DOCSLIB.ORG

Conversion to Coal New England Power Company Salem Harbor Generating Station Units 1,2 and 3 Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conversion to Coal New England Power Company Salem Harbor Generating Station Units 1,2 and 3 Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts DOE/EIS-0086-F Final Environmental Impact Statement Conversion to Coal New England Power Company Salem Harbor Generating Station Units 1,2 and 3 Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts October, 1982 U.S. Department of Energy This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available from the National Technical Information Service, U. S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Price: Printed Copy ADa Microfiche ADl Codes are used for pllcmg all publications. The code is determined by the number of pages in the publication. Information pertaining to the pricing codes can be found in the current issues of the following publications, which are generally available in most libraries: Energy Research Abstracts, (ERA); Government Reports Announcements and Index (GRA and I); Scientific and Technical Abstract Reports (STAR); and publication, NTIS-PR-360 available from (NTIS) at the above address. DO E / EI S -0086-F Distribution Category UC-90 Final Environmental Impact Statement Conversion to Coal New England Power Company Salem Harbor Generating Station Units 1,2 and 3 Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts October, 1982 U.S. Department of Energy Economic Regulatory Administration Office of Fuels Programs Washington, D.C. 20585 Responsible Agency: U.S. Department of Energy Economic Regulatory Administration Office of Fuels Programs Fuels Conversion Division Title of Proposed Issuance of Final Prohibition Orders to Action: Salem Harbor Generating Station Units I, 2, and 3, Salem, Massachusetts Designation: Final Environmental Impact Statement Further Information: Ms. Lynda Nesenholtz Office of Fuels Programs Fuels Conversion Division Economic Regulatory Administration Forrestal Building, Room GA-093, RG-62 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 Abstract: This Final Environmental Impoct Statement (FEIS) responds to comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (DOE/EIS-0086-D, February 1982) and includes any necessary additions and corrections. The supporting information furnished in the DEIS should be reviewed and is incorporated herein by reference. This FEIS assesses the potential impacts associated with the proposed finalization of prohibition orders for Units I, 2, and 3 of the Salem Harbor Generating Station, located in Salem, Massachusetts. If finalized, the prohibition orders would prohibit the utility from using either natural gas or petroleum products as a primary energy source in the affected units; the utility proposes to conform to the orders by returning Units I, 2, and 3 to burning low-sulfur coal. The utility has commenced the process of converting to coal, and on March I, 1982, initiated limited coal burning at the plant under the provisions of a Delayed Compliance Order issued by EPA on February 9, 1982. Major issues of environmental concern relating to the conversion have been determined through the public scoping process and through discussion with other concerned agencies, and were found to include air and water qua lity, noise, and waste storage and disposal. These issues, as well as reasonable alternatives in the areas of plant conversion options, fuel type, air and water po llution control, ash disposal, and transportation, are discussed in the DEIS. In an effort to avoid excessive paperwork and costly reproduction, the DEIS text has not been reprinted in the FEIS. SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Salem Harbor Generating Station is in Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, about 15 miles northeast of Boston, on a 60-acre site adjacent to Salem Harbor, a branch of Massachusetts Bay. Three of four units at the plant were designed to burn oil or coal as the major energy source; the fourth unit was designed to burn oil only. The units were converted to oil firing exclusively in 1969; they have continued to burn oil since that date except for a short period in 1974- 1975 following the oil embargo when they were reconverted to burning coal. The three, Units I, 2, and 3, are presently fired exclusively on oil. Units I, 2, and 3 have coal handling and firing equipment in place, except for the oil­ only burners on Unit I which will be replaced as part of the coal conversion project. A supply of high-ash coal remains on hand from the 1974- 1975 coal burn. On Apri I 3, 1980 (45 FR 22 1 83), the Department of Energy (DOE) published proposed prohibition orders for Units I, 2, and 3 at the facility under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended. Following enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA), which amended FUA to allow powerplant owners and operators to certify to FUA's required technical and economic feasibility findings, the utility elected to so certify. DOE then reissued prohibition orders for Units I, 2, and 3 on December 7, 1981. If the proposed prohibition orders are finalized, they would prohibit the units from using petroleum as their primary energy source. In this event, the New England Power Company, owner of the plant, proposes to return Units 1, 2, and 3 to burning a low-sulfur coal. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DE IS) on the proposed conversion of Salem Harbor was published in February 1982 (DOE/EIS-0086-D). This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FE IS) has been prepared by the Office of Fuels Programs, Fuels Conversion Division of the Economic Regulatory Administration of DOE as part of DOE's responsibility under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). DOE has determined that issuance of the prohibition orders is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment, and that an EIS is required. Major issues relating to reconversion of the plant to coal have been determined through the public scoping process and through discussion with other concerned agencies, especially the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region I; the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE); and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. In addition, appropriate comments on the DEIS for Salem Harbor and on the Draft Northeast Regional EIS (NEREIS) were considered. Issues of concern include air quality, water quality, noise, and waste storage and disposal. These issues, as we ll as reasonable alternatives to the utility's proposed reconversion to a low­ sulfur coal as the major energy source, are discussed. in the DEIS. No new or substantive issues were raised during the comment period on the DEIS. