DOCSLIB.ORG

Town of Ashfield Hazard Mitigation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Town of Ashfield Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2020 Town of Ashfield Hazard Mitigation Plan Photo courtesy of the Greenfield Recorder Adopted by the Ashfield Select Board on xx, xx Prepared by Ashfield Hazard Mitigation Committee and Franklin Regional Council of Governments 12 Olive Street, Suite 2 Greenfield, MA 01301 (413) 774-3167 www.frcog.org This project was funded by a grant received from the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Acknowledgements The Ashfield Select Board extends thanks to the Ashfield Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee as follows: George Stephan, Emergency Management Director Del Haskins, Fire Chief Beth Bezio, Police Chief Robert Cherdack, Planning Board Tom Poissant, Highway Superintendent Jennifer Morse, Town Administrator The Ashfield Select Board offers thanks to the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) for developing the 2018 Massachusetts Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan, which served as a resource for this plan, and to the staff of the Franklin Regional Council of Governments for providing technical assistance to the Town to complete this project. Franklin Regional Council of Governments Peggy Sloan, Director of Planning & Development Kimberly Noake MacPhee, Land Use & Natural Resources Program Manager Alyssa Larose, Senior Land Use & Natural Resources Planner Helena Farrell, Land Use & Natural Resources Planner Allison Gage, Land Use & Natural Resources Planner Alexander Sylvain, Emergency Preparedness Program Assistant Ryan Clary, Senior GIS Specialist Town of Ashfield Hazard Mitigation Plan i Contents 1 PLANNING PROCESS .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 HAZARD MITIGATION COMMITTEE ..................................................................................................... 1 1.3 PARTICIPATION BY STAKEHOLDERS ..................................................................................................... 3 2 LOCAL PROFILE AND PLANNING CONTEXT ............................................................................................ 6 2.1 COMMUNITY SETTING ......................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ......................................................................................................... 14 3 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 19 3.1 NATURAL HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 21 3.2 FLOODING.......................................................................................................................................... 25 3.3 SEVERE SNOWSTORMS / ICE STORMS .............................................................................................. 47 3.4 HURRICANES / TROPICAL STORMS .................................................................................................... 59 3.5 SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS / WIND / MICROBURSTS ........................................................................ 70 3.6 TORNADOES ...................................................................................................................................... 82 3.7 WILDFIRE ........................................................................................................................................... 93 3.8 EARTHQUAKES ................................................................................................................................. 108 3.9 DAM FAILURE .................................................................................................................................. 119 3.10 DROUGHT ........................................................................................................................................ 125 3.11 LANDSLIDES ..................................................................................................................................... 134 3.12 EXTREME TEMPERATURES .............................................................................................................. 140 3.13 INVASIVE SPECIES ............................................................................................................................ 159 3.14 OTHER HAZARDS ............................................................................................................................. 175 3.14.1 MANMADE HAZARDS ........................................................................................................ 175 3.14.2 VECTOR-BORNE DISEASES ................................................................................................. 182 4 MITIGATION CAPABILITIES & STRATEGIES ......................................................................................... 193 4.1 NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS FOR HAZARD MITIGATION & CLIMATE RESILIENCY ........................... 193 4.2 EXISTING AUTHORITIES POLICIES, PROGRAMS, & RESOURCES ....................................................... 194 4.3 HAZARD MITIGATION GOAL STATEMENTS AND ACTION PLAN....................................................... 209 5 PLAN ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................. 221 5.1 PLAN ADOPTION .............................................................................................................................. 221 5.2 PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS ....................................................................................................... 221 Appendix A – Public Participation ............................................................................................................ 231 Appendix B – Certificate of Adoption ....................................................................................................... 232 Town of Ashfield Hazard Mitigation Plan ii Table of Tables Table 2-1: Ashfield 2016 MassGIS Land Cover and Land Use Data ............................................................... 6 Table 2-2: Ashfield 2016 Land Cover and Land Use Data for the Delineated River Corridor ....................... 7 Table 2-3: Ashfield New Building Permits 2010-2020 .................................................................................. 