DOCSLIB.ORG

Bear Swamp Project Docket No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bear Swamp Project Docket No DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Bear Swamp Project Docket No. P-2669-089 Massachusetts Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 October 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... ii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 APPLICATION .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER ......................................... 1 1.2.1 Purpose of Action .......................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Need for Power .............................................................................................. 3 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ................................. 5 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ......................................................................................... 5 1.3.2 Clean Water Act ............................................................................................ 5 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act ................................................................................ 6 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ..................................................................... 6 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................... 7 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ................................................................ 8 1.4.1 Scoping .......................................................................................................... 8 1.4.2 Interventions .................................................................................................. 9 1.4.3 Comments on the Application ....................................................................... 9 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............................................... 10 2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities ............................................................................ 10 2.1.2 Existing Project Boundary........................................................................... 13 2.1.3 Project Safety .............................................................................................. 14 2.1.4 Existing Project Operation .......................................................................... 14 2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL ............................................................................. 17 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities .......................................................................... 17 2.2.2 Proposed Operation and Environmental Measures ..................................... 19 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................... 20 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 24 2.4.1 Issuing a Non-Power License ...................................................................... 24 2.4.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Project ............................................. 25 2.4.3 Project Decommissioning............................................................................ 25 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 26 3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN ...................................... 26 3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ........................................ 28 3.2.1 Geographic Scope ........................................................................................ 29 3.2.2 Temporal Scope ........................................................................................... 29 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ............................... 30 ii 3.3.1 Aquatic Resources ....................................................................................... 30 3.3.2 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................................. 141 3.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................... 151 3.3.4 Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics ....................................................... 154 3.3.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 193 3.3.6 Socioeconomic Resources ......................................................................... 202 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................. 208 4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT ........................ 209 4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................... 211 4.2.1 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................... 212 4.2.2 BSPC’s Proposal ....................................................................................... 213 4.2.3 Staff Alternative ........................................................................................ 213 4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES ................................................ 213 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 238 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................................. 238 5.1.1 Measures Proposed by BSPC .................................................................... 238 5.1.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff ........................................... 240 5.1.3 Measures Not Recommended .................................................................... 254 5.1.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 275 5.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ....................................................... 276 5.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 276 5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ................................... 284 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .................................................. 285 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................... 286 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................... 294 APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................. 295 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Bear Swamp Project and other hydroelectric projects in the Deerfield River Basin (Source: staff). ............................................................... 2 Figure 2. Aerial view of the Bear Swamp Project (Source: staff). .................................. 11 Figure 3. August 2017 gage height data for USGS Gage No. 01168500 in Charlemont, MA (Source: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/ma/nwis/uv?site_no=01168500). .... 33 Figure 4. Monitoring locations for the 2016 water quality monitoring study (Source BSPC, 2017a). ................................................................................................... 