................................................................45 6.4.2 West Harbor OU......................................................................................................................46 6.4.3 East Harbor OU.......................................................................................................................47 6.5 DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW OF THIS SECOND FIVE-YEAR REPORT ................................................48 7. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................49 7.1 QUESTION A: IS THE REMEDY FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED BY THE DECISION DOCUMENTS? ...........49 7.1.1 Soil and Groundwater OUs .....................................................................................................49 7.1.2 West Harbor OU......................................................................................................................52 7.1.3 East Harbor OU.......................................................................................................................53 7.2 QUESTION B: ARE THE EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS, TOXICITY DATA, CLEANUP LEVELS, AND REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES USED AT THE TIME OF REMEDY SELECTION STILL VALID?..........55 7.2.1 Exposure Assessment ..............................................................................................................55 7.2.2 Toxicity Assessment................................................................................................................57 7.2.3 Risk Characterization/Uncertainty Analysis............................................................................58 7.2.4 Potential New ARARs and TBCs............................................................................................59 7.2.5 Progress Towards Meeting RAOs ...........................................................................................59 7.3 QUESTION C: HAS ANY OTHER INFORMATION COME TO LIGHT THAT COULD CALL INTO QUESTION THE PROTECTIVENESS OF THE REMEDY?
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Report of the Board of Harbor Commissioners, 1877 and 1878
    : PUBLIC DOCUMENT .No. 33. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Board of Harbor Commissioners FOR THE YEAR 18 7 7. BOSTON ftanb, &berg, & £0., printers to tfje CommcntntaltJ, 117 Franklin Street. 1878. ; <£ommontocaltl) of Jllaesacfjusetta HARBOR COMMISSIONERS' REPORT. To the Honorable the Senate and the Home of Representatives of the Common- wealth of Massachusetts. The Board of Harbor Commissioners, in accordance with the provisions of law, respectfully submit their annual Report. By the operation of chapter 213 of the Acts of 1877, the number of the Board was reduced from five to three members. The members of the present Board, having been appointed under the provisions of said Act, were qualified, and entered upon their duties on the second day of July. The engineers employed by the former Board were continued, and the same relations to the United States Advisory Council established. It was sought to make no change in the course of proceeding, and no interruption of works in progress or matters pending and the present Report embraces the business of the entire year. South Boston Flats. The Board is happy to announce the substantial completion of the contracts with Messrs. Clapp & Ballou for the enclosure and filling of what has been known as the Twenty-jive-acre 'piece of South Boston Flats, near the junction of the Fort Point and Main Channels, which the Commonwealth by legis- lation of 1867 (chapter 354) undertook to reclaim with mate- rial taken for the most part from the bottom of the harbor. In previous reports, more especially the tenth of the series, the twofold purpose of this work, which contemplated a har- 4 HARBOR COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Summaries Section 604B Water Quality Management Planning
    PROJECT SUMMARIES SECTION 604B WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROGRAM FFY 1998-2018 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Matthew A. Beaton, Secretary Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Martin Suuberg, Commissioner Division of Municipal Services Steven J. McCurdy, Director 2018 MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SECTION 604B WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROGRAM PROJECT SUMMARIES FFY 1998-2018 Prepared by: Gary Gonyea, 604b Program Coordinator Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Matthew A. Beaton, Secretary Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Martin Suuberg, Commissioner Division of Municipal Services Steven J. McCurdy, Director 2018 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 8 NEW BOND STREET WORCESTER, MA 01606 This Report is available from MassDEP's home page on the Internet at http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/grants/watersheds-water-quality.html Copies of the final reports for selected projects are available on CD upon request . TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PAGE Introduction ix Table 1 Number of 604(b) Projects and Allocation of Grant Funds by Basin (1998-2018) x Projects by Federal Fiscal Year FFY 98 98-01 Urban Watershed Management in the Mystic River Basin ..........................................……. 1 98-02 Assessment and Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution in the Little River Subwatershed 2 98-03 Upper Blackstone River Watershed Wetlands Restoration Plan .................................…. 3 98-04 Assessment of Current Quality and Projected Nutrient Loading: Menemsha Pond and Chilmark Great Pond ………………………………………………………………… … 4 FFY 99 99-01 Priority Land Acquisition Assessment for Cape Cod: Phase 2 …………………………… 5 99-02 Nutrient Loading to Two Great Ponds: Tisbury Great Pond and Lagoon Pond …………… 6 99-03 Cape Cod Coastal Nitrogen Loading Studies ……………………………………………… 7 99-04 Chicopee River Watershed Basin Assessment ………………………………...……….
