DOCSLIB.ORG

Massachusetts Marine Artificial Reef Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Massachusetts Marine Artificial Reef Plan Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Fisheries Policy Report FP – 3 Massachusetts Marine Artificial Reef Plan M. A. Rousseau Massachusetts Division of MarineFisheries Department of Fish and Game Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Commonwealth of Massachusetts June 2008 Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Fisheries Policy Report FP - 3 Massachusetts Marine Artificial Reef Plan Mark Rousseau Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02114 June 2008 Massachusetts Division of MarineFisheries Paul J. Diodati - Director Department of Fish and Game Mary B. Griffin - Commissioner Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian A. Bowles - Secretary Commonwealth of Massachusetts Deval L. Patrick – Governor Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................iv I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF MA ARTIFICIAL REEF PLAN ............................................................................................................2 1.2 DEFINITION OF AN ARTIFICIAL REEF....................................................................................................................2 1.3 BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTIVITY AND AGGREGATION................................................................................................3 1.4 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF MA ARTIFICIAL REEF PROGRAM ............................................................................3 1.5 HISTORY OF ARTIFICIAL REEFS IN MASSACHUSETTS...........................................................................................4 II. TECHNICAL EVALUATION..............................................................................................................................6 2.1 BENEFITS AND RISKS OF ARTIFICIAL REEFS ........................................................................................................6 2.1.1 - Biological benefits and risks....................................................................................................7 2.1.2 - Physical benefits and risks.......................................................................................................7 2.1.3 - Socio-Economic benefits and risks..........................................................................................8 2.2 COMPARATIVE DIFFERENCES OF MA TO OTHER COASTAL STATES.....................................................................8 2.2.1 - Geography................................................................................................................................9 2.2.2 - Oceanography ..........................................................................................................................9 2.2.3 - Demography...........................................................................................................................10 2.2.3.1 Massachusetts ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.3.2 South Coast Massachusetts ................................................................................................................................. 10 2.2.3.3 Gulf of Maine Region of Massachusetts ............................................................................................................ 12 2.2.3.4 Regional Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 12 III. ARTIFICIAL REEF APPLICATIONS............................................................................................................12 3.1 COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ...................................................................................................................................13 3.2 RECREATIONAL FISHERIES.................................................................................................................................13 3.3 SPORT DIVING ...................................................................................................................................................14 3.4 SUBSISTENCE FISHING .......................................................................................................................................15 3.5 MITIGATION.......................................................................................................................................................15 3.6 MARINE SANCTUARIES AND NURSERIES............................................................................................................15 3.7 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ZONES .........................................................................................................................16 3.8 RESEARCH .........................................................................................................................................................16 3.9 REGULATION .....................................................................................................................................................16 3.10 ARTIFICIAL REEFS VS. OCEAN DISPOSAL.........................................................................................................17 3.11 NON-TRADITIONAL USES .................................................................................................................................17 IV. ARTIFICIAL REEF DESIGN GUIDELINES.................................................................................................17 4.1 REEF TYPES .......................................................................................................................................................18 4.1.1 - Benthic Reefs.........................................................................................................................18 4.1.2 - Mid-water reefs......................................................................................................................18 4.1.3 - Estuarine Reefs ......................................................................................................................19 4.2 MATERIALS........................................................................................................................................................19 4.2.1 - Materials Criteria ...................................................................................................................19 4.2.1.1 - Function............................................................................................................................................................ 