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION The oil embargo of 1973-1974 brought into sharp focus the nation's dependence on imported oil. The Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act (ESECA) was passed by Congress in 1974 in response to the embargo. This was superseded by FUA in 1978. One of DOE's responsibilities under FUA is to identify existing powerplants that could most read ily convert from use of petroleum products to another fuel. A group of facilities selected included those that had been originally designed to burn coal, but that had subsequently switched to oil or gas. The Salem Harbor Generating Station is one of these powerplants. Return of Units I, 2, and 3 to coal burning would save about 3.2 million barrels of oil per year over the remaining 15 or so year life of the units, and would contribute to lessening the country's dependence on imported oil. ALTERNA TIVES As noted in the Council on Environmental QuaHty's (CEQ) regu lations on preparation of environmental impact statements, the analysis of alternatives is the heart of an EIS. This FEIS includes discussions of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, which is finalization of the proposed prohibition orders. Issues of concern, as identified in the scoping process and in discussions with other agencies, are stressed. DOE's alternatives under FUA, as amended by OBRA are restricted to two: I) to issue the Prohibition Orders, or 2) to not issue the orders. Under either of these alternatives, the utility has several options as noted in the following paragraphs and as discussed in the DEIS. The uti Iity's preferred option if the proposed prohibition orders are finalized is to convert the three units at the Salem Harbor Generating Station to burning low-sulfur coal. Unit 4 is not coal-capable and would continue to burn oil. Alternatives include no action, under which the utility could continue to burn oil; the utility's proposed plan--reconversion to low-sulfur coal; use of alternative fuels; alternative pollution control methods; alternative ash disposal methods; and alternative transportation methods. No Action Under the no action alternative, the utility could elect to continue burning oil, could convert to coal without a prohibition order, or could retire the plant. i i Proposed Conversion Under the utility's proposed response to the prohibition orders, the Salem Harbor Generating Station would return to burning a low-sulfur coal (1 .5 percent sulfur) in three units. This would require about 870,000 tons of coal per year and would save approximately 3.2 million barrels of oil annually. The coal would be brought to the site by a 36,000-ton collier and would require about 25 unloadings per year. EPA Region I issued a Final Delayed Compliance Order (DCO) on February 9, 1982, which facilitates the conversion by allowing the station to exceed currently permitted limits for particulate matter (PM) emissions for the period the DCO is in force (not to exceed 46 months from March I, 1982). These increased emissions would maintain primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and would be reduced to within SIP limits as soon as new precipitators could be purchasedand installed and a new, approximately 450-foot stack constructed. A second critical element of the utility's proposed conversion is implementation of an Oil Conservation AdjusJment (OCA) to finance the conversion. Under Massachusetts law the OCA permits the utility to establish the cost of oil and the cost of coal on a quarterly basis and to reserve two-thirds of the cost differential for paying the costs of the conversion and taxes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Foundation Document Overview, Salem
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Overview Salem Maritime National Historic Site Massachusetts Contact Information For more information about the Salem Maritime National Historic Site Foundation Document, contact: [email protected] or (978) 740-1650 or write to: Superintendent, Salem Maritime National Historic Site, 160 Derby Street, Salem, MA 01970 Purpose Significance Significance statements express why Salem Maritime National Historic Site resources and values are important enough to merit national park unit designation. Statements of significance describe why an area is important within a global, national, regional, and systemwide context. These statements are linked to the purpose of the park unit, and are supported by data, research, and consensus. Significance statements describe the distinctive nature of the park and inform management decisions, focusing efforts on preserving and protecting the most important resources and values of the park unit. • Salem played a pioneering role in global trade from the Colonial era through the early republic, particularly to the Far East. These New England maritime connections contributed immensely to the foundation of many institutions and the expansion of American banking, insurance, and market systems. • New England’s prominent role in maritime commerce over three centuries is present in both the site’s many historic structures and its influence on architecture and literature. • Salem’s waterfront served as a critical center of American resistance during the Revolutionary War; its active SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE privateering fleets and its open port allowed trade preserves and interprets New England’s throughout the war. The Port of Salem also represents maritime history.
