DOCSLIB.ORG

Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site: Site Management and Monitoring Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site: Site Management and Monitoring Plan MASSACHUSETTS BAY DISPOSAL SITE SITE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN FINAL NOVEMBER 2 2009 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS New England District Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site Site Management and Monitoring Plan 11/2/2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND KEYWORDS .......................................................................................................................... IV 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE SMMP ............................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 STATE-WIDE DREDGED MATERIAL AND OCEAN PLANNING ................................................................................... 2 1.5 REVIEW AND CONSULTATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES ........................................................................... 3 2. ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................ 4 2.1 FEDERAL REGULATORY/STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES ....................................................................................... 4 2.2 SURVEILLANCE AND ENFORCEMENT .................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 SILENT INSPECTOR ............................................................................................................................................ 5 2.2.2 MONITORING .................................................................................................................................................... 6 3. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 LOCATION ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 3.2 BRIEF HISTORY OF DISPOSAL AT THIS SITE ........................................................................................................... 6 3.3 BUOY LOCATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 7 3.4 ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSED IN LAST 15 YEARS ...................................................... 8 Table 1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 1 .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 2 .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3 .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 4 .............................................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 5. ............................................................................................................................................................. 15 4. BASELINE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................................. 16 4. 1 GENERAL PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................. 16 4.1.1 PHYSICAL SETTING AND CIRCULATION........................................................................................................... 16 Figure 6 .............................................................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 7 .............................................................................................................................................................. 18 4.1.2 SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................................................... 19 4.1.3 SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY ................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 8 .............................................................................................................................................................. 20 Table 2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 21 4.1.4 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BENTHIC COMMUNITIES .......................................................................... 21 4.1.5 WATER COLUMN CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................................. 22 4.1.6 EPIFAUNA AND FISHERIES ............................................................................................................................... 22 4.1.7 MARINE MAMMALS AND SEA TURTLES .......................................................................................................... 23 Table 3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 24 4.1.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 25 4.2 SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS WHICH MAY INFLUENCE MANAGEMENT OF THE MBDS ................................................ 25 5. EVALUATION OF USACE AND EPA MONITORING RESULTS SINCE 1996 ......................................... 26 5.1 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF IMPACTS OF DISPOSAL AT THE MBDS ......................................................................... 26 5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... 27 5.3 KEY SAMPLING TECHNOLOGIES AND EVALUATION APPROACHES ................................................ 27 5.4 MONITORING SURVEYS IN PAST 15 YEARS ............................................................................................ 29 Table 4. .............................................................................................................................................................. 30 Table 5 ............................................................................................................................................................... 31 ii Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site Site Management and Monitoring Plan 11/2/2009 6. QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF MATERIAL TO BE DISPOSED ............................................................... 33 6.1 RECENT AND UPCOMING PROJECTS ............................................................................................................... 33 6.2 CAPACITY .......................................................................................................................................................... 34 6.3 DREDGED MATERIAL QUALITY: EVALUATION AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... 34 7. MANAGEMENT APPROACH........................................................................................................................... 34 7.1 ALL DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSED AT THE MBDS MUST MEET THE OCEAN DUMPING CRITERIA ...................... 