DOCSLIB.ORG

Lake Quannapowitt Diagnostic Feasibility Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lake Quannapowitt Diagnostic Feasibility Study PALIS #93060 LAKE QUANNAPOWITT COM fo) O i I I I I I I I I I LAKE QUANNAPOWITT • DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY • Wakefield, Massachusetts FINAL REPORT • July, 1986 i i i i i i i I COM CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. One Center Plaza environmental engineers, scientists, _ „ .. mmo a , , ', Boston, Massachusetts 02108 I planners, & management consultants ' I y 617 742-5151 I July 24, 1986 I Mr. Richard C. Boutiette, P.E. Director of Public Works Town of Wakefield I 1 Lafayette Street Wakefield, MA 01880 I Dear Mr. Boutiette: Please find 12 copies of the addendum to the Final Diagnostic/Feasibility Study for Lake Quannapowitt. One copy has been sent to the Wakefield I Library. This revision to the Final Report completes the work on our contract with the Town of Wakefield for Phase I of the project, and 10 I copies have been sent to the Clean Lakes Section of DEQE. It has been a pleasure working on the project with the Department of Public Works, and we look forward to continuing our good working I relationship with the Town of Wakefield. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call. I Sincerely, I CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC I Eileen Pannetier Project Manager I cc: Chris Duerring, DEQE I I I I I I I ADDENDUM TO FINAL REPORT I DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY Lake Quannapowitt, Wakefield, Massachusetts I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, TOWN OF WAKEFIELD I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this addendum is to address the final comments from the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) on the Lake I Quannapowitt Phase I Diagnostic/Feasibility Study. These comments were received from the Massachusetts DEQE, Division of Water Pollution Control, I Clean Lakes Section, and may be found at the end of the addendum. The first comment relates to'the preimplementation milestone schedule shown in the final report on Page 2-16 and 2-18. Primarily because of permitting requirements, the schedule is no longer realistic, and should I be replaced with the following schedule which allows for several months permitting time. I REVISED MILESTONE SCHEDULE I Milestone Date Task Responsibility November 1, 1985 Deadline for Draft Final Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. I Phase I Report January 15, 1986 Deadline for Prioriti- Division of Water Pollution I zation Control DWPC May 15, 1986 Deadline for Local Match Town of Wakefield I Commitment May 31, 1986 Deadline for Full Program Town of Wakefield I Requirements Compliance August 1, 1986 Deadline for Revised Final Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. I Report October 1, 1986 Development and Approval Division of Water Pollution I of Substate Agreement Control November 3, 1986 Issue Phase II request for Town of Wakefield Proposals I November 21, 1986 Deadline for Proposals Town of Wakefield December 10, 1987 Selection of Consultant Town of Wakefield I for Final Design I I I Milestone Date Task Responsibility I January 2, 1987 Begin Final Design Consultant I January 2, 1987 Purchase of Weed Harvester Town of Wakefield February 30, 1987 Submit Draft Environmental Consultant Impact Report I March 27, 1987 Submit Remaining Permit Consultant Applications I April - August Weed Harvesting as needed Town of Wakefield August 14, 1987 Pre-bid Conference Consultant I September 1, 1987 Select Contractor Town of Wakefield, Consultant I September 1, 1987 Begin Lake Drawdown Town of Wakefield, i October 15, 1987 Begin Construction Contractor i January 1, 1988 Completion of Construction Contractor It should be noted that the Environmental Impact Report is only required for the dredging/disposal portion of the work, and although it is not desirable from a construction standpoint, the construction of the i phosphorus control berm may be done separately if delays result from permitting constraints on the dredging/disposal portion of the work. i The second comment relates to the environmental evaluation of lake drawdown, which will occur prior to construction to reduce the environmental impacts of the work. Since the Final Report did not i adequately address the impacts of the drawdown on downstream wetlands, water table, and fish populations in the lake, the following revised evaluation of fish and wildlife impacts should replace the one found on i page 2-22 of the report. REVISED SECTION 2.5.