    [Show full text]
  • Ocm17241103-1896.Pdf (5.445Mb)
    rH*« »oo«i->t>fa •« A »iri or ok. w Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2011 witii funding from Boston Library Consortium IVIember Libraries littp://www.arcliive.org/details/annualreportofbo1896boar : PUBLIC DOCUMENT .... .... No. 11. ANNUAL REPORT Board of Harboe and Land Commissioners Foe the Yeab 1896. BOSTON WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING CO., STATE PRINTERS, 18 Post Office Square. 1897. ,: ,: /\ I'l C0mm0ixixr^aIt{? of P^assar^s^tts* REPORT To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the Common- wealth of Massachusetts. The Board of Harbor and Land Commissioners, pursuant to the provisions of law, respectfully submits its annual re- port for the year 1896, covering a period of twelve months, from Nov. 30, 1895. Hearings. The Board has held one hundred and sixty-six formal ses- sions during the year, at which one hundred and eighty-three hearings were given. One hundred and twenty-one petitions were received for licenses to build and maintain structures, and for privileges in tide waters, great ponds and the Con- necticut River ; of these, one hundred and fifteen were granted, four withdrawn and two denied. On June 5, 1896, a hearing was given at Buzzards Bay on the petition of the town of Wareham that the boundary line on tide water between the towns of Wareham and Bourne at the highway bridge across Cohasset Narrows, as defined by the Board under chapter 196 of the Acts of 1881, be marked on said bridge. On June 20, 1896, a hearing was given in Nantucket on the petition of the local board of health for license to fill a dock.
    [Show full text]
  • CPB1 C10 WEB.Pdf
    338 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 1, Chapter 10 Chapter 1, Pilot Coast U.S. 70°45'W 70°30'W 70°15'W 71°W Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 1—Chapter 10 NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml 71°W 13279 Cape Ann 42°40'N 13281 MASSACHUSETTS Gloucester 13267 R O B R A 13275 H Beverly R Manchester E T S E C SALEM SOUND U O Salem L G 42°30'N 13276 Lynn NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN Boston MASSACHUSETTS BAY 42°20'N 13272 BOSTON HARBOR 26 SEP2021 13270 26 SEP 2021 U.S. Coast Pilot 1, Chapter 10 ¢ 339 Cape Ann to Boston Harbor, Massachusetts (1) This chapter describes the Massachusetts coast along and 234 miles from New York. The entrance is marked on the northwestern shore of Massachusetts Bay from Cape its eastern side by Eastern Point Light. There is an outer Ann southwestward to but not including Boston Harbor. and inner harbor, the former having depths generally of The harbors of Gloucester, Manchester, Beverly, Salem, 18 to 52 feet and the latter, depths of 15 to 24 feet. Marblehead, Swampscott and Lynn are discussed as are (11) Gloucester Inner Harbor limits begin at a line most of the islands and dangers off the entrances to these between Black Rock Danger Daybeacon and Fort Point. harbors. (12) Gloucester is a city of great historical interest, the (2) first permanent settlement having been established in COLREGS Demarcation Lines 1623. The city limits cover the greater part of Cape Ann (3) The lines established for this part of the coast are and part of the mainland as far west as Magnolia Harbor.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report of the Board of Harbor Commissioners, 1877 and 1878
    : PUBLIC DOCUMENT .No. 33. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Board of Harbor Commissioners FOR THE YEAR 18 7 7. BOSTON ftanb, &berg, & £0., printers to tfje CommcntntaltJ, 117 Franklin Street. 1878. ; <£ommontocaltl) of Jllaesacfjusetta HARBOR COMMISSIONERS' REPORT. To the Honorable the Senate and the Home of Representatives of the Common- wealth of Massachusetts. The Board of Harbor Commissioners, in accordance with the provisions of law, respectfully submit their annual Report. By the operation of chapter 213 of the Acts of 1877, the number of the Board was reduced from five to three members. The members of the present Board, having been appointed under the provisions of said Act, were qualified, and entered upon their duties on the second day of July. The engineers employed by the former Board were continued, and the same relations to the United States Advisory Council established. It was sought to make no change in the course of proceeding, and no interruption of works in progress or matters pending and the present Report embraces the business of the entire year. South Boston Flats. The Board is happy to announce the substantial completion of the contracts with Messrs. Clapp & Ballou for the enclosure and filling of what has been known as the Twenty-jive-acre 'piece of South Boston Flats, near the junction of the Fort Point and Main Channels, which the Commonwealth by legis- lation of 1867 (chapter 354) undertook to reclaim with mate- rial taken for the most part from the bottom of the harbor. In previous reports, more especially the tenth of the series, the twofold purpose of this work, which contemplated a har- 4 HARBOR COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.