37 Figure 5. Fife Brook impoundment water quality data from the 2016 water quality monitoring study (Source: BSPC, 2018). ........................................................ 38 Figure 6. Upper reservoir aquatic habitat (Source BSPC, 2017b). .................................. 44 Figure 7. Composite 15-minute operations within the Fife Brook impoundment (May 1, 2016 – October 27, 2016) (Source: BSPC 2018a, as modified by staff). ........ 64 Figure 8. Inflow and outflow data from the Fife Brook Development for a scheduled whitewater release day and a day with no scheduled release (Source: staff). 66 Figure 9. Composite of habitat suitability data for brook trout (Source BSPC, 2018, as modified by staff). ............................................................................................. 74 Figure 10. Composite of habitat suitability data for brown trout (Source BSPC, 2018, as modified by staff). ............................................................................................. 74 Figure 11. Composite of habitat suitability data for rainbow trout (Source BSPC, 2018, as modified by staff). ........................................................................................ 75 Figure 12. Composite of habitat suitability data for longnose sucker. (Source BSPC, 2018, as modified by staff). .............................................................................. 75 Figure 13. Brown trout redd locations downstream of Fife Brook dam (Source: Trout Unlimited 2018, modified by staff). ..............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DEERFIELD RIVER WATERSHED Assessment Report
    DEERFIELD RIVER WATERSHED Assessment Report 2004-2008 Downstream of Fife Brook Dam The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114-2119 Mitt Romney GOVERNOR Kerry Healey LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Fax: (617) 626-1181 Ellen Roy Herzfelder or (617) 626-1180 SECRETARY http://www.state.ma.us/envir November 19, 2004 Dear Friends of the Deerfield River Watershed: It is with great pleasure that I present you with the Assessment Report for the Deerfield River Watershed. The report helped formulate the 5-year watershed action plan that will guide local and state environmental efforts within the Deerfield River Watershed over the next five years. The report expresses some of the overall goals of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, such as improving water quality, restoring natural flows to rivers, protecting and restoring biodiversity and habitats, improving public access and balanced resource use, improving local capacity, and promoting a shared responsibility for watershed protection and management. The Deerfield River Watershed Assessment Report was developed with input from the Deerfield River Watershed Team and multiple stakeholders including watershed groups, state and federal agencies, Regional Planning Agencies and, of course, the general public from across the Watershed. We appreciate the opportunity to engage such a wide group of expertise and experience as it allows the state to focus on the issues and challenges that might otherwise not be easily characterized. From your input we have identified the following priority issues: • Water Quantity • Water Quality • Fish Communities • Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitat • Open Space • Recreation I commend everyone involved in this endeavor.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcanada Hydro Northeast Inc. Deerfield River Project (Lp 2323)
    TRANSCANADA HYDRO NORTHEAST INC. DEERFIELD RIVER PROJECT (LP 2323) LOW IMPACT HYDROPOWER CERTIFICATION APPLICATION ATTACHMENT C PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Overview TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc. (the Company) owns and operates the Deerfield River Project (the Project) on the Deerfield River, a major tributary to the Connecticut River. The Project is located in Bennington and Windham Counties in Vermont, and in Berkshire and Franklin Counties in Massachusetts. It consists of eight developments: Somerset, Searsburg, Harriman, Sherman, Deerfield No. 5, Deerfield No. 4, Deerfield No. 3 and Deerfield No.2, having a total installed capacity of 86 megawatts (MW). All dam operations and generation operations are controlled remotely from the Deerfield River Control Center in Monroe Bridge Massachusetts, located near the Deerfield No. 5 Dam. The Project area encompasses about a 65-mile reach of the river, including reservoirs. Two other developments not owned by the company are also located within this area. They are Brookfield Renewable Power’s Bear Swamp Project located downstream of the Deerfield No. 5 development; and Consolidated Edison’s Gardner Falls Project located downstream of the Deerfield No. 3 development. Exhibit 1 depicts the general Project area. Settlement Agreement The Deerfield River Project was one of the first FERC Projects to be relicensed under a comprehensive Settlement Agreement approach executed in 1994. A five-year cooperative consultation process involving state and federal resource agencies, various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the licensee (at that time New England Power Company) resulted in settlement by the parties. The process of reaching this agreement included examination of the power and non-power tradeoffs and effects of a wide variety of operational scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • Tall Pines Trail
    Tall Pines Trail Location: Mohawk Trail State Forest. Updated 7-29-2019 County: Franklin Township: Charlemont Start and End of Trail Network: Lat 42.638425 N, Long 72.936285 W Trail length (complete loop plus spur): 3.0 miles Introduction Mohawk Trail State Forest (MTSF) was one of the first state forests to be established as part of the Massachusetts system of Forests and Parks. Today the property covers approximately 6,700 acres and is split by State Route #2, named the Mohawk Trail in recognition of the ancient Indian path that ran from the waters of the Hudson to the Connecticut River. MTSF is mountainous, possessing some of the most rugged topography in the Commonwealth. The Cold River and Deerfield River gorges reach depths of 1,000 feet in Mohawk, and elevations vary from 600 to almost 2100 feet within the property. Mohawk has many outstanding features, including: (1) its wealth of old growth forests (nearly half of the total for Massachusetts), (2) record-breaking tall, second-growth white pines, (3) a section of the original Mohawk Indian Trail, (4) section of the old Shunpike, (5) site of an old Indian encampment, and (6) the gravesite of Revolutionary War veteran John and his wife Susannah Wheeler. The State Forest is part of the 9th Forest Reserve, which is maintained in pristine condition. The Park area is located on the north side of Route #2, and includes the Headquarters, picnic area, campground (for RVs and tents), cabin area (six rental cabins), the Old Cold River Road, and the upper and lower meadows.