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS i Although temporary turbidity is expected to occur during dredging, impacts will be minimized by the late fall construction timing. Impacts from the spoil disposal will be minimized by the filter fabric lining on the berm i and because the lake will not be refilled until the next spring allowing it to stabilize over several months. The drawdown should-minimize construction impacts on water quality by the i reduction in resuspension of dredged materials. Although the total volume i of the lake will also be reduced during the time the lake is drawn down, i I I fish and wildlife impacts are expected to be minimal since drawdown will occur only once during the winter when biological activity is at a minimum, I Some negative effects on fish communities have been reported in the literature, including a reduction in the standing crop of lake whitefish, walleye, northern pike, and Cisco in Cross Lake, Manitoba caused by a I summer drawdown (Gaboury and Ratal as, 1984). However, drawdown is also considered an important tool in fish management, used to increase fish standing crop (Lanz et al., 1964), to shift species composition (Hulsey, 1958), and to enhance spawning of bass and crappie (Richardson, 1975). I While the effect that drawdown in Lake Quannapowitt will have on fish populations is not known, any negative impacts should be minimized by the fact that only minimal drawdown can occur, and the long-term effects of I the water quality improvements associated with the project will be beneficial to fisheries in the lake. I In addition to improvements in water quality and thus fisheries that will result from the project, the drawdown may also reduce shoreline aquatic weed densities. Since the shoreline (littoral zone) has been implicated as a significant source of internal nutrient loading to the open water I (Cooke, et al., 1986), the winter drawdown of Lake Quannapowitt may have positive water quality effecfs~as wefH " I Weed harvest? nj^_u£ejdj^ring^Sj^rjj^^ should not have anyTignifi can't negative environmental effects. "The effect on water quality, however, should be beneficial in that the weeds will no longer I decompose in the lake. REFERENCES SOURCE: Cooke, G. Dennis, Welch, E.B., Peterson, S.A., and I Newroth, P.R. 1986. Lake and Reservoir Restoration. Butterworth I Publishers. I I I I I I I I I wowwnoweoeaMfc of ^/vf&A&czwuMeJfo I WMav S. RUSSELL SYLVA I Commissioner 01581 July 3, 1986 I Ms. Eileen Pannetier Camp Dresser & McKee One Center Plaza I Boston, MA 02108 I Dear Eileen: I have completed my review of the revised Diagnostic/Feasibility Report on Lake Quannapowitt . With the exception of the following two items, all of the I comments on the draft report from this office have been satisfactorily addressed. Page 2-18 The preimplementation milestone schedule appears unrealistic now, con- I sidering that the final report has not yet been approved and that MEPA may require and EIR for a portion of the project. The schedule should be revised to reflect these delays. I suggest allowing at least one I month (from Sept. 1 , 1986) for Subs t ate development and at least two months from that date for weed harvester purchase. The remaining mile- I stone dates should be revised accordingly. Page 2-22 The environmental evaluation of lake drawdown does not adequately address the impact on downstream wetlands, water table, and fish populations in I the lake. Once the above comments have been satisfactorily addressed, the report will be I acceptable to this office as a final product for the project. These revisions can be submitted in the form of an addendum to the final report, if necessary. I Please submit total of ten copies of the revised final report to this office no later than August 1, 1986. If you have any questions concerning the final report please do not hesitate I to call me. I CKfis Duerring I Sanitary Biologis CD/cf cc: R. Boutiette I R. McVoy I B. Haynes I COM CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. ineers, scientists. One Center Plaza I planners, & management consultants Boston. Massachusetts 02108 I 617742-5151 I May 20, 1986 Mr. Richard C. Boutlette I Director of Public Works One Lafayette Street I Wakefield, MA Dear Mr. Boutiette: I Enclosed are 12 copies of the Final Report for the Lake Quannapowitt Diagnostic/Feasibility Study, as revised with the DEQE Lakes Section comments. Three copies of the report have been delivered to Ms. Chris Duerring at the Division of Water Pollution Control, along with a I tabulation of our response to comments and the locations of revised information. I We have enjoyed working with the Town of Wakefield and look forward to working with the Town again. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. I Sincerely, I CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC I Eileen Pannetier Project Manager I 13 Enclosures I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Section No. Title Page No. SUMMARY 1 DIAGNOSTIC STUDY 1-1 1.1 General Description 1-1 1.2 Morphometric Data 1-9 1.3 Nutrient and Hydrologic Budgets 1-9 1.4 One Year Limnological Data 1-27 1.5 In-Lake Data 1-31 1.6 Macrophyton Data 1-32 1.7 Storm Surveys 1-32 1.8 Sediment Analysis 1-41 FEASIBILITY STUDY 2-1 2.1 Alternative Identification and Evaluation 2-1 2.2 Final Alternatives 2-9 2.3 Public Participation 2-16 I 2.4 Scheduling and Monitoring Program 2-16 2.5 Environmental Evaluation 2-20 I 2.6 Permitting 2-22 I APPENDIX A.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pond and Lake GEIR Appendices