    [Show full text]
  • Zostera Marina) Areal Abundance in Massachusetts (USA) Identifies Statewide Declines
    Estuaries and Coasts (2011) 34:232–242 DOI 10.1007/s12237-010-9371-5 Twelve-Year Mapping and Change Analysis of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Areal Abundance in Massachusetts (USA) Identifies Statewide Declines Charles T. Costello & William Judson Kenworthy Received: 19 May 2009 /Revised: 16 September 2010 /Accepted: 27 December 2010 /Published online: 20 January 2011 # Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2011 Abstract In 1994, 1995, and 1996, seagrasses in 46 of the gains in three of the embayments, 755.16 ha (20.6%) of 89 coastal embayments and portions of seven open-water seagrass area originally detected was lost during the near-shore areas in Massachusetts were mapped with a mapping interval. The results affirm that previously reported combination of aerial photography, digital imagery, and losses in a few embayments were symptomatic of more ground truth verification. In the open-water areas, widespread seagrass declines in Massachusetts. State and 9,477.31 ha of seagrass were identified, slightly more than Federal programs designed to improve environmental quality twice the 4,846.2 ha detected in the 46 coastal embayments. for conservation and restoration of seagrasses in Massachu- A subset of the 46 embayments, including all regions of the setts should continue to be a priority for coastal managers. state were remapped in 2000, 2001, and 2002 and again in 2006 and 2007. We detected a wide range of changes from Keywords Massachusetts . Seagrass . Distribution . increases as high as 29% y−1 in Boston Harbor to declines Mapping . Change analysis . Declines . Water quality as large as −33% y−1 in Salem Harbor.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Salem Harbor Plan Substitution Summary 122 Table 3: 2008 Salem Harbor Plan Amplification Summary 123
    SALEM HARBOR PLAN The City of Salem, Massachusetts Mayor Kimberley Driscoll January 2008 Fort Point Associates, Inc TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii 2008 UPDATE OVERVIEW iv I. SUMMARY Introduction 1 The Vision 1 II. INTRODUCTION Overview 4 The Harbor Planning Area 4 The Planning Process 6 A Guide to the Planning Recommendations 9 III. FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING Summary of Existing Conditions 13 Goals and Objectives 20 IV. PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS Area-Wide Recommendations 24 South Commercial Waterfront 38 Tourist Historic Harbor 49 North Commercial Waterfront 56 Industrial Port 60 Community Waterfront 63 V. IMPLEMENTATION Oversight and Responsibilities 71 Economic Development 76 Phasing Strategy 78 Resources 80 Implementation - Summary of Proposed Actions 88 VI. REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT Overview: Chapter 91 100 Activities Subject to Chapter 91 102 Designated Port Area 103 Authority of the Salem Harbor Plan and DPA Master Plan 104 Guidance to DEP: Substitute Provisions 105 Guidance To DEP: Non-substitute Provisions 111 Other Local and Federal Regulations and Permits 117 Substitution and Amplification Tables 122 VII. FUTURE PLANNING 124 i APPENDICES A. PUBLIC INPUT - STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS B. RECENTLY OR SOON TO BE COMPETED REPORTS Salem Open Space and Recreation Plan (2007) Winter Island Barracks Building Feasibility Reuse Study (Jul 2007) Downtown Salem Retail Market Study: Strategy and Action Plan (May 2007) Salem Wharf Expansion Plan (expected early 2008) C. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT D. BATHYMETRIC
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Reuse and Redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station, Salem, Massachusetts Peter Matchak University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected]
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning Masters Projects 9-2012 Proposed Reuse and Redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station, Salem, Massachusetts Peter Matchak University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/larp_ms_projects Part of the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Matchak, Peter, "Proposed Reuse and Redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station, Salem, Massachusetts" (2012). Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning Masters Projects. 43. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/larp_ms_projects/43 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Proposed Reuse and Redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station, Salem, Massachusetts A Master Project Presented by Peter Matchak Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF REGIONAL PLANNING September 2012 Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning Proposed Reuse and Redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station, Salem, Massachusetts A Master Project Presented
    [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]
  • For the Town of Marblehead & City of Salem, Massachusetts