    [Show full text]
  • HIRUDINEA and Oligochleta COLLECTED in the GREAT LAKES REGION
    CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE BIOLOGY OF THE GREAT LAI{ES. HIRUDINEA AND OLIGOCHlETA COLLECTED IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION. By J. PERCY MOORE, Ph. D. 153 B. B. F. 1905--11 Blank page retained for pagination CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE BIOLOGY OF THE GREAT LAKES. HIRUDINEA AND OLIGOCH£TA COLLECTED IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION. By J. PERCY MOORE, Ph. D. I. HIRUDINEA. The operations of the field parties directed by Prof.•Tacob Reighard in connec­ tion with the biological survey of the Great Lakes yielded a large number of carefully preserved and labeled leeches, the detailed study and identification of which have required considerable time and furnished interesting data on variation that can be more profitably utilized elsewhere than in this report. The bulk of the collection comes from the western end of the lake, where a few specimens were collected in the vicinity of Put-in Bay during the summer of 1898, and a great many at the same place, at other points about the Bass Islands, at Sandusky, and along the Canadian and Ohio shores during the following summer; in the latter season also smaller collections Were taken at Erie, Pa., and other places in eastern Lake Erie. As no systematic collecting seems to have been done in the small lakes, ponds, and creeks in which the large, jawed leeches abound, no representatives of the family Hirudinidre are included; nor was any attempt made to gather the fish leeches, and the single vial containing Ichthyobdellidre unfortunately met with an accident that prevents the determination of its contents." On the other hand, the shore collecting was very thorough, and the families Glossiphonidre and Herpobdellidre are probably represented by every species found in such situations in Lake Erie, and in most cases by many beautifully pre­ served specimens.
    [Show full text]
  • A Desultory Treatise on Outer Cape Cod Biogeography
    A Desultory Treatise on Outer Cape Cod Biogeography Michael Sargent - 2016 The retreat of the glacier system covering Cape Cod left a land mass depicted by the green area of the above map, ending at what is now known as High Head. Initially, erosion of the eastward- facing cliffs resulted in sediment deposition in a southerly direction, forming the barrier systems of Nauset Spit and Monomoy Island. This process was aided by a complex system of currents, including the Gulf Stream from the south and branches of the Labrador Current from the north, which operate in primarily a counter-clockwise direction. About 6,000 years ago, rising water levels began to cover Georges Bank to the southeast. This reduced a significant barrier shielding the northeastern portion of the outer Cape, and also amplified a clockwise current around the bank. This resulted in an acceleration of erosion, with a new trend of sediment deposition in a northerly direction. This process is what formed the East Harbor region of North Truro and all of what is now Provincetown. Long Point, the absolute tip of the Cape, is still growing out around Provincetown Harbor. Meanwhile in Cape Cod Bay, which is separated from the Atlantic Ocean by a line connecting Race Point with Plymouth, a large area of shoreline and islands was eroded and covered south of Wellfleet, with some sediment moving in both northerly and southerly directions. As global warming causes increasing water levels, the protective effect of Georges Bank will diminish further, and the erosive forces, like many other natural phenomena, will increase in intensity.