    APPENDIX I WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS AND FUNDING SOURCES NOTE TO READER: Because of ongoing changes in programs and funding sources, the information in this Appendix has been omitted. The most up-to-date information on funding sources can be found at the web site of the Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Management Plan: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/wm/nonpoint.htm and by contacting other agencies and entities or consulting their web sites. Appendix II 2 APPENDIX II TABLE OF CONTENTS LOCAL PERMITS AND REGULATIONS: II.1 SSC- STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CODE and TITLE 5 (BOH) II.2 Zoning-ZONING REGULATIONS (ZC) II.3 WPA-WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT (ConComm) II.4 RPA-RIVERS PROTECTION ACT (ConComm) STATE PERMITS AND REGULATIONS: DEM II.5 ACEC AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (DEM) II.6 ODS-OFFICE OF DAM SAFETY (DEM) DEP II.7 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION (DEP) II.8 GWDP-GROUND WATER DISCHARGE PERMIT (DEP) II.9 SECP-SEWER EXTENSION OR CONNECTION PERMIT (DEP) II.10 WMA-WATER MANAGEMENT ACT (DEP) II.11 NPDES -NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT (DEP) II.12 SWP-SOLID WASTE PERMIT (DSW) II.13 ORW- OUTSTANDING RESOURCES WATERS (DWM) II.14 LAC-LICENSE TO APPLY CHEMICALS (DWM) II.15 WPP-WETLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM (DWW) II.16 WRP-WETLAND RESTRICTION PROGRAM (DWW) II.17 C.91-WATERWAYS REGULATIONS CHAPTER 91 (DWW) II.18 401- 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION (DWW) DFA II.19 PESTICIDE BUREAU LICENSE (DFA) DFW II.20 DFW-DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE (DFW) II.21 NHESP NATURAL HERITAGE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (DFW) EOEA II.22 CZM-MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT (EOEA) II.23 MEPA -MASSACHUSETTS ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (EOEA) MDC II.24 MDC-METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION (MDC) MHC II.25 MHC-MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (MHC) FEDERAL PERMITS AND REGULATIONS: II.26 NPDES - NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION PERMIT , U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating the Effects of Winter Drawdowns on the Ecological Character of Littoral Zones in Massachusetts Lakes
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations Dissertations and Theses March 2020 INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTS OF WINTER DRAWDOWNS ON THE ECOLOGICAL CHARACTER OF LITTORAL ZONES IN MASSACHUSETTS LAKES Jason R. Carmignani University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2 Part of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Carmignani, Jason R., "INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTS OF WINTER DRAWDOWNS ON THE ECOLOGICAL CHARACTER OF LITTORAL ZONES IN MASSACHUSETTS LAKES" (2020). Doctoral Dissertations. 1816. https://doi.org/10.7275/j5k1-fz29 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/1816 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTS OF WINTER DRAWDOWNS ON THE ECOLOGICAL CHARACTER OF LITTORAL ZONES IN MASSACHUSETTS LAKES A Dissertation Presented by JASON R. CARMIGNANI Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY February 2020 Organismic and Evolutionary Biology © Copyright by Jason R. Carmignani 2020 All Rights Reserved INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTS OF WINTER DRAWDOWNS ON THE ECOLOGICAL CHARACTER OF LITTORAL ZONES IN MASSACHUSETTS LAKES A Dissertation Presented by JASON R. CARMIGNANI Approved as to style and content by: ___________________________________ Allison H. Roy, Chair ___________________________________ Andy J. Danylchuk, Member ___________________________________ Cristina Cox Fernandes, Member ___________________________________ Peter D. Hazelton, Member ___________________________________ Jason T. Stolarksi, Member ___________________________________ Paige S.