35 7.2 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF ALL GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PERMIT CONDITIONS ............................ 35 7.3 DISPOSAL LOCATIONS AND COORDINATES ......................................................................................................... 39 7.4 ALLOWABLE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES AND METHODS ..................................................................................... 39 7.5 TIMING OF DISPOSAL MINIMIZES CONFLICTS WITH OTHER USES OF THE AREA .................................................... 40 7.6 DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL COMPLIANCE INFORMATION IS RECORDED IN AN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .................................................................................................................................................................... 40 7.7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING ARE DESIGNED TO RECOGNIZE AND CORRECT CONDITIONS BEFORE UNACCEPTABLE (SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE) IMPACT OCCURS ......................................................................... 40 7.8 MODIFICATIONS TO DISPOSAL PRACTICES AND THE SITE ................................................................ 40 8. MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................ 41 8.1 COMPLIANCE MONITORING ..............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Boston Harbor Watersheds Water Quality & Hydrologic Investigations
    Boston Harbor Watersheds Water Quality & Hydrologic Investigations Fore River Watershed Mystic River Watershed Neponset River Watershed Weir River Watershed Project Number 2002-02/MWI June 30, 2003 Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection Boston Harbor Watersheds Water Quality & Hydrologic Investigations Project Number 2002-01/MWI June 30, 2003 Report Prepared by: Ian Cooke, Neponset River Watershed Association Libby Larson, Mystic River Watershed Association Carl Pawlowski, Fore River Watershed Association Wendy Roemer, Neponset River Watershed Association Samantha Woods, Weir River Watershed Association Report Prepared for: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Robert W. Golledge, Jr., Commissioner Bureau of Resource Protection Cynthia Giles, Assistant Commissioner Division of Municipal Services Steven J. McCurdy, Director Division of Watershed Management Glenn Haas, Director Boston Harbor Watersheds Water Quality & Hydrologic Investigations Project Number 2002-01/MWI July 2001 through June 2003 Report Prepared by: Ian Cooke, Neponset River Watershed Association Libby Larson, Mystic River Watershed Association Carl Pawlowski, Fore River Watershed Association Wendy Roemer, Neponset River Watershed Association Samantha Woods, Weir River Watershed
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Harbor South Watersheds 2004 Assessment Report
    Boston Harbor South Watersheds 2004 Assessment Report June 30, 2004 Prepared for: Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Prepared by: Neponset River Watershed Association University of Massachusetts, Urban Harbors Institute Boston Harbor Association Fore River Watershed Association Weir River Watershed Association Contents How rapidly is open space being lost?.......................................................35 Introduction ix What % of the shoreline is publicly accessible?........................................35 References for Boston Inner Harbor Watershed........................................37 Common Assessment for All Watersheds 1 Does bacterial pollution limit fishing or recreation? ...................................1 Neponset River Watershed 41 Does nutrient pollution pose a threat to aquatic life? ..................................1 Does bacterial pollution limit fishing or recreational use? ......................46 Do dissolved oxygen levels support aquatic life?........................................5 Does nutrient pollution pose a threat to aquatic life or other uses?...........48 Are there other water quality problems? ....................................................6 Do dissolved oxygen (DO) levels support aquatic life? ..........................51 Do water supply or wastewater management impact instream flows?........7 Are there other indicators that limit use of the watershed? .....................53 Roughly what percentage of the watersheds is impervious? .....................8 Do water supply,
    [Show full text]
  • The Boston Harbor Project and the Reversal of Eutrophication of Boston Harbor
    The Boston Harbor Project and the Reversal of Eutrophication of Boston Harbor Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Environmental Quality Department Report 2013-07 Citation: Taylor DI. 2013. The Boston Harbor Project and the Reversal of Eutrophication of Boston Harbor. Boston: Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Report 2013-07. 33p. i THE BOSTON HARBOR PROJECT AND THE REVERSAL OF EUTROPHICATION OF BOSTON HARBOR Prepared by David I Taylor MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY Environmental Quality Department and Department of Laboratory Services 100 First Avenue Charlestown Navy Yard Boston, MA 02129 (617) 242-6000 June 2013 Report No: 2013-01 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report draws on data collected by a number of monitoring projects. Grateful thanks are extended to the following Principal Investigators (PI) of these projects: Nancy Maciolek and James A. Blake AECOM Environment, Marine & Coastal Center, 89 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA Anne E. Giblin and Jane Tucker The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA Robert J. Diaz Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Pt., VA 23061, USA Charles T. Costello Division of Watershed Management, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 1 Winter Street, Boston MA 02108, USA Kelly Coughlin, Wendy Leo, Ken Keay, Laura Ducott ENQUAD, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, 100 First Ave, Charlestown Navy Yard, MA 02129 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………. iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………. 2 2.0 THE BOSTON HARBOR PROJECT (BHP) AND THE DECREASES IN INPUTS TO BOSTON HARBOR 2.1 Background on the BHP………………………………………… 3 2.2 Changes to the nutrient and organic matter inputs to the harbor….