9 Table 2-4: Ashfield Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 13 Table 3-1: Comparison of Hazards in the Massachusetts State Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan, Ashfield Hazard Mitigation Plan, and Ashfield MVP Resiliency Plan ................................................. 19 Table 3-2: Location of Occurrence Rating Scale ......................................................................................... 21 Table 3-3: Probability of Occurrence Rating Scale ...................................................................................... 22 Table 3-4: Impacts Rating Scale .................................................................................................................. 22 Table 3-5: Ashfield Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis ....................................................................... 23 Table 3-6: Previous Occurrences of Flash Floods in Franklin County ......................................................... 36 Table 3-7: Previous Occurrences of Floods in Franklin County................................................................... 36 Table 3-8: Flooding Events in Ashfield since 1993 ...................................................................................... 37 Table 3-9: Estimated Ashfield Population Exposed to a 1 Percent Flood Event ......................................... 39 Table 3-10: Estimated Vulnerable Populations in Ashfield ......................................................................... 40 Table 3-11: Acres of Commercial, Industrial, and Public/Institutional Land Use Within the Flood Hazard Area in Ashfield ........................................................................................................................................... 42 Table 3-12: NFIP Policies, Claims, and Repetitive Loss Statistics for Ashfield ............................................ 43 Table 3-13: Regional Snowfall Index Categories ......................................................................................... 50 Table 3-14: Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale Categories .......................................................................... 50 Table 3-15: High-Impact Snowstorms in Franklin County, 1958 - 2018 ..................................................... 52 Table 3-16: Estimated Vulnerable Populations in Ashfield ......................................................................... 54 Table 3-17: Estimated Potential Loss by Tax Classification in Ashfield ....................................................... 56 Table 3-18: Saffir-Simpson Scale ................................................................................................................. 62 Table 3-19: Estimated Vulnerable Populations in Ashfield ......................................................................... 65 Table 3-20: Estimated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New Hampshire Fish and Game Department NEW HAMPSHIRE SALTWATER FISHING 2021 DIGEST
    New Hampshire Fish and Game Department NEW HAMPSHIRE SALTWATER FISHING 2021 DIGEST Fish the Coast! The Official New Hampshire Digest of Regulations fishnh.com A Legacy of High Performance NEW! SARAGOSA SW REEL Infinity Drive Technology increases this reel’s winding torque under load compared to its TERAMAR XX SW RODS predecessor to give anglers a distinct advantage Shimano’s Spiral X and Hi-Power X technologies enhance power over hard fighting game fish. Combined with transmission through the rod blank for increased casting distance a battle-tested rigid HAGANE Body that won’t and lifting power as well as reduced blank twist during tough flex under immense loads and the battles. Whether fishing for stripers in the Northeast, reds in the HAGANE Gear to create eternally smooth reeling. Southeast or Southwest, or salmon on the West Coast, there is a Cross Carbon drag and X-Protect offer high-level Teramar XX rod to fit your fishing needs. water resistance to create long-lasting durability. No matter whether anglers are fishing inshore or offshore, jigging for bottom fish or casting baits at tailing fish, they can count on — just like they always have — the Saragosa SW to stay smooth no matter the conditions and perform when TREVALA PX RODS needed most. The bar is raised for saltwater spinning reels. Incorporates a redesigned rod blank with Shimano’s Hi-Power X reinforcing technology to increase overall strength and control while also enhancing rod twist resistance when jigging or fighting a fish. Save the date! FISHINGFEST® 2021 ~ April 1-4 Quality components for enhanced performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Official List of Public Waters
    Official List of Public Waters New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Water Division Dam Bureau 29 Hazen Drive PO Box 95 Concord, NH 03302-0095 (603) 271-3406 https://www.des.nh.gov NH Official List of Public Waters Revision Date October 9, 2020 Robert R. Scott, Commissioner Thomas E. O’Donovan, Division Director OFFICIAL LIST OF PUBLIC WATERS Published Pursuant to RSA 271:20 II (effective June 26, 1990) IMPORTANT NOTE: Do not use this list for determining water bodies that are subject to the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA). The CSPA list is available on the NHDES website. Public waters in New Hampshire are prescribed by common law as great ponds (natural waterbodies of 10 acres or more in size), public rivers and streams, and tidal waters. These common law public waters are held by the State in trust for the people of New Hampshire. The State holds the land underlying great ponds and tidal waters (including tidal rivers) in trust for the people of New Hampshire. Generally, but with some exceptions, private property owners hold title to the land underlying freshwater rivers and streams, and the State has an easement over this land for public purposes. Several New Hampshire statutes further define public waters as including artificial impoundments 10 acres or more in size, solely for the purpose of applying specific statutes. Most artificial impoundments were created by the construction of a dam, but some were created by actions such as dredging or as a result of urbanization (usually due to the effect of road crossings obstructing flow and increased runoff from the surrounding area).