    [Show full text]
  • WAKEFIELD Icinity State MASSACHUSETTS Code 025 County Code Zip Code 01880
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 10244010 (Rav. 846) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places NATIONAL Registration Form REGISTER This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations of eligibility for individual properties or districts. See instructions in Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the requested information. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, styles, materials, and areas of significance, enter only the categories and subcategories listed in the instructions. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10-900a). Type all entries. 1. Name of Property historic name HAKEFJ.&rlL MULTIPLE RESOURCE AREA_________________ other names/site number 2. Location street & number Mill TTPI F ot for publication city, town WAKEFIELD icinity state MASSACHUSETTS code 025 county code zip code 01880 3. Classification Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property private I building(s) Contributing Noncontributing public-local | district 159 buildings public-State I site _ sites I public-Federal | structure 41 structures | object 0 objects Total Name of related multiple property listing: Number of contributing resources previously N/A listed in the National Register Q_____ 4. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this ffl nomination EU request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendices 1 - 5
    2018-20ILApp1-5_DRAFT210326.docx Appendices 1 - 5 Massachusetts Integrated List of Waters for the Clean Water Act 2018/20 Reporting Cycle Draft for Public Comment Prepared by: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Division of Watershed Management Watershed Planning Program 2018-20ILApp1-5_DRAFT210326.docx Table of Contents Appendix 1. List of “Actions” (TMDLs and Alternative Restoration Plans) approved by the EPA for Massachusetts waters................................................................................................................................... 3 Appendix 2. Assessment units and integrated list categories presented alphabetically by major watershed ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Appendix 3. Impairments added to the 2018/2020 integrated list .......................................................... 113 Appendix 4. Impairments removed from the 2018/2020 integrated list ................................................. 139 Appendix 5. Impairments changed from the prior reporting cycle .......................................................... 152 2 2018-20ILApp1-5_DRAFT210326.docx Appendix 1. List of “Actions” (TMDLs and Alternative Restoration Plans) approved by the EPA for Massachusetts waters Appendix 1. List of “Actions” (TMDLs and Alternative Restoration Plans) approved by the EPA for Massachusetts waters Approval/Completion ATTAINS Action ID Report Title Date 5, 6 Total Maximum
    [Show full text]
  • Main Street Corridor Study
    Main Street Corridor Study Funding provided by the District Local Technical Assistance program and The Unified Planning Work Program Prepared for the Towns of Reading, Wakefield, and the City of Melrose January, 2012 Prepared by Metropolitan Area Planning Council 60 Temple Place, 6th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02111 Tel (617) 451-2770 www.mapc.org Acknowledgements The Main Street Corridor Study was developed by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) in partnership with the Towns of Reading and Wakefield and the City of Melrose. MAPC is Greater Boston’s regional planning agency whose mission is to promote smart growth and regional collaboration. The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and the District Local Technical Assistance (DLTA) programs provided funding for this project. MAPC wishes to express our thanks to the Governor and the members of the Legislature for their continued support and funding of these programs. Alison Felix, AICP, Transportation Planner and Sarah Kurpiel, Transportation Engineer and Planner of MAPC were the principal authors of this report. MAPC staff who contributed to this project are: Joan Blaustein, Land Resources Planner Amanda Linehan, Communications Manager Eric Bourassa, Transportation Manager David Loutzenheiser, Transportation Planner Barry Fradkin, GIS Analyst Jean Zove, Web Communications Coordinator Eric Halvorsen, AICP, Transit Planner Several additional MAPC staff have had roles in this project, not all of whom have been named here. MAPC would like to thank the Town and City Planners of the three communities, as their advice, guidance, and input has been invaluable. Jean Delios, Town of Reading Community Services Director/Town Planner Paul Reavis, Town of Wakefield Planner Denise M.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Inventory and Analysis
    Open Space & Recreation Plan Section 4 – Environmental Inventory and Analysis Geology, Soils and Topography Geology and Soils Glacial movement left Wakefield’s landscape scattered with small pockets of variegated soil types. However, two main soil groups predominate. The first soil group consists of sand and gravel soils, principally Merrimac and Hinckley, which vary from fertile soil to almost pure sand or gravel, sometimes with boulders. The second soil group includes the upland soils of medium texture, largely the Gloucester series, which are often shallow and may have bedrock outcrops. The soils are generally porous sandy loams, but the varied topography allows for areas containing organic soils often associated with lowlands and wetlands. There are small pockets of wetlands as well as numerous rock outcrops reflecting areas with shallow soils. There are few soils of great value for agriculture. The only form of agriculture that is much practiced in Wakefield is greenhouse horticulture. The sandy soils of the lowlands are excellent media for such seedbeds and nurseries. Topography Wakefield has a sufficiently varied topography to make it an interesting and highly individual Town. The topography is comprised of several hills with rock outcrops, low hummocks of gravely deposits, green fields, and swamp and marshlands. The highest points are Harts Hill, which is 230 feet above mean sea level (MSL); Greenwood Hill, which is about 250 feet above MSL; and "Rattlesnake Rock”, which is 220 feet above MSL. Naturally, the two lakes, Lake Quannapowitt and Crystal Lake, are also significant features of the landscape. Lower elevation topographical features are found at Lake Quannapowitt, Crystal Lake, the Saugus River, the Mill River, and Reedy Meadow.