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Harbor Watersheds
    Boston Harbor Watersheds BOSTON HARBOR WATERSHED 6 Boston Harbor Watersheds Boston Harbor Watersheds Weir River Hingham Stream Length (mi) Stream Order pH Anadromous Species Present 4.9 Third 6.4 River herring, smelt, white perch, tomcod Obstruction # 1 Foundry Pond Dam Hingham River Type Material Spillway Spillway Impoundment Year Owner GPS Mile W (ft) H (ft) Acreage Built 2.7 Dam Concrete and 100 9.0 6.0 1998 Town of 42° 15’ 48.794” N stone Hingham 70° 51’ 38.082” W Foundry Pond Dam Fishway Present Design Material Length Inside Outside # of Baffle Notch Pool Condition/ (ft) W (ft) W (ft) Baffles H (ft) W (ft) L (ft) Function Notched Concrete 73.5 3.0 4.6 12 3.0 1.5 6.5 Good weir-pool Passable Fishway at Foundry Pond Dam 7 Boston Harbor Watersheds Remarks: Weir River forms a 6 acre impoundment as it flows to Boston Harbor. The 9 foot dam which creates the impoundment has recently been restored and the fishway that provides access was also modified at this time. Juvenile herring out-migration may be negatively impacted by the new rip-rap facing piled at the base of the dam. Efforts should be made to correct some of the detrimental impacts of the dam restoration. The area immediately downstream of the dam has historically supported a strong smelt population and white perch are known to spawn in the lower river. 8 Boston Harbor Watersheds Straits Pond Cohasset, Hull Stream Length (mi) Stream Order pH Anadromous Species Present 1.0 Second 8.9 River herring Obstruction # 1 Straits Pond Tidegate Cohasset, Hull River Type Material Spillway Spillway Impoundment Year Owner GPS Mile W (ft) H (ft) Acreage Built 1.0 Tide gate Metal 10.5 - 95.8 - Town of 42° 15’ 37.146” N Hull 70° 50’ 40.373” W Tidegate at Straits Pond Fishway None Remarks: This 95.8 acre salt pond is maintained at low salinities by a tide gate operated by the Town of Hull.
    [Show full text]
  • (Osmerus Mordax) Spawning Habitat in the Weymouth- Fore River
    Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report TR-5 Rainbow Smelt (Osmerus mordax) Spawning Habitat in the Weymouth- Fore River Bradford C. Chase and Abigail R. Childs Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Commonwealth of Massachusetts September 2001 Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report TR-5 Rainbow Smelt (Osmerus mordax) Spawning Habitat in the Weymouth-Fore River Bradford C. Chase and Abigail R. Childs Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Annisquam River Marine Fisheries Station 30 Emerson Ave. Gloucester, MA 01930 September 2001 Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Paul Diodati, Director Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement Dave Peters, Commissioner Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Bob Durand, Secretary Commonwealth of Massachusetts Jane Swift, Governor ABSTRACT The spawning habitat of anadromous rainbow smelt in the Weymouth-Fore River, within the cities of Braintree and Weymouth, was monitored during 1988-1990 to document temporal, spatial and biological characteristics of the spawning run. Smelt deposited eggs primarily in the Monatiquot River, upstream of Route 53, over a stretch of river habitat that exceeded 900 m and included over 8,000 m2 of suitable spawning substrate. Minor amounts of egg deposition were found in Smelt Brook, primarily located below the Old Colony railroad embankment where a 6 ft culvert opens to an intertidal channel. The Smelt Brook spawning habitat is degraded by exposure to chronic stormwater inputs, periodic raw sewer discharges and modified stream hydrology. Overall, the entire Weymouth-Fore River system supports one of the larger smelt runs in Massachusetts Bay, with approximately 10,000 m2 of available spawning substrate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Massachusetts Bay Hydrodynamic Model: 2005 Simulation
    The Massachusetts Bay Hydrodynamic Model: 2005 Simulation Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Environmental Quality Department Report ENQUAD 2008-12 Jiang MS, Zhou M. 2008. The Massachusetts Bay Hydrodynamic Model: 2005 Simulation. Boston: Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Report 2008-12. 58 pp. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Boston, Massachusetts The Massachusetts Bay Hydrodynamic Model: 2005 Simulation Prepared by: Mingshun Jiang & Meng Zhou Department of Environmental, Earth and Ocean Sciences University of Massachusetts Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125 July 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Boston Harbor, Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay system (MBS) is a semi- enclosed coastal system connected to the Gulf of Maine (GOM) through boundary exchange. Both natural processes including climate change, seasonal variations and episodic events, and human activities including nutrient inputs and fisheries affect the physical and biogeochemical environment in the MBS. Monitoring and understanding of physical–biogeochemical processes in the MBS is important to resource management and environmental mitigation. Since 1992, the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA) has been monitoring the MBS in one of the nation’s most comprehensive monitoring programs. Under a cooperative agreement between the MWRA and University of Massachusetts Boston (UMB), the UMB modeling team has conducted numerical simulations of the physical–biogeochemical conditions and processes in the MBS during 2000-2004. Under a new agreement between MWRA, Battelle and UMB, the UMB continues to conduct a numerical simulation for 2005, a year in which the MBS experienced an unprecedented red–tide event that cost tens of millions dollars to Massachusetts shellfish industry. This report presents the model validation and simulated physical environment in 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts Coastal Waters