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Revisions to 314 CMR 4.00 (Tables and Figures, Clean)
    Please see the 314 CMR 4.00 Summary and Notice to Reviewers document, as well as the Fact Sheets on particular topics for additional information and explanatory detail associated with these proposed regulatory changes. These documents are available on the MassDEP Website. 314 CMR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 4.06: continued LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES* TABLE & TABLE AND CORRESPONDING FIGURE TITLE Page # FIGURE # A (Figure only) River Basins and Coastal Drainage Areas TF-2 1 Blackstone River Basin TF-3 2 Boston Harbor Drainage Area (formerly Boston Harbor Drainage System and Mystic, Neponset and Weymouth & Weir River Basins) TF-8 3 Buzzards Bay Coastal Drainage Area TF-17 4 Cape Cod Coastal Drainage Area TF-22 5 Charles River Basin TF-30 6 Chicopee River Basin TF-34 7 Connecticut River Basin TF-40 8 Deerfield River Basin TF-49 9 Farmington River Basin TF-58 10 French River Basin TF-60 11 Housatonic River Basin TF-62 12 Hudson River Basin (formerly Hoosic, Kinderhook and Bashbish) TF-70 13 Ipswich River Basin TF-76 14 Islands Coastal Drainage Area (formerly Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket) TF-79 15 Merrimack River Basin TF-81 16 Millers River Basin TF-86 17 Narragansett Bay and Mount Hope Bay Drainage Area TF-90 18 Nashua River Basin TF-93 19 North Coastal Drainage Area TF-103 20 Parker River Basin TF-109 21 Quinebaug River Basin TF-113 22 Shawsheen River Basin TF-116 23 South Coastal Drainage Area TF-118 24 Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord (SuAsCo) River Basin (formerly Concord) TF-123 25 Taunton River Basin TF-128 26 Ten Mile River Basin TF-132 27 Westfield River Basin TF-134 28 (Table only) Site-Specific Criteria TF-144 29 (Table only) GenerallyApplicable Criteria: 29a.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Population Sampling
    2005 Deerfield River Watershed Fish Population Assessment Robert J. Maietta Watershed Planning Program Worcester, MA January, 2007 CN: 223.4 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Arleen O’Donnell, Acting Commissioner Bureau of Resource Protection Glenn Haas, Acting Assistant Commissioner Division of Watershed Management Glenn Haas, Director Introduction Fish population surveys were conducted in the Deerfield River Watershed during the late summer of 2005 using techniques similar to Rapid Bioassessment Protocol V as described originally by Plafkin et al.(1989) and later by Barbour et al. (1999). Standard Operating Procedures are described in MassDEP Method CN 075.1 Fish Population SOP. Surveys also included a habitat assessment component modified from that described in the aforementioned document (Barbour et al. 1999). Fish populations were sampled by electrofishing using a Smith Root Model 12 battery powered backpack electrofisher. A reach of between 80m and 100m was sampled by passing a pole mounted anode ring, side to side through the stream channel and in and around likely fish holding cover. All fish shocked were netted and held in buckets. Sampling proceeded from an obstruction or constriction, upstream to an endpoint at another obstruction or constriction such as a waterfall or shallow riffle. Following completion of a sampling run, all fish were identified to species, measured, and released. Results of the fish population surveys can be found in Table 1. It should be noted that young of the year (yoy) fish from most species, with the exception of salmonids are not targeted for collection. Young-of-the-year fishes which are collected, either on purpose or inadvertently, are noted in Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2014 Vol. 33 No. 1
    New Hampshire Bird Records Spring 2014 Vol. 33, No. 1 IN CELEBRATION his issue of New Hampshire Bird Records with Tits color cover is sponsored by a friend in celebration of the Concord Bird and Wildlife Club’s more than 100 years of birding and blooming. NEW HAMPSHIRE BIRD RECORDS In This Issue VOLUME 33, NUMBER 1 SPRING 2014 From the Editor .......................................................................................................................1 Photo Quiz ..........................................................................................................................1 MANAGING EDITOR 2014 Goodhue-Elkins Award – Allan Keith and Robert Fox .....................................................2 Rebecca