    [Show full text]
  • 97492Main Cacomap1.Pdf
    Race Point Beach National Park Service Old Harbor Life-Saving Station Museum 0 1 2 Kilometers R a T ce 1 2 Miles IN 0 PO Province Lands E C North A Visitor Center R Provincetown Po Muncipal in (seasonal) Race Airport Road t A D S ut Point HatchesHatches ik A h e s N o Light HarborHarbor d D ri n R ze a o D T d L P Beech Forest Trail a U o H d N r N e w E o T a rr S t in v o n io i g w n n C o a c n o f l e e v S c T o e n t ea i r o v f o u s r P w h 6 r o A TLANTIC OCEAN o Clapps n re Pond Street B ou Pilgrim 6A P nd A a Herring Monument R r A y Cove and Provincetown Museum D B PROVINCETOWN U O rd N L Beach fo E IC d Pilgrim Lake S National Park Service ra B U.S.-Coast Guard Station (East Harbor) 6A B e a c h H h ig e P H a o h d g d snack bar in i a P R O V I N C E T O W N t H e d H A R B O R a Pilgrim Heights (seasonal) H o R Sa Small’s lt Swamp M ea Dike Trail Pilgrim do Submerged Spring w at extreme Trail National Park Service high tide.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation, Public and Open Space
    L UC KY LN JA ME S W ES T RD E V PINE BANK RD A BOURNE WATER ST E T PERR V Y R E D T A N N S R OR T TH H S T A ILL G D S E R E O E S V V R R S E FR A E C A O D V N D T U A N K L E O N L Q R L R N E R O E A S I A P C M E L E E O H N I T H K L IS L C C O T S E B T T B R O A B B S W E E D A D H H O R Y T DA A U LE ST A W A R DWAR D E G N D W WIN O H L T A SANDWICH N TARA N S E L S B R B R A D Y R D R U H LN CEDAR LAKE S LE B P B R U D R B R D A E CORDWOOD GE I RED N C P D E T O L R S U E R N D T R E Y D T R S D 8 E R H ST D FIDDLERS COVE D E C BAY RD D R R T Y R C S T T N I H S E U G RANDS CANAL O P I E D IN C A P D H R B L L S O T E A C N A L E R M N LN A TROUT POND A O W N E I P D M U W C A E R S G R R RD A T DEE I L E D N E Y O N WE O R STW D R E S N N E D ID T L R A E H RD LDE R E C N Y T R D A W R D R D I R G LLO A B W R D IVE E FIELD LOR D F TRICIA RD N DR EN R D R R CO J D E V R AM N E WILD HARBOR RD I W N O N D YE WESTO WE S N RD STON RD LN E V GR A OVE ST E T V E GLE S N AV A V E E T A T W S W T S HIGH KIR K E LAND A H E I S VE IL DGERTON N L DR V A S C E O I D LO VERFIELD N D HIL W T LSIDE AVE E AVE AY A R D E G WICKE R R A N TRE C E RD D I WICKE O E L RT R R N EE W C RD I I R R N C L T RYST A SL D R D A AL O R S W O IN PRING AV D O O E M N S V P ILVER B R EA D C A CH A VE D E M RD E A R K LI L WIL R N HUNT O L ILL F I S ST H R L E DO V I T T I D E D R N H L E HO T S D LLI P S S S T D W R N E BIR L O CH A U LN N S W O L Y T A D W R R VIEW R RRY LN E LONG FER E F NW H D OO B A D T L RD K S A U PL N S R I CURLEY BL O A VD E M K S
    [Show full text]
  • Cape Cod: 17Th and 18Th Century Roads, With
    LLCO 040 CRBIB 400048 CAPE COD 17TH AND 181111 CENTURY ROADS WITH PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THL KINGS I-EGIIWAY JULY 1962 BY WIIIIAMD FIERSIIEY i-cLo 00 dess fooo4s PftOPzy or Nrc PARIC SEPIVICE HOPERn OF LJRRAgy_ DIVISJON OF Cl ILTUHAf RESOURCES NA CAPE COD 17th ant 18th Century Roads with par ticu.ar attention to the Kings Highway I. Note The five geelegteal survey quadrangle -maps of Cape Cod annotated by Wm Hershey with this on highways to go report Cae are in Drawer Historian map file South end of building potential library room Uocooqe\èt copy Historicat Survey under 29542 May 1962 Field Work Commenced SYUne 62 Report Submitted Iuly 62 by Wifli Hershey Historian The Old South meetinghouse timeworn and gray That stood fronting east by the Kings highway That goeth to Billingsgate so runs the phrase In the quaint old records of olden days have seen splendid teraples with lofty steeples With soft cushioned seats filled with fashionable peoples But none in the tablet of menory will stay Like the Old gray church by the Kings highway Berman Doane 1718-1827 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments Introduction General History of Nauset Settlement..... ..... .. Roads Introduction 13 17th and 3.8th Century Roads In and Between Towns .18 Drift Highway..... .29 Savage Way .32 Tashmuit Highway....................33 The Kings Highway The Myth .49 ie Reality .54 17th and 18th Century Road Managemast .. .64 19th Century ChaiE es .70 Summary 73 Historic Sites 76 Recommendations .82 Appendix Miscellaneous fown Reoords.......83 Appendixfl-TheKingsflighway...............99 Appendix IllMiscellaneous Notes.............106 Appendix IV- Place Names and Variants........115 Appendix Appendix VI Bibliograpby....................135 Appendix VuReferences.