    [Show full text]
  • Unsuuseuracsbe
    RAYMOND STRATHAM Rye Harbor RYE FREMONT BRENTWOOD Lamprey River KITTERY AUBURN 109thEXETER Congress of the United States Exeter NORTH HAMPTON Manchester Little River CHESTER Meadow Pond SANDOWN Greenwood Pond Hampton HAMPTON KENSINGTON HAMPTON FALLS Derry Angle Pond DANVILLE EAST KINGSTON Browns East SEABROOK River Merrimack DERRY Wash Pond SOUTH HAMPTON E LONDONDERRY HAMPSTEAD KINGSTON IR SH Tuxbury Pond P TS AM T NEW H SE NEWTON U Lake Gardner StHwy 286 Island H (Pike St) Pond ROCKINGHAM C AMESBURY SA L MAS a f a y Amesbury e t te R d Lake Attitash 1 StHwy 1 10 (Elm S t) 110 SALISBURY LITCHFIELD PLAISTOW MERRIMAC wy ATKINSON StH St ain ) Londonderry (M Salisbury Brandy Brow Rd d R e g d i S r tH B ( w ) H i y d g 1 R h 1 S 3 ry t bu ) es Am 0 ( WINDHAM y 11 Newburyport w H t) t S S ain Crystal M S ( Lake 3 tH 1 Upper Artichoke Reservoir w 1 y y 1 w 2 H Cobbetts 5 t S t Pond ( S WEST NEWBURY H M Kenoza w a y 1 in Lake SALEM A S Haverhill lt t ) (H StH i wy g (Bro 97 h HILLSBOROUGH ad R wa d y) ) StHwy S 1 tH 1 w 3 y (W 11 a 0 te NEWBURY (R t) r HUDSON r S S Merrimac River Hudson iv e t) ) St in e a k S Atlantic Ocean M p ( t 125 H T y wy 95 t w r M World End Pond tH o 9 p er S 7 y GROVELAND r r ( Johnson Cr S u i b m c h w ) a ) o e t 0 t o S c N 1 S l k S n 3 1 i 1 k 2 I R t a y c s y ) l a a i w w v tH M n m Chadwick Pond ( d e S 3 H i t r 1 ) r R t r 1 S lt Nashua S d y t e A w n M 1 H a ( ) y t t Pentucket Pond PELHAM S s St w a S Methuen e Hwy H l ( 9 t (P d M 7 a S o Johnsons Pond in St o Rock Pond ) g s O ROWLEY ( 5 GEORGETOWN
    [Show full text]
  • Cyanobacteria
    Cyanobacteria Monitoring Protocols and Detection Methods in Northeast Lakes Amanda Lee Murby January 13, 2010 Cyanobacteria Workshop Monitoring begins with the public; those who visit the lake frequently. The occurrence of blooms is often unpredictable Accumulations of cyanobacteria are often reported along the shore Cyanobacteria concentrations may become severe and a potential threat to public health, even in northeast lakes which typically appear clear of blooms. Monitoring of cyanobacteria is, typically, based on public reports and record keeping of bloom occurrences as they are sighted. It is not common to routinely test for cyanotoxins. Examples of monitoring agendas for the Northeast: • New Hampshire: if > 50 % cyanobacteria in bloom, advisories are posted/ lake closes. • Maine: public reports blooms. Lakes with SDD < 2 m caused by algae are considered impaired. • Massachusetts: blooms are reported and if counts exceeds 70,000 cells ml‐1, warnings are posted at the lake to advise the public. Report suspected cyanobacteria blooms to local officials and water operators Example: Lake Quannapowitt, Wakefield MA Frequent sampling of this lake is necessary since it is almost always dense with algal blooms containing potentially toxic cyanobacteria Photos of blooms by: Roger Frymire Bloom photos can be accessed through the UNH CFB, Phycokey link at cfb.unh.edu Algal Alert Systems Graphs A & B show the relationship between cyanobacteria and chlorophyll a in four Korean reservoirs As defined by the algal bloom alert systems for Korea (A) And Australia (B) Ahn et al. 2007 The use of phycocyanin fluorescence is being tested and considered as a measurement for monitoring cyanobacteria. Ahn et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Open PDF File, 163.51 KB, for Massachusetts Great Ponds List