Suomala Spring Season: March 1 through May 31, 2014 .......................................................................3 603-224-9909 X309, [email protected] by Eric Masterson The Inland White-winged Scoter Flight of May 2014 ..............................................................27 TEXT EDITOR by Robert A. Quinn Dan Hubbard Beyond the Sandhill Crane: Birding Hidden Towns of Northwestern Grafton County ............30 SEASON EDITORS by Sandy and Mark Turner, with Phil Brown Eric Masterson, Spring Backyard Birder – Waggle Dance of the Woodpeckers .............................................................32 Tony Vazzano, Summer by Brenda Sens Lauren Kras/Ben Griffith, Fall Field Notes ........................................................................................................................33
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 MACROINVERTEBRATE ASSESSMENT (Franklin County, Massachusetts)
    SOUTH RIVER WATERSHED 2006 MACROINVERTEBRATE ASSESSMENT (Franklin County, Massachusetts) MICHAEL B. COLE DEERFIELD RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION 15 Bank Row, Suite A Greenfield, Massachusetts May 2007 DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • As part of the Deerfield River Watershed Association’s (DRWA) commitment to protecting the watershed’s resources, the DRWA has performed water quality monitoring to supplement the efforts of regulatory agencies to monitor the watershed’s condition. In recognizing the need to more thoroughly assess biological conditions in the Deerfield River watershed, the DRWA implemented in 2005 a long-term macroinvertebrate monitoring program. The objectives of the program are to 1) augment MA DEP/DWM biomonitoring efforts to assess surface waters in the watershed with respect to their aquatic-life-use status and 2) familiarize citizens of the watershed with biological monitoring to increase support for and participation in watershed enhancement and protection activities. The South River watershed was sampled in 2006 under this program. • Twelve river and stream reaches were selected in the South River watershed for sampling in 2006. Eight sites were selected on the South River ranging from within the town of Ashfield downriver to the confluence with the Deerfield River. The Bear River, a less developed and neighboring drainage to the north, was selected as the reference site against which to compare conditions in the mainstem South River below its confluence with Creamery Brook. Five tributaries to the South River were also sampled, including two reaches on the upper mainstem of the South River which are small enough to warrant comparison with other tributaries in the watershed. Lower Chapel Brook was selected as the reference reach for the tributaries in this assessment, as it occurs in a largely forested drainage.
    [Show full text]
  • Rural Walking in Massachusetts a Tool Kit for Municipalities
    Rural Walking in Massachusetts A Tool Kit for Municipalities A WalkBoston report Prepared for The Massachusetts Department of Public Health March 2013 Table of Contents Introduction 1. Background 1.1. A long history of rural walking in Massachusetts 1.2. The present rural areas of Massachusetts 1.3. Resident perceptions of rural character 2. Rural Walking Design Choices 2.1. Sidewalk with curb 2.2. Roadside path 2.3. Meandering roadside path 2.4. Local and regional recreational trails 2.5. Regional trail for multiple users 2.6. Road shoulder for hiking and biking 2.7. Traffic calming and vehicle speeds 2.8. Standards of design used by case study towns 2.9. Potential users of walkways 2.10. ADA requirements 3. Findings 3.1. Increased walking has the potential to bring significant benefits to rural and semi-rural communities. 3.2. Walking infrastructure is needed in rural and semi-rural communities. 3.3. Building walkways takes time and creativity. 3.4. There are significant challenges to creating rural walking infrastructure. 3.5. Walkway destinations are important 3.6. Safe walking access to schools is essential. 3.7. The design of a walkway should respond to existing conditions and intended uses. 3.8. Traffic calming measures may improve safety and be cost-effective. 3.9. Transparent, inclusive, and collaborative planning processes help towns implement walking routes. 3.10. Pedestrians and drivers need basic information about walking. 4. Case Studies 4.1. Amherst 4.2. Ashfield 4.3. Barnstable 4.4. Barre 4.5. Bolton 4.6. Boxborough 4.7. Dudley 4.8.