    [Show full text]
  • Surf Clam Restoration Project
    Gulf of Maine Council/NOAA Habitat Restoration Partnership Progress Report I. A Community Effort to Restore Sea Clams to Cape Cod II. Reporting Period (04/01/07 ‐ 08/30/07) III. Project Narrative (this section is required for the final comprehensive report only) This project proposes to establish a natural and protected “sanctuary” for sea clam broodstock that will help regenerate local populations of commercial and recreational importance to Cape Cod. Illegal over-harvesting by the commercial fishery in the past has severely impacted shellfish resources in Cape Cod Bay and severely affected the recreational fishery in Truro and Provincetown. Studies of sea clam recruitment suggest that a critical abundance of mature broodstock and high settlement of larvae, and/or low predation of young-of-the-year clams are necessary for successful recruitment. This project aims to establish new broodstock by protecting young-of-the-year sea clams until they have reached sufficient size to avoid most predators and planting them in a sub-tidal zone that ensures their protection from harvest. IV. Methodology At the start of this period, all clams were in sand-filled trays protected by netting on the sea bottom near Provincetown Harbor or in an unprotected natural environment on the targeted near shore Truro sand flats. On June 16th we conducted a survey of the Truro site by snorkeling and sampling via quadrat along transects similar to those conducted last summer prior to stocking clam seed. Dives were conducted in May and June to assess the survival of the clams over-wintered in the bottom trays in Provincetown.
    [Show full text]
  • Provincetown Harbor LOW
    WATERSHED REPORT: OUTER CAPE WATER THREAT LEVEL Provincetown Harbor LOW PROVINCETOWN & TRURO Introduction to the Watershed Reports In 2001, the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) was established to evaluate the health of 89 coastal embayment ecosystems across southeastern Massachusetts. A collaboration between coastal communities, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), the School of Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), and the Cape Cod Commission, the purpose of the MEP is to identify nitrogen thresholds and necessary nutrient reductions to support healthy ecosystems. The Cape Cod 208 Plan Update, certified and approved by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the US EPA in 2015, provides an opportunity and a path forward to implement responsible plans for the restoration of the waters that define Cape Cod. On Cape Cod there are 53 embayment watersheds with physical characteristics that make them susceptible to nitrogen impacts. In its 2003 report, “The Massachusetts Provincetown Harbor Watershed Estuaries Project – Embayment Restoration and Guidance for Implementation Strategies”, MassDEP identifies the 46 Cape Cod embayments included in the www.CapeCodCommission.org Implementation Report: Watershed Report October 2017 1 MEP. Thirty-three embayments studied to date require nitrogen reduction to could be evaluated. The Watershed Reports use the MEP recommendations for the achieve healthy ecosystem function. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has required nitrogen load reductions necessary to meet the threshold loads (that serve been established (or a draft load has been identified and is under review) for these as the basis for nitrogen management), and then use the wMVP and the regionally watersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • File___Localhost Users Ronrozsa
    NEERS SPRING 09 MEETING ABSTRACTS Armstrong*, M. P.1, G. Nelson1, and M. Cieri2, 1Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 30 Emerson Ave, Gloucester, MA 01930; 2Maine Department of Marine Resources, PO Box 8 West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04575 THE DECLINE OF RIVER HERRING: IS THERE A SMOKING GUN? Most anadromous river herring populations along the U.S. east coast have exhibited significant declines over the last several years, precipitating fisheries closures in several states and management actions by inter-state management boards. Several potential causes of these declines exist but little data are available with which to evaluate them. Several known problems including habitat degradation and lack of passage into spawning grounds have certainly reduced populations over the long term but are not likely to cause the abrupt decline in populations recently seen. Potential causes of