    [Show full text]
  • Deerfield and CT River Project History.Pmd
    HISTORY OF HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ON THE CONNECTICUT AND DEERFIELD RIVERS HISTORY OF HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ON THE CONNECTICUT AND DEERFIELD RIVERS INTRODUCTION increasingly complex. While the Depression limited further growth of the industry, a new era emerged In 1903, Malcolm Greene Chace (1875-1955) and after World War II, with streamlined management Henry Ingraham Harriman (1872-1950) established structures and increased regulations and Chace & Harriman, a company that, in its many government involvement (Cook 1991:4; Landry and incarnations over the course of the following Cruikshank 1996:2-5). The first of the 14 decades, grew into one of the largest electric utility hydroelectric facilities built on the Connecticut and companies in New England. The company built a Deerfield rivers by Chace & Harriman and its series of hydroelectric facilities on the Connecticut successors were developed in the early 1900s, and Deerfield rivers in Vermont, New Hampshire shortly after the potential of hydroelectric power and western Massachusetts, which were intended was realized on a large scale. Subsequent facilities to provide a reliable and less expensive alternative were constructed during the maturation of the to coal-produced steam power. Designed primarily industry in the 1920s, and two of the stations were to serve industrial centers in Massachusetts and completed in the post-World War II era. The history Rhode Island, the facilities also provided power to of the companies that built these stations is residential customers and municipalities in New intrinsically linked with broader trends in the history England. Chace & Harriman eventually evolved of electricity, hydropower technology, and industrial into the New England Power Association (NEPA) architecture in America.
    [Show full text]
  • Deerfield River Watershed Association
    A Watershed-Based Plan to Maintain the Health and Improve the Resiliency of the Deerfield River Watershed Franklin Regional Council of Governments Staff: Kimberly Noake MacPhee, P.G., CFM, Land Use and Natural Resources Program Manager Mary Chicoine, Senior Land Use and Natural Resources Planner Ryan Clary, Senior GIS Specialist Alyssa Larose, Land Use and Natural Resources Planner Megan Rhodes, AICP, Senior Transportation/Land Use Planner With technical assistance provided by: Fuss & O’Neill, Inc., Erik Mas, PE Field Geology Services, John Field, Ph.D., P.G. and Nicolas Miller Franklin Conservation District Deborah Shriver Consulting, Deborah M. Shriver Acknowledgements: Watershed stakeholders provided valuable comments and insight during the development of this plan. This plan also benefitted from the assistance and advice of the following organizations and individuals: Brian Yellen, Researcher, Department of Geosciences, UMass Amherst Andy Fisk, Executive Director, Connecticut River Conservancy Rita Thibodeau, District Conservationist, USDA, NRCS Carrie Banks, MA Division of Ecological Restoration, Dept. Fish & Game Erin Rodgers, Ph.D., Western New England Project Coordinator, Trout Unlimited Michael B. Cole, Ph.D., Cole Ecological Will Sloan Anderson, Franklin Land Trust Photographs: Cover Deerfield River landscape Matthew MacPherson http://mattmacpherson.com Pp. 2-3 Deerfield River landscape Matthew MacPherson http://mattmacpherson.com P. 11 Flooding in Deerfield Town of Greenfield P. 39 Crowningshield property Franklin Land Trust P. 45 Dam sites Erin Rodgers, Trout Unlimited Pp. 82-105 Maps, figures and photos Field Geology Services This project has been financed with Federal Funds from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Massachusetts Depart- ment of Environmental Protection (the Department) under an s.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuous Forest Inventory 2014
    Manual for Continuous Forest Inventory Field Procedures Bureau of Forestry Division of State Parks and Recreation February 2014 Massachusetts Department Conservation and Recreation Manual for Continuous Forest Inventory Field Procedures Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation February, 2014 Preface The purpose of this manual is to provide individuals involved in collecting continuous forest inventory data on land administered by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation with clear instructions for carrying out their work. This manual was first published in 1959. It has undergone minor revisions in 1960, 1961, 1964 and 1979, and 2013. Major revisions were made in April, 1968, September, 1978 and March, 1998. This manual is a minor revision of the March, 1998 version and an update of the April 2010 printing. TABLE OF CONTENTS Plot Location and Establishment The Crew 3 Equipment 3 Location of Established Plots 4 The Field Book 4 New CFI Plot Location 4 Establishing a Starting Point 4 The Route 5 Traveling the Route to the Plot 5 Establishing the Plot Center 5 Establishing the Witness Trees 6 Monumentation 7 Establishing the Plot Perimeter 8 Tree Data General 11 Tree Number 11 Azimuth 12 Distance 12 Tree Species 12-13 Diameter Breast Height 13-15 Tree Status 16 Product 17 Sawlog Height 18 Sawlog Percent Soundness 18 Bole Height 19 Bole Percent Soundness 21 Management Potential 21 Sawlog Tree Grade 23 Hardwood Tree Grade 23 Eastern White Pine Tree Grade 24 Quality Determinant 25 Crown Class 26 Mechanical Loss