    CIRCULATION AND CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT IN MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL WATERS: A SUMMARY OF ACHIEVEMENTS AND FUTURE PLANS work conducted under a JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT between THE MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY and THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY By M.H. Bothner, M. Buchholtz ten Brink, Bradford Butman, H. J. Knebel, F.T. Manheim, and R. P. Signell U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report # 94-649 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................ 3 Summary of USGS Program Components: Long-term Current Observations. ............................ 9 Geochemical Studies ..................................... 13 Sea-floor Mapping ....................................... 18 Circulation Modeling .................................... 23 Contaminated-Sediment Database ........................... 27 References cited in this summary ................................ 35 Publications resulting from the MWRA-USGS Joint Funding Agreement and related USGS programs in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay 1989-1994 .................. 36 This report has not been reviewed for conformity with USGS editorial standards. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The USGS is developing a conceptual model for the transport and accumulation of sediments and associated contaminants in the Massachusetts Bays. Our approach is multidisciplinary. Each of five discipline
    [Show full text]
  • Nitrogen Flow and the Interaction of Boston Harbor with Massachusetts
    Estuaries Vol. 20, No. 2, p. 365-380 June 1997 Nitrogen Flow and the Interactionof Boston HarborWith Massachusetts Bay JOHN R. KELLY1 3 Willow Lane Rye, New Hampshire 03870 ABSTRACT: This paper summarizes evidence that most of the considerable nitrogen loading (-8, 470 mmol total N m-2 yr-1) to Boston Harbor (Massachusetts, USA) is expelled to shallow shelf waters of Massachusetts Bay, where it strongly influences ecological dynamics. Examination of nitrogen concentrations in the harbor, compared with loading, indicated that removal processes are active in the harbor. Comparison to other estuarine systems showed that the harbor's nitrogen concentrations are consistent with its loading, if they are corrected for tidal flushing effects on the water residence time. Furthermore, extensive measurements of sediment denitrification confirmed that rates of N2 gas loss are high in an absolute sense (-600-800 mmol N m-2 yr-l) but nonetheless remove only a small portion (<10%) of the annual land-derived nitrogen loading. Burial in sediments apparently removes only about 2% of the N input, implying export to offshore environments as the major removal process (-88-90% of N input). Western Massachusetts Bay receiving waters were examined for a signature of export from the harbor. Data consistently show a gradient of decreasing nitrogen concentrations from the harbor to about 10-20 km into the bay. In many cases, plots of nitrogen concentrations versus salinity show nearly conservative mixing character, which implies virtual export. Seasonally, the data suggest most of the export from the harbor in winter is as dissolved inorganic forms (NH4+, NO3-, NO2-).
    [Show full text]
  • TMDL Report for Boston Harbor, Weymouth-Weir, and Mystic
    Final Pathogen TMDL for the Boston Harbor, Weymouth-Weir, and Mystic Watersheds October 2018 (Control Number CN 157.1) Boston Harbor Watershed Prepared as a cooperative effort by: Massachusetts DEP USEPA New England Region 1 1 Winter Street 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 ENSR International (now AECOM) 2 Technology Park Drive, Westford, MA 01886 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY Limited copies of this report are available at no cost by written request to: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Division of Watershed Management 8 New Bond Street Worcester, Massachusetts 01606 This report is also available on MassDEP’s web page http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/watersheds/total-maximum-daily-loads- tmdls.html. A complete list of reports published since 1963 is updated annually and printed in July. This list, titled “Publications of the Massachusetts Division of Watershed Management (DWM) – Watershed Planning Program, 1963-(current year)”, is also available by contacting Robin Murphy at [email protected] or by writing to the DWM at the address above. DISCLAIMER References to trade names, commercial products, manufacturers, or distributors in this report constituted neither endorsement nor recommendations by the Division of Watershed Management for use. Acknowledgement This report was developed by ENSR through a partnership with Resource Triangle Institute (RTI) contracting with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Agency under the National Watershed Protection Program. The report follows the same format and methodology for previously approved bacteria TMDLs (Charles, Cape Cod, Buzzards Bay, North Coastal, and South Coastal).