this recent downturn include increased predation and overfishing or high levels of by-catch in high volume small mesh fisheries such as those for Atlantic herring. An analysis of existing by-catch information from the Atlantic herring fishery indicates that an average of about 700,000 lbs of river herring are caught and retained as by-catch each year. The coastwide population of river herring is estimated at about 50 million pounds, so the level of removals seen in the Atlantic herring fishery is unlikely to be the sole cause of the east coast decline. Predation by increasing populations of top-level predators such as striped bass, seals, and commorants likely play a role in the recent declines in the river herring populations. Preliminary analyses indicate positive correlations between striped bass year class strength and total mortality of river herring.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle of Norwood's Cove
    The Battle of Norwood’s Cove: Southwest Harbor’s Victory over the British In the War of 1812 August 6, 1814 to August 11, 1814 Compiled by Meredith R. Hutchins and Charlotte R. Morrill Written and Designed by Charlotte R. Morrill The Library is Grateful to Mia Taradash and Lynne Birlem for research assistance Julie Cochrane and Martin Salmon National Maritime Museum Royal Museums Greenwich Sara A. Borden and Chris Damiani Historical Society of Pennsylvania Charles Stanhope and Mia Taradash for their generous support Published in honor of the 200th Anniversary of the Battle of Norwood’s Cove August 2014 Southwest Harbor Public Library Imprint Number Two Cover Norwood’s Cove in the Fog - 1901 Photograph by Henry L. Rand Number 8992 The Southwest Harbor Public Library Collection of Photographs Adapted by Charlotte R. Morrill The Southwest Harbor Public Library 338 Main Street Post Office Box 157 Southwest Harbor, Maine 04679-0157 Telephone: 207-244-7065 Email: [email protected] Table of Contents 2014 Introduction – A Glorious Battle Page 1 HMS Pomone / HMS Tenedos Page 4 1938 Nellie Rebecca (Carroll) Thornton Page 7 1871 Benjamin Franklin DeCosta Page 15 1862 Horace Gilley Bunker Page 16 1871 Ezra Herrick Dodge III Page 18 1872 George Ward Nichols Page 21 1888 Moses Foster Sweetser Page 22 1902 Augustus Chase Savage Page 24 1903 George Edward Street Page 25 Map of Norwood’s Cove in 1814 Page 30 1916 Maud E. (Mason) Trask Page 31 1982 Virginia Somes-Sanderson Page 35 1814 William Begg Page 36 Vice Admiral Hyde Parker Page 43 Dramatis Personae Page 44 Bibliography Page 52 The Shore near the Site of the Battle Photograph by Henry L.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Multi-Decadal Coastal Change: Provincetown Harbor to Jeremy Point, Wellfleet
    Center for Coastal Studies 115 Bradford Street Provincetown, Massachusetts 02657 www.coastalstudies.org Assessment of Multi-decadal Coastal Change: Provincetown Harbor to Jeremy Point, Wellfleet A Report Submitted to the Massachusetts Bays Program Graham S. Giese Mark Borrelli Stephen T. Mague Theresa L. Smith Patrick Barger Patricia Hughes Center for Coastal Studies January 2014 INTRODUCTION In 2005 the Center for Coastal Studies (CCS) began developing and evaluating a simple geomorphic model to determine long-term volumetric coastal change and longshore sediment transport along outer Cape Cod (Giese, et al., 2011). The methodology developed as part of this work was subsequently evaluated for its applicability to Cape Cod Bay coast lines beginning in 2012 when CCS completed work on a pilot project applying the methodology and model to a 4 km section of the Cape Cod Bay coast extending north from Beach Point in North Truro to the Provincetown/ Truro town line. Specifically, the pilot project demonstrated that comparisons of contemporary bathymetric and terrestrial lidar with high quality 1930s hydrographic and terrestrial data along evenly spaced cross-shore transects provide an effective means of estimating century-scale sediment budgets along Cape Cod Bay shores. In 2013, the 2012 analysis was extended north approximately 3.5 km into Provincetown Harbor, terminating at the most northerly littoral cell of Cape Cod Bay (Berman, 2011). The results of these assessments were documented in two technical reports funded by the Island Foundation (IF) (Giese et al., 2012; Giese et al., 2013), which combined provide an estimate of the long term, regional scale sediment flux for approximately 7 km (4.3 mi) of the southerly and westerly facing coasts of Cape Cod Bay (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]