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study Report
    Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study STUDY REPORT A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST The Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation Katie Kennedy, The Nature Conservancy Kim Lutz, The Nature Conservancy Christopher Hatfield, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Leanna Martin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Townsend Barker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Richard Palmer, University of Massachusetts Amherst Luke Detwiler, University of Massachusetts Amherst Jocelyn Anleitner, University of Massachusetts Amherst John Hickey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kennedy, K., K. Lutz, C. Hatfield, L. Martin, T. Barker, R. Palmer, L. Detwiler, J. Anleitner, J. Hickey. 2018. The Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study: A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation. The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and University of Massachusetts Amherst. Northampton, MA. Available: http://nature.org/ctriverwatershed For a quick, easy-to-read overview of the Connecticut River Watershed Study, see our companion “Study Overview” document, available at: http://nature.org/ctriverwatershed June 2018 Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Additional Acres in Monroe, MA
    Available Property, Rowe and Monroe, Massachusetts Property Profile Property Address: Monroe Hill Road, Rowe, Massachusetts Total Acreage: Approximately 1,735 acres Parcels: The property consists of 25 separate parcels Current Zoning: Residential/Agricultural and Industrial Monroe, MA Additional Acres in Monroe, MA Acres: Approx. 93 In addition to the parcels in Rowe, additional land is available in the Town of Monroe on the western side of the Sherman Reservoir. The property Zoning: Residential features undeveloped land consisting of plateaus, hills and ridgelines. Several tributaries to the Deerfield River are located on the property. Land Use: Open Space Timber harvesting previously occurred on the property. Acquisition of the Rowe and Monroe parcels may be completed independent of each other or as one transaction. Available Property, Rowe and Monroe, Massachusetts Property Location: The two properties are located in the Towns of Monroe and Rowe in the northwest corner of Franklin County, Massachusetts. The towns of Monroe and Rowe are separated by Sherman Reservoir, the largest lake on the Deerfield River. Franklin County is a sparsely populated rural area in north central Massachusetts. The land is currently owned by Yankee Atomic Electric Company. The decommissioned Yankee Rowe nuclear power station was previously located on approximately 80 acres of the property. The remaining land served as open space buffer land during the plant’s operation. Franklin County Massachusetts Rowe Property Description: The Rowe property is located in the northwest corner of the Town of Rowe at its border with the State of Vermont and east of the Sherman Reservoir. The property is accessed via Monroe Hill Road, a well- maintained secondary Town- owned roadway.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2015
    AnnualAnnual ReportReport 20152015 MassachusettsMassachusetts DivisionDivision ofof FisheriesFisheries && WildlifeWildlife 109 Annual Report 2015 Massachusetts Division of fisheries & WilDlife Wayne MacCallum (partial year) Jack Buckley (partial year) Director Susan Sacco Assistant to the Director Jack Buckley (partial year) Rob Deblinger, Ph.D. (partial year) Deputy Director Deputy Director Administration Field Operations Jim Burnham Debbie McGrath Administrative Assistant to the Administrative Assistant to the Deputy Director, Administration Deputy Director, Field Operations Blank Page Inside Title Page>>> 4 Table of Contents The Board Reports .............................................................................................6 Fisheries ...........................................................................................................16 Wildlife .............................................................................................................30 Private Lands Habitat Management ................................................................47 Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program .........................................50 Information & Education ................................................................................61 Hunter Education ............................................................................................71 District Reports ................................................................................................73 Wildlife Lands ..................................................................................................88
    [Show full text]
  • Outdoor Recreation Recreation Outdoor Massachusetts the Wildlife