    Massachusetts Great Ponds List Any project located in, on, over or under the water of a great pond is within the jurisdiction of Chapter 91. A great pond is defined as any pond or lake that contained more than 10 acres in its natural state. Ponds that once measured 10 or more acres in their natural state, but which are now smaller, are still considered great ponds. This is a county-by-county listing of great ponds in Massachusetts, according to a 1996 Waterways Program Study. This listing was last revised in September 2017 (updating ponds in Hopkinton, Milford, and Upton). Barnstable County Barnstable: Garretts Pond Upper Mill Pond Hamblin Pond Walkers Pond Hathaway Pond (lower portion) Long Pond Bourne: Lovell's Pond Middle Pond Great Herring Pond (Plymouth) [Added to Mystic Pond Bourne 2006] Red Lily Pond/Lake Elizabeth (added 1/30/2014) Round Pond Chatham: Rushy Marsh Pond (originally tidal) Shubael Pond Emery Pond Wequaquet Lake (includes Bearse Pond) Goose Pond Lovers Lake Brewster: Mill Pond Schoolhouse Pond Baker's Pond Stillwater Pond Black Pond (Harwich) White Pond Blueberry pond Cahoon Pond (Harwich) Dennis: Canoe Pond Cliff Pond Baker's Pond Cobbs Pond Eagle Pond Elbow Pond Flax Pond Flax pond Fresh Pond Grassy Pond (Harwich) Grassy Pond Greenland Pond Run Pond Griffith's Pond Scargo Pond Higgin's Pond Simmons Pond Little Cliff Pond White Pond (Harwich) Long Pond (Harwich) Lower Mill Pond Eastham: Pine Pond Seymour Pond/Bangs Pond (Harwich) Depot Pond Sheep Pond Great Pond Slough Pond Herring/Coles Pond Smalls Pond Minister
    [Show full text]
  • Library of Congress Classification
    E AMERICA E America General E11-E29 are reserved for works that are actually comprehensive in scope. A book on travel would only occasionally be classified here; the numbers for the United States, Spanish America, etc., would usually accommodate all works, the choice being determined by the main country or region covered 11 Periodicals. Societies. Collections (serial) For international American Conferences see F1404+ Collections (nonserial). Collected works 12 Several authors 13 Individual authors 14 Dictionaries. Gazetteers. Geographic names General works see E18 History 16 Historiography 16.5 Study and teaching Biography 17 Collective Individual, see country, period, etc. 18 General works Including comprehensive works on America 18.5 Chronology, chronological tables, etc. 18.7 Juvenile works 18.75 General special By period Pre-Columbian period see E51+; E103+ 18.82 1492-1810 Cf. E101+ Discovery and exploration of America Cf. E141+ Earliest accounts of America to 1810 18.83 1810-1900 18.85 1901- 19 Pamphlets, addresses, essays, etc. Including radio programs, pageants, etc. 20 Social life and customs. Civilization. Intellectual life 21 Historic monuments (General) 21.5 Antiquities (Non-Indian) 21.7 Historical geography Description and travel. Views Cf. F851 Pacific coast Cf. G419+ Travels around the world and in several parts of the world including America and other countries Cf. G575+ Polar discoveries Earliest to 1606 see E141+ 1607-1810 see E143 27 1811-1950 27.2 1951-1980 27.5 1981- Elements in the population 29.A1 General works 29.A2-Z Individual elements, A-Z 29.A43 Akan 29.A73 Arabs 29.A75 Asians 29.B35 Basques Blacks see E29.N3 29.B75 British 29.C35 Canary Islanders 1 E AMERICA E General Elements in the population Individual elements, A-Z -- Continued 29.C37 Catalans 29.C5 Chinese 29.C73 Creoles 29.C75 Croats 29.C94 Czechs 29.D25 Danube Swabians 29.E37 East Indians 29.E87 Europeans 29.F8 French 29.G26 Galicians (Spain) 29.G3 Germans 29.H9 Huguenots 29.I74 Irish 29.I8 Italians 29.J3 Japanese 29.J5 Jews 29.K67 Koreans 29.N3 Negroes.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources of Massachusetts (-G---+