19 4.2.1.2 - Compatibility .................................................................................................................................................... 19 4.2.1.3 - Stability and Placement..................................................................................................................................... 20 4.2.1.4 - Durability.......................................................................................................................................................... 20 4.2.2 - Material Types .......................................................................................................................20 4.2.2.1 - Secondary Use and Natural Materials............................................................................................................... 20 4.2.2.2 - Manufactured Reef Structures .......................................................................................................................... 21 4.2.3 - Transfer of Construction Materials........................................................................................22 4.2.3.1 - Incentives.......................................................................................................................................................... 22 4.2.3.2 - Tax Incentives................................................................................................................................................... 22 4.2.3.3 - Alternatives....................................................................................................................................................... 22 4.3 DESIGN ..............................................................................................................................................................22 i 4.3.1 - Configuration and Orientation ...............................................................................................23 4.3.2 - Profile.....................................................................................................................................23 4.3.3 - Interstitial space .....................................................................................................................23 4.3.4 - Total Surface Area .................................................................................................................23 4.3.5 - Openness of reef materials.....................................................................................................23 4.3.6 - Proximity to natural or artificial habitats...............................................................................23
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Outer Boundaries of South Australia's Marine Parks Networks
    1 For further information, please contact: Coast and Marine Conservation Branch Department for Environment and Heritage GPO Box 1047 Adelaide SA 5001 Telephone: (08) 8124 4900 Facsimile: (08) 8214 4920 Cite as: Department for Environment and Heritage (2009). A technical report on the outer boundaries of South Australia’s marine parks network. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia. Mapping information: All maps created by the Department for Environment and Heritage unless otherwise stated. © Copyright Department for Environment and Heritage 2009. All rights reserved. All works and information displayed are subject to copyright. For the reproduction or publication beyond that permitted by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwlth) written permission must be sought from the Department. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information displayed, the Department, its agents, officers and employees make no representations, either express or implied, that the information is accurate or fit for any purpose and expressly disclaims all liability for loss or damage arising from reliance upon the information displayed. ©Department for Environment and Heritage, 2009 ISBN No. 1 921238 36 4. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Preface.......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 South Australia’s marine parks network...............................................................................8 2 Introduction..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MASSACHUSETTS V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Michael Sugar* Warmer Now Than It Was Centuries Or Even Decades Ago.' Sea Level
    MASSACHUSETTS V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Michael Sugar* I. INTRODUCTION The effects of global warming are already being felt. The world is much warmer now than it was centuries or even decades ago.' Sea levels have risen more than ten to twenty centimeters over the past century and moun- tain glaciers are retreating.2 Climate change is occurring. However, United States regulation of the greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions that contribute to it has not taken place. Instead, in 2003 the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") declined to regulate these emissions because they were beyond their statutory authority under the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), sug- gesting that voluntary action and continued study were the best way to ad- dress this potentially catastrophic issue.' After the EPA denied their petition for rulemaking, Massachusetts and other plaintiffs filed suit to compel the agency to reconsider its denial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari4 and decided Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency on April 2, 2007.1 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners after thoroughly analyzing the scope of the CAA and the EPA's discretion to decline rulemaking. The Court's reliance on Massachusetts' status as a state in order to determine standing makes the effect of this decision uncertain. II. BACKGROUND In the early twentieth century, the states played a significant role in regulating interstate air pollution through public nuisance suits. 6 Public nui- sance suits are predicated on the idea that sovereign entities have the right to sue on behalf of their citizens when the actions of a defendant affect the sovereign interests of the state.7 As a sovereign entity, a state has an interest "in all the earth and air within its domain.
    [Show full text]
  • Dwhu 4Xdolw\ $Vvhvvphqw Ri Wkh