    Photos by MassWildlife by Photos Photo © Kindra Clineff massvacation.com mass.gov/massgrown Office of Fishing & Boating Access * = Access to coastal waters A = General Access: Boats and trailer parking B = Fisherman Access: Smaller boats and trailers C = Cartop Access: Small boats, canoes, kayaks D = River Access: Canoes and kayaks Other Massachusetts Outdoor Information Outdoor Massachusetts Other E = Sportfishing Pier: Barrier free fishing area F = Shorefishing Area: Onshore fishing access mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/fba/ Western Massachusetts boundaries and access points. mass.gov/dfw/pond-maps points. access and boundaries BOAT ACCESS SITE TOWN SITE ACCESS then head outdoors with your friends and family! and friends your with outdoors head then publicly accessible ponds providing approximate depths, depths, approximate providing ponds accessible publicly ID# TYPE Conservation & Recreation websites. Make a plan and and plan a Make websites. Recreation & Conservation Ashmere Lake Hinsdale 202 B Pond Maps – Suitable for printing, this is a list of maps to to maps of list a is this printing, for Suitable – Maps Pond Benedict Pond Monterey 15 B Department of Fish & Game and the Department of of Department the and Game & Fish of Department Big Pond Otis 125 B properties and recreational activities, visit the the visit activities, recreational and properties customize and print maps. mass.gov/dfw/wildlife-lands maps. print and customize Center Pond Becket 147 C For interactive maps and information on other other on information and maps interactive For Cheshire Lake Cheshire 210 B displays all MassWildlife properties and allows you to to you allows and properties MassWildlife all displays Cheshire Lake-Farnams Causeway Cheshire 273 F Wildlife Lands Maps – The MassWildlife Lands Viewer Viewer Lands MassWildlife The – Maps Lands Wildlife Cranberry Pond West Stockbridge 233 C Commonwealth’s properties and recreation activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts Forests at the Crossroads
    MASSACHUSETTS FORESTS AT THE CROSSROADS Forests, Parks, Landscapes, Environment, Quality of Life, Communities and Economy Threatened by Industrial Scale Logging & Biomass Power Deerfield River, Mohawk Trail Windsor State Forest, 2008, “Drinking Water Supply Area, Please protect it!” March 5, 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The fate of Massachusetts’ forests is at a crossroads. Taxpayer subsidized policies and proposals enacted and promoted by Governor Patrick’s office of Energy and Environmental Affairs seriously threaten the health, integrity and peaceful existence of Massachusetts forests. All the benefits provided by these forests including wilderness protection, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, clean water, clean air, tourism, carbon sequestration and scenic beauty are now under threat from proposals to aggressively log parks and forests as outlined below. • About 80% of State forests and parks are slated for logging with only 20% set aside in reserves. (p.4) • Aggressive logging and clear-cutting of State forests and parks has already started and new management plans call for logging rates more than 400% higher than average historical levels. (p. 5-18) • “Clear-cutting and its variants” is proposed for 74% of the logging. Historically, selective logging was common. (p. 5-18) • The timber program costs outweigh its revenue . Taxpayers are paying to cut their own forests.(p.19) • The State has enacted laws and is spending taxpayer money devoted to “green” energy to promote and subsidize the development of at least five wood-fueled, industrial-scale biomass power plants. These plants would require tripling the logging rate on all Massachusetts forests, public and private. At this rate, all forests could be logged in just 25 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Transportation Map 15 HAZARDOUS CARGO All Hazardous Cargo (HC) and Cargo Tankers General Information Throughout Boston and Surrounding Towns
    WELCOME TO MASSACHUSETTS! CONTACT INFORMATION REGIONAL TOURISM COUNCILS STATE ROAD LAWS NONRESIDENT PRIVILEGES Massachusetts grants the same privileges EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE Fire, Police, Ambulance: 911 16 to nonresidents as to Massachusetts residents. On behalf of the Commonwealth, MBTA PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 2 welcome to Massachusetts. In our MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 10 SPEED LAW Observe posted speed limits. The runs daily service on buses, trains, trolleys and ferries 14 3 great state, you can enjoy the rolling Official Transportation Map 15 HAZARDOUS CARGO All hazardous cargo (HC) and cargo tankers General Information throughout Boston and surrounding towns. Stations can be identified 13 hills of the west and in under three by a black on a white, circular sign. Pay your fare with a 9 1 are prohibited from the Boston Tunnels. hours travel east to visit our pristine MassDOT Headquarters 857-368-4636 11 reusable, rechargeable CharlieCard (plastic) or CharlieTicket 12 DRUNK DRIVING LAWS Massachusetts enforces these laws rigorously. beaches. You will find a state full (toll free) 877-623-6846 (paper) that can be purchased at over 500 fare-vending machines 1. Greater Boston 9. MetroWest 4 MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICE LAWS Operators cannot use any of history and rich in diversity that (TTY) 857-368-0655 located at all subway stations and Logan airport terminals. At street- 2. North of Boston 10. Johnny Appleseed Trail 5 3. Greater Merrimack Valley 11. Central Massachusetts mobile electronic device to write, send, or read an electronic opens its doors to millions of visitors www.mass.gov/massdot level stations and local bus stops you pay on board.
    [Show full text]