    [Show full text]
  • Thenaturalists CLUB
    2019 ~~~~~The C NATURALISTS CLUB NEWSLETTER Springfield Science Museum at the Quadrangle, Springfield, Massachusetts Just to be sure . Still want the black bezel frame . your choice, right one or left one? L-1 hill, lower horizon, and higher sun, or R- 2 hills, higher horizon and setting (or rising) sun? April to June CALENDAR of EVENTS A APRIL Thurs.-Sun. April 4-7 Festival of Flowers, Springfield April 27 Saturday April 6 Hiking the East Branch River Trail, Westfield ~ It’s Arbor Day! ~ Fri. - Sun. April 12-14 Northeast Natural History Conference, Springfield Plant a tree! Wednesday April 17 APRIL MEETING: Holey Basalt! Amazing geology stories of Mt. Tom and the Holyoke Range Monday April 22 WRWA Wild and Scenic Film Festival, Westfield Saturday April 27 Let’s Go for a Bike Ride on the Manhan Trail, Northampton Sunday April 28 Chapel Brook Falls Hike to the Summit of Pony Mountain, Ashfield MAY Saturday May 11 Mill River & Smith College Flower Gardens, Northampton Wednesday May 15 MAY MEETING: Ecosystems Need Dark Skies Sunday May 19 Spring Wildflowers,Westfield Saturday May 25 The Floating Island of Sadawga Pond,Whitingham, VT JUNE Saturday June 1 Hiking High Ledges, Shelburne Falls Saturday June 8 Marsh Birds on the Housatonic, Milford, CT Saturday June 15 Dragonflies and Wildflowers at Rock House Reservation, West Brookfield NATURALISTS’ CORNER Celebrating the First 50 Years of the Naturalists’ Club This April marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Naturalists’ Club. During its 50 years, the Club has sustained the tradition of promoting natural history education. That tradition is deeply rooted in New England, which was a leader in the initial formation of scientific and natural history societies.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment for the Deerfield River Watershed
    Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment for the Deerfield River Watershed Section 604(b) Project Number 04-02/604 Prepared by the Franklin Regional Council of Governments Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian A. Bowles, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Laurie Burt, Commissioner Bureau of Resource Protection Glenn Hass, Acting Assistant Commissioner Division of Municipal Services Steven J. McCurdy, Director June 2008 This project has been financed partially with Federal Funds from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (the Department) under a s.604(b) Water Quality Management Planning Grant. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of EPA or of the Department, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment for the Deerfield River Watershed Prepared by the Franklin Regional Council of Governments Planning Department Peggy Sloan, Director of Planning and Development Kimberly Noake MacPhee, P.G., Natural Resources Program Manager Ryan Clary, Senior GIS Specialist Whitty Sanford, Assistant Planner Franklin Regional Council of Governments 425 Main Street, Greenfield, MA 01301 413-774-3167 www.frcog.org Table of Contents Executive Summary...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Block Reports
    MATRIX SITE: 1 RANK: MY NAME: Kezar River SUBSECTION: 221Al Sebago-Ossipee Hills and Plains STATE/S: ME collected during potential matrix site meetings, Summer 1999 COMMENTS: Aquatic features: kezar river watershed and gorgeassumption is good quality Old growth: unknown General comments/rank: maybe-yes, maybe (because of lack of eo’s) Logging history: yes, 3rd growth Landscape assessment: white mountian national forest bordering on north. East looks Other comments: seasonal roads and homes, good. Ownership/ management: 900 state land, small private holdings Road density: low, dirt with trees creating canopy Boundary: Unique features: gorge, Cover class review: 94% natural cover Ecological features, floating keetle hole bog.northern hard wood EO's, Expected Communities: SIZE: Total acreage of the matrix site: 35,645 LANDCOVER SUMMARY: 94 % Core acreage of the matrix site: 27,552 Natural Cover: Percent Total acreage of the matrix site: 35,645 Open Water: 2 Core acreage of the matrix site: 27,552 Transitional Barren: 0 % Core acreage of the matrix site: 77 Deciduous Forest: 41 % Core acreage in natural cover: 96 Evergreen Forest: 18 % Core acreage in non- natural cover: 4 Mixed Forest: 31 Forested Wetland: 1 (Core acreage = > 200m from major road or airport and >100m from local Emergent Herbaceous Wetland: 2 roads, railroads and utility lines) Deciduous shrubland: 0 Bare rock sand: 0 TOTAL: 94 INTERNAL LAND BLOCKS OVER 5k: 37 %Non-Natural Cover: 6 % Average acreage of land blocks within the matrix site: 1,024 Percent Maximum acreage of any