    1$7,21$/:$7(548$/,7<$66(660(17352*5$0 :DWHU4XDOLW\$VVHVVPHQWRIWKH1HZ(QJODQG &RDVWDO%DVLQVLQ0DLQH0DVVDFKXVHWWV 1HZ+DPSVKLUHDQG5KRGH,VODQG (QYLURQPHQWDO6HWWLQJVDQG,PSOLFDWLRQVIRU :DWHU4XDOLW\DQG$TXDWLF%LRWD :DWHU5HVRXUFHV,QYHVWLJDWLRQV5HSRUW 86'HSDUWPHQWRIWKH,QWHULRU 86*HRORJLFDO6XUYH\ Cover photograph is a panoramic view of the Merrimack River and the Amoskeag Mills in Manchester, New Hampshire, looking south from the west side of the river, circa 1883. Photograph is courtesy of the Manchester (N.H.) Historic Association. 86'HSDUWPHQWRIWKH,QWHULRU 86*HRORJLFDO6XUYH\ 1$7,21$/:$7(548$/,7<$66(660(17352*5$0 :DWHU4XDOLW\$VVHVVPHQWRIWKH 1HZ(QJODQG&RDVWDO%DVLQVLQ0DLQH 0DVVDFKXVHWWV1HZ+DPSVKLUHDQG 5KRGH,VODQG(QYLURQPHQWDO6HWWLQJVDQG ,PSOLFDWLRQVIRU:DWHU4XDOLW\DQG $TXDWLF%LRWD %\6DUDK0)ODQDJDQ0DUWKD*1LHOVHQ.HLWK:5RELQVRQDQG -DPHV)&ROHV :DWHU5HVRXUFHV,QYHVWLJDWLRQV5HSRUW 3HPEURNH1HZ+DPSVKLUH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services New Hampshire/Vermont District Box 25286 361 Commerce Way Denver, CO 80225 Pembroke, NH 03275-3718 Information regarding the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program is available on the Internet via the World Wide Web. You may connect to the NAWQA Home Page using the Universal Resources Locator (URL) at <http://wwwrvares.er.usgs.gov/nawqa/nawqa_home.html> FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey • Describe how water quality is changing over (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the time.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizens & Reef Science
    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Report Editor: Jennifer Loder Report Authors and Contributors: Jennifer Loder, Terry Done, Alex Lea, Annie Bauer, Jodi Salmond, Jos Hill, Lionel Galway, Eva Kovacs, Jo Roberts, Melissa Walker, Shannon Mooney, Alena Pribyl, Marie-Lise Schläppy Science Advisory Team: Dr. Terry Done, Dr. Chris Roelfsema, Dr. Gregor Hodgson, Dr. Marie-Lise Schläppy, Jos Hill Graphic Designers: Manu Taboada, Tyler Hood, Alex Levonis This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence visit: http:// This project is supported by Reef Check creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Australia, through funding from the Australian Government. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to: Reef Check Foundation Ltd, PO Box 13204 George St Brisbane QLD 4003, Project achievements have been made [email protected] possible by a countless number of dedicated volunteers, collaborators, funders, advisors and industry champions. Citation: Thanks from us and our oceans. Volunteers, Staff and Supporters of Reef Check Australia (2015). Authors J. Loder, T. Done, A. Lea, A. Bauer, J. Salmond, J. Hill, L. Galway, E. Kovacs, J. Roberts, M. Walker, S. Mooney, A. Pribyl, M.L. Schläppy. Citizens & Reef Science: A Celebration of Reef Check Australia’s volunteer reef monitoring, education and conservation programs 2001- 2014. Reef Check Foundation Ltd. Cover photo credit: Undersea Explorer, GBR Photo by Matt Curnock (Russell Island, GBR) 3 Key messages FROM REEF CHECK AUSTRALIA 2001-2014 WELCOME AND THANKS • Reef monitoring is critical to understand • Across most RCA sites there was both human and natural impacts, as well evidence of reef health impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Sea Dive Ebook Free Download
    DEEP SEA DIVE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Frank Lampard | 112 pages | 07 Apr 2016 | Hachette Children's Group | 9780349132136 | English | London, United Kingdom Deep Sea Dive PDF Book Zombie Worm. Marrus orthocanna. Deep diving can mean something else in the commercial diving field. They can be found all over the world. Depth at which breathing compressed air exposes the diver to an oxygen partial pressure of 1. Retrieved 31 May Diving medicine. Arthur J. Retrieved 13 March Although commercial and military divers often operate at those depths, or even deeper, they are surface supplied. Minimal visibility is still possible far deeper. The temperature is rising in the ocean and we still don't know what kind of an impact that will have on the many species that exist in the ocean. Guiel Jr. His dive was aborted due to equipment failure. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Depth limit for a group of 2 to 3 French Level 3 recreational divers, breathing air. Underwater diving to a depth beyond the norm accepted by the associated community. Limpet mine Speargun Hawaiian sling Polespear. Michele Geraci [42]. Diving safety. Retrieved 19 September All of these considerations result in the amount of breathing gas required for deep diving being much greater than for shallow open water diving. King Crab. Atrial septal defect Effects of drugs on fitness to dive Fitness to dive Psychological fitness to dive. The bottom part which has the pilot sphere inside. List of diving environments by type Altitude diving Benign water diving Confined water diving Deep diving Inland diving Inshore diving Muck diving Night diving Open-water diving Black-water diving Blue-water diving Penetration diving Cave diving Ice diving Wreck diving Recreational dive sites Underwater environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruise Programme
    R1/3 Not to be cited without prior reference to the FRS Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen Charter Cruises Seol Mara – Charter Cruise 1807H Farsain - Charter Cruise 1707H Urchin - Charter Cruise 1607H Diving and ROV surveys to assess the benthic impact of scallop dredging in the Firth of Lorn Reports Dates 6- 11 May 2007. Vessels Seol Mara – 0830 Mon 7/5/07 to 1400 Fri 11/5/07 (ROV Support Vessel) Farsain - 0830 Mon 7/5/07 to 2000 Mon 7/5/07 (Diving Support Vessel) Urchin - 0830 Tues 8/5/07 to 1400 Fri 11/5/07 (Diving Support Vessel) Project Codes: MF02q (10460) Personnel Sue Marrs (SNH) (Survey Coordinator) David Donnan (SNH) (In charge of ROV Operations) Mike Breen (In charge of Diving Operations) Trevor Howell Keith Summerbell Melanie Harding Martin Burns Laura Baxter (SNH Diver) Jane Dodd (SNH Diver) Objectives To conduct a video survey to assess for the benthic impact of scallop dredging along pre-defined transects, using both ROV and diver operated systems. ROV Operations ROV Support Vessel: RV Seol Mara Personnel: David Donnan (SNH), Sue Marrs (SNH); Martin Burns (FRS); Lesley Kennedy (SAMS) (visitor 8 & 9 May). Equipment: VideoRay ROV (GTO model with upgraded boosters for operating in currents). Umbilical: two 75m lengths of neutral buoyancy cable, and one 40m length of sinking cable. Footage recorded onto Mini digital cassettes, using Sony GV900 video walkman VCR. Generator (240v AC, 3KW) and Drop Frame Camera. Narrative 7 May ROV loaded and set up. ROV deployed with 2 x 75m lengths of neutral buoyancy cable. Interference experienced when approximately 100m was coiled off the cable drum (this problem was consistent throughout the trip when these two cables were used).