    Water Resources of Massachusetts (-G---+ U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4144 Prepared in cooperation with the ’ ~ALTHOF.~SSACHUSETTS . DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, DIVISION 6~ WATER RESOURCES WATER RESOURCES OF MASSACHUSETTS By Alison C. Simcox U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4144 Prepared in cooperation with the COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, DMSION OF WATER RESOURCES Boston, Massachusetts 1992 i . L U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can he write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division Books and Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center, Bldg 8 10 Massachusetts - Rhode Island District Box 25425 28 Lord Rd., Suite 280 Denver, Colorado 80225 Marlborough, MA 01752 . -1 CONTENTS Page Abstract ..................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................. 1 PurposeandScope ......................................................... 1 Physiographic setting ....................................................... 2 Glacialhistory ............................................................. 2 Geohydrologic setting .......................................................... 2 Hydrologiccycle .............................................................. 4 Surfacewater
    [Show full text]
  • Middlesex County, Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions)
    VOLUME 1 OF 8 MIDDLESEX COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ACTON, TOWN OF 250176 ARLINGTON, TOWN OF 250177 Middlesex County ASHBY, TOWN OF 250178 ASHLAND, TOWN OF 250179 AYER, TOWN OF 250180 BEDFORD, TOWN OF 255209 COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER BELMONT, TOWN OF 250182 MELROSE, CITY OF 250206 BILLERICA, TOWN OF 250183 NATICK, TOWN OF 250207 BOXBOROUGH, TOWN OF 250184 NEWTON, CITY OF 250208 BURLINGTON, TOWN OF 250185 NORTH READING, TOWN OF 250209 CAMBRIDGE, CITY OF 250186 PEPPERELL, TOWN OF 250210 CARLISLE, TOWN OF 250187 READING, TOWN OF 250211 CHELMSFORD, TOWN OF 250188 SHERBORN, TOWN OF 250212 CONCORD, TOWN OF 250189 SHIRLEY, TOWN OF 250213 DRACUT, TOWN OF 250190 SOMERVILLE, CITY OF 250214 DUNSTABLE, TOWN OF 250191 STONEHAM, TOWN OF 250215 EVERETT, CITY OF 250192 STOW, TOWN OF 250216 FRAMINGHAM, TOWN OF 250193 SUDBURY, TOWN OF 250217 GROTON, TOWN OF 250194 TEWKSBURY, TOWN OF 250218 HOLLISTON, TOWN OF 250195 TOWNSEND, TOWN OF 250219 HOPKINTON, TOWN OF 250196 TYNGSBOROUGH, TOWN OF 250220 HUDSON, TOWN OF 250197 WAKEFIELD, TOWN OF 250221 LEXINGTON, TOWN OF 250198 WALTHAM, CITY OF 250222 LINCOLN, TOWN OF 250199 WATERTOWN, TOWN OF 250223 LITTLETON, TOWN OF 250200 WAYLAND, TOWN OF 250224 LOWELL, CITY OF 250201 WESTFORD, TOWN OF 250225 MALDEN, CITY OF 250202 WESTON, TOWN OF 250226 MARLBOROUGH, CITY OF 250203 WILMINGTON, TOWN OF 250227 MAYNARD, TOWN OF 250204 WINCHESTER, TOWN OF 250228 MEDFORD, CITY OF 250205 WOBURN, CITY OF 250229 EFFECTIVE: JUNE 4, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 25017CV001A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes.
    [Show full text]