    [Show full text]
  • Provides This File for Download from Its Web Site for the Convenience of Users Only
    Disclaimer The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) provides this file for download from its Web site for the convenience of users only. Please be aware that the OFFICIAL versions of all state statutes and regulations (and many of the MassDEP policies) are only available through the State Bookstore or from the Secretary of State’s Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) Subscription Service. When downloading regulations and policies from the MassDEP Web site, the copy you receive may be different from the official version for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: • The download may have gone wrong and you may have lost important information. • The document may not print well given your specific software/ hardware setup. • If you translate our documents to another word processing program, it may miss/skip/lose important information. • The file on this Web site may be out-of-date (as hard as we try to keep everything current). If you must know that the version you have is correct and up-to-date, then purchase the document through the state bookstore, the subscription service, and/or contact the appropriate MassDEP program. 314 CMR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 4.06: continued FIGURE LIST OF FIGURES A River Basins and Coastal Drainage Areas 1 Hudson River Basin (formerly Hoosic, Kinderhook and Bashbish River Basins) 2 Housatonic River Basin 3 Farmington River Basin 4 Westfield River Basin 5 Deerfield River Basin 6 Connecticut River Basin 7 Millers River Basin 8 Chicopee River Basin 9 Quinebaug
    [Show full text]
  • Division of Water Pollution Control 314 Cmr 4.00
    314 CMR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 314 CMR 4.00: MASSACHUSETTS SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Section 4.01: General Provisions 4.02: Definitions 4.03: Application of Standards 4.04: Antidegradation Provisions 4.05: Classes and Criteria 4.06: Basin Classification and Maps 4.01: General Provisions (1) Title. 314 CMR 4.00 shall be known as the "Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards". (2) Organization of the Standards. 314 CMR 4.00 is comprised of six sections, General Provisions (314 CMR 4.01) Definitions (314 CMR 4.02), Application of Standards (314 CMR 4.03), Antidegradation Provisions (314 CMR 4.04), Classes and Criteria (314 CMR 4.05), and Basin Classification and Maps (314 CMR 4.06). (3) Authority. The Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards are adopted by the Department pursuant to the provisions of M.G.L. c. 21, § 27. (4) Purpose. M.G.L. c. 21, §§ 26 through 53 charges the Department with the duty and responsibility to protect the public health and enhance the quality and value of the water resources of the Commonwealth. It directs the Department to take all action necessary or appropriate to secure to the Commonwealth the benefits of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. The objective of 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. is the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. To achieve the foregoing requirements the Department has adopted the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards which designate the most sensitive uses for which the various waters of the Commonwealth shall be enhanced, maintained and protected; which prescribe the minimum water quality criteria required to sustain the designated uses; and which contain regulations necessary to achieve the designated uses and maintain existing water quality including, where appropriate, the prohibition of discharges.
    [Show full text]