    [Show full text]
  • And Seascape Determinants of Recreational Diving: Evidence for Portugal’S South Coast
    Marine Policy 123 (2021) 104285 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Marine Policy journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol Full length article Assessing the land- and seascape determinants of recreational diving: Evidence for Portugal’s south coast Mariana Cardoso-Andrade a,b,*, Frederico Cruz-Jesus c, Francisco Castro Rego d, Mafalda Rangel b, Henrique Queiroga a a Departamento de Biologia and CESAM Centro de Estudos do Ambiente e do Mar, Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universitario´ de Santiago, Aveiro 3810-193, Portugal b CCMAR - Centro de Ci^encias do Mar do Algarve, Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, Faro 8005-139, Portugal c NOVA Information Management School (NOVA IMS), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus de Campolide, Lisboa 1070-312, Portugal d Centro de Ecologia Aplicada “Professor Baeta Neves” (CEABN), InBIO, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, Lisboa 1349-017, Portugal ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Scuba diving is one of the most popular coastal recreational activities, and one of the few that are allowed in SCUBA diving multiple-use marine protected areas. Nevertheless, like many other coastal activities, if in excess, it may harm Marine coastal management coastal ecosystems and their sustainable use. This paper focuses on the seascape and landscape characteristics Marine spatial planning that are most associated with the existence of dive sites, aiming to identify other suitable locations along the Marine conservation coast to potentially reduce environmental pressure (e.g., overcrowding and physical damage) on the existing dive Coastal zone sites. Logistic regressions were employed to model the suitability for dive sites existence in the Portuguese south coast (Algarve), one of the most popular Summer destinations in mainland Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion on U.S. Navy SURTASS LFA Sonar Activities 2019
    Biological Opinion on U.S. Navy SURTASS LFA Sonar Activities Consultation No. OPR-2019-00120 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Consultation History ........................................................................................................ 3 2 The Assessment Framework ................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Evidence Available for the Consultation ......................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Approach to Assessing Effects to Marine Mammals ................................................ 9 2.1.2 Approach to Assessing Effects to Sea Turtles ........................................................ 24 3 Description of the Proposed Action ................................................................................... 25 3.1 The Navy’s Proposed Action ......................................................................................... 26 3.2 Description of the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) Low Frequency Active (LFA) Sonar System ................................................................................... 28 3.2.1 Passive Sonar System Components ........................................................................ 29 3.2.2 Active
    [Show full text]
  • Ocm01756806-1857.Pdf (14.42Mb)
    State Library OF MASSACHUSETTS B Return as Soon as Used. 5'\ 't6s- T PUBLIC DOCUMENT. .No. 1. S I X T E E N T H K E P II TO THE LEGISLATUivE OF M ASS .VC IIUSETTS llEL.VriXG TO TlIK lUgistri) irai) lltliinr OF ) ^r Lf O rn [TliS, .imiAGES, AND ^j IN' THK COMMONWEALTH. F(.)H THE YEAR ENDiNd DECKMl^EK ni. 1.^07, B Y {) LIVER AY A R N E B^^T7",-^>^ — SKOIll'TAUV OF THE COMMO^ WEALTH. ^ '" f '^ </ BOSTON: Vv'Illia:.! AvniT]:, riiiNTKJi to tin-: state 18 5 8. P 11 E F A C E Secretary's Office, Boston, January 20, 1859. To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives-:— I have the honor of herewith presenting to the legisla- ture, in compliance with the requirements of law, tlic Eeport relating to the Registry and Return of Births, Marriages and Deaths, in the Commonwealth, for the year endin£>- Decemher 31, 1857. It forms the sixteenth of the Annual Reports on this subject, and is believed to present points of information which are of great practical value to the State. The tabular Abstracts forming the first part, w^ere made from the Returns sent in by several City and Town Clerks, and Registrars, by experienced clerks in this office. The Observations forming the second part, were written by JosiAii Curtis, M. D., of Boston, who has had tlu?- superintendence of several of the former Reports. These analytical observations evince much labor and research, as well as fomiliaritv with this class of investigations, and it VI PREFACE.