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources and Open Space Draft
    DRAFT FOR LOCAL REVIEW Natural, Open Space, and Recreation Resources 6. Natural, Open Space and Recreation Resources Introduction The well-protected shallow harbor, coastal plains, fertile river valley, and adjacent upland areas that characterize the Town of Hingham have drawn humans for centuries. Native Americans – members of the Massachusett triBe -- survived on the diverse food resources of the coastal clam flats, Weir River, and upland grasslands and forests. Today, these sites add to the overall quality of life in the town, providing places to explore, play, relax and recharge. Hingham’s commitment to protecting these resources has safeguarded them for the benefit of generations to come. World’s End, a 251-acre peninsula extending from Hingham’s northeast This chapter of the inventory addresses coastline, was protected from development by a private land trust, The Hingham’s natural, open space and Trustees of Reservations, in 1957. It is one of the town’s most treasured open spaces. (Photo courtesy of The Trustees of Reservations) recreation resources. It is divided into three sections, as follows:1 • A description of existing conditions and trends, organized by resource type, and including: o An overview of existing natural, open space and recreation resources; o A synopsis of past and current efforts to protect these resources; and o A description of the many public (federal, state and local) and private entities involved in resource protection. • An outline of regional natural resources and open space and recreation considerations; and • A summary of issues and challenges related to the resources to be considered in the 2020 Master Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Birding the Boston Harbor Islands
    Birding the Boston Harbor Islands John Move Introduction Boston Harbor Islands After nearly a decade of lobbying by m Representatives Gerry Studds and Joe Moakley and Senator Edward Keimedy, the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area was created by an Act of * * Congress in 1996. Unique among sites in the National Parks system, it is managed by a partnership made up of the twelve owners and operators of the thirty islands named in the legislation together with several advocacy groups and the National Park Service (NPS) itself After a five-year process of study and public input, a management plan was recently released that will guide the park as it moves into the new millennium. Of interest to birders and to visitors in general is the recommendation that calls for increased public access to the islands. At the same time, several of the more remote islands, traditionally used by colonial nesting species, are to remain undeveloped. In operation since the early 1970s, the Boston Harbor Islands State Park, now a part of the Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area (the name it now goes by after Native Americans objected to using the phrase “recreation area” to describe islands on which some of their ancestors were imprisoned and died), is co-managed by the Massachusetts Department of Enviromnental Management (DEM) and the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC). Currently, six of the nineteen state-owned islands make up the nucleus of the Area, hosting nearly 125,000 visitors aimually. They are staffed seasonally and are accessible by ferry and water-taxi link from Boston as well as from the North and South Shores.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Harbor – Estuarine Segment Assessments
    BOSTON HARBOR – ESTUARINE SEGMENT ASSESSMENTS Winthrop Bay (Segment MA70-10) ........................................................................................................... 230 Boston Inner Harbor (MA70-02)................................................................................................................ 233 Pleasure Bay (Segment MA70-11) ........................................................................................................... 238 Dorchester Bay (Segment MA70-03)........................................................................................................ 240 Quincy Bay (Segment MA70-04) .............................................................................................................. 245 Quincy Bay (Segment MA70-05) .............................................................................................................. 248 Hingham Harbor (Segment MA70-08) ...................................................................................................... 252 Hingham Bay (Segment MA70-06) ........................................................................................................... 254 Hingham Bay (Segment MA70-07) ........................................................................................................... 257 Hull Bay (Segment MA70-09) ................................................................................................................... 260 Boston Harbor (Segment MA70-01) ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]