    [Show full text]
  • Cranberry Production
    Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices for Cranberry Production January 2016 Michigan Commission of Agriculture & Rural Development PO Box 30017 Lansing, MI 48909 PH: (877) 632-1783 www.michigan.gov/mdard In the event of an agricultural pollution emergency such as a chemical/fertilizer spill, manure lagoon breach, etc., the Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development and/or the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality should be contacted at the following emergency telephone numbers: Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development: (800) 405-0101 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality: (800) 292-4706 If there is not an emergency, but you have questions on the Michigan Right To Farm Act or items concerning a farm operation, please contact the: Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDARD) & Rural Development Right to Farm Program (RTF) P.O. Box 30017 Lansing, Michigan 48909 (517) 284-5619 (517) 335-3329 FAX (877) 632-1783 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE…………………………………………………………………………………i I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 II. SITE SELECTION ....................................................................................... 2 III. DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION OF CRANBERRY FARM OPERATIONS ..... 4 IV. WATER MANAGEMENT .............................................................................. 5 A. Irrigation .......................................................................................... 7 B. Flooding ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pioneer Valley Climate Action and Clean Energy Plan Moving Toward a Carbon Neutral Future
    Pioneer Valley Planning Commission Pioneer Valley Climate Action and Clean Energy Plan Moving toward a carbon neutral future. Adapting to create resilient communities. Produced by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission with the support of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Sustainable Communities Initiative Regional Planning Grant Program. February / 2014 2 CHECKLIST Pioneer Valley Planning Commission 60 Congress Street - Floor 1 Springfield, MA 01104-3419 413-781-6045 PVPC.org Pioneer Valley Planning Commission Pioneer Valley Climate Action and Clean Energy Plan Moving toward a carbon neutral future. Adapting to create resilient communities. Prepared by Pioneer Valley Planning Commission 60 Congress Street - Floor 1 Springfield, MA 01104-3419 pvpc.org February 2014 Produced by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission with the support of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Sustainable Communities Initiative Regional Planning Grant Program. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded through a Sustainable Communities Initiative grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), received by PVPC in partnership with the Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG). PVPC would like to thank HUD and CRCOG for an outstanding partnership, and in particular acknowledge the efforts of the following staff: Dwayne Marsh, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Kate Dykgraaf, HUD Lyle Wray, Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) Mary Ellen Kowalewski, CRCOG The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under an award with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate of Massachusetts
    Climate of Massachusetts Topographic Features- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts occupies 8,257 square miles, about one- eight of New England’s total land area. About half of the State is forestland. It is the most populous New England State, with just over six million residents. About three million people reside within a 50 mile radius of Boston (inside Interstate 495). Most of the State lies north of the 42nd parallel of latitude. Its north-south width is approximately 50 miles, except 100 miles in the eastern, Atlantic coast, portion. The east-west extension is barely 150 miles, excepting “the Cape”. This is the familiar name of the long arm of land which reaches around the southern and eastern shores of Cape Cod Bay. Including the Cape, the State is nearly 200 miles in length. Although the Massachusetts coastline is only about 192 miles in length, the Atlantic Ocean “tidal shoreline” covers over 1,519 miles, which provides the State with numerous fine harbors. The land surface is rather mountainous (by East Coast standards) along the western border and generally considered rolling hills elsewhere. However, the Cape and some other sections of the coastal plain consist of flat land with numerous marshes and some small lakes and ponds. In the west, Mt. Greylock rises 3,487 feet above sea level, the highest peak in Massachusetts. The elevation west of the Connecticut River Valley is generally over 1,000 feet. Forty-six peaks rise above 2,000 feet. Most of central Massachusetts lies between 500 and 1,000 feet, while eastern Massachusetts and the Connecticut River Valley are generally less than 500 feet.
    [Show full text]