    LEAD MILLS CONSERVATION AREA DESIGN FOR THE TOWN OF MARBLEHEAD & CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS EMILY BERG, JEFFERY DAWSON & ALLISON RUSCHP THE CONWAY SCHOOL SPRING 2014 INDEX CONTEXT.....................................1 ALTERNATIVE #1..........................16 EXISTING CONDITIONS..............2 ALTERNATIVE #2..........................17 COMMUNITY INPUT....................3 ALTERNATIVE #3..........................18 NEIGHBORS................................4 FINAL DESIGN..............................19 THE PATH.....................................5 DESIGN DETAILS 1.......................20 THE SHORE..................................6 DESIGN DETAILS 2.......................21 UPLAND VEGETATION.................7 DESIGN DETAILS 3.......................22 ATLANTIC FLYWAY.......................8 GRADING PLAN..........................23 VIEWS.........................................9 PLANTING PLAN.........................24 RESTRICTIONS.............................10 PLANTING DETAILS.....................25 ACCESS.......................................11 INVASIVE MANAGEMENT...........26 TOPOGRAPHY.............................12 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS............27 REMEDIATION.............................13 SIGN DETAILS.............................28 STORM SURGE............................14 FENCE DETAILS...........................29 SUMMARY...................................15 COST ESTIMATES........................30 CONTEXT Jointly owned by the City of Salem and the Town of Marblehead on the south shore of Salem Harbor, Lead Mills Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • An Annotated List of the Fishes of Massachusetts Bay
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-51 This TM series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results, interim reports, or special purpose Information, and has not received complete formal review, editorial control, or detailed editing. An Annotated List of the Fishes of Massachusetts Bay Bruce B. Collette 1,2and Karsten E. Hartel 3 1Marine Science Center, Northeastern University, Nahant, MA 07907 2National Systematics Labbratory; National Marine Fisheries Service, National Museum 3 of Natural History, Washington, DC 20560 Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02 138 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE C. William Verity, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration J. Curtis Mack II, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere National Marine Fisheries Service William E. Evans, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts February 1988 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ABSTRACT The list includes 141 species in 68 families based on authoritative literature reports and museum specimens. First records for Massachusetts Bay are recorded for: Atlantic angel shark, Squatina dumerill smooth skate, Raja senta;= wolf eelpout, Lycenchelys verrillii; lined seahorse, DHippo-us erectus; rough scad, Trachurus lathami smallmouth flounder, iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................................................. 1 ANNOTATED LIST................................................ 5 Hagfishes. Family Myxinidae 1. Atlantic hagfish. Myxine slutinosa Linnaeus. 5 Lampreys. Family Petromyzontidae 2. Sea lamprey. Petromyzon marinus Linnaeus. 5 Sand sharks.Family Odontaspididae 3. Sand tiger. Euqomphodus taurus (Rafinesque) . 5 Thresher sharks. Family Alopiidae 4. Thresher shark. Alopias vulpinus (Bonnaterre) . 6 Mackerel sharks. Family Lamnidae 5. White shark. Carcharodon carcharim (Linnaeus) . 6 6. Basking shark. Cetohinus maximus (Gunnerus) . 7. Shortfin mako.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Assessment Survey of Marine Species at New England Bays and Harbors
    Report on the 2013 Rapid Assessment Survey of Marine Species at New England Bays and Harbors June 2014 CREDITS AUTHORED BY: Christopher D. Wells, Adrienne L. Pappal, Yuangyu Cao, James T. Carlton, Zara Currimjee, Jennifer A. Dijkstra, Sara K. Edquist, Adriaan Gittenberger, Seth Goodnight, Sara P. Grady, Lindsay A. Green, Larry G. Harris, Leslie H. Harris, Niels-Viggo Hobbs, Gretchen Lambert, Antonio Marques, Arthur C. Mathieson, Megan I. McCuller, Kristin Osborne, Judith A. Pederson, Macarena Ros, Jan P. Smith, Lauren M. Stefaniak, and Alexandra Stevens This report is a publication of the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Management (CZM) pursuant to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This publication is funded (in part) by a grant/cooperative agreement to CZM through NOAA NA13NOS4190040 and a grant to MIT Sea Grant through NOAA NA10OAR4170086. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its sub-agencies. This project has been financed, in part, by CZM; Massachusetts Bays Program; Casco Bay Estuary Partnership; Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership; the Rhode Island Bays, Rivers, and Watersheds Coordination Team; and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant College Program. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Deval L. Patrick, Governor Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Maeve Vallely Bartlett, Secretary Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management Bruce K. Carlisle, Director Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management 251 Causeway Street, Suite 800 Boston, MA 02114-2136 (617) 626-1200 CZM Information Line: (617) 626-1212 CZM Website: www.mass.gov/czm PHOTOS: Adriaan Gittenberger, Gretchen Lambert, Linsey Haram, and Hans Hillewaert ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The New England Rapid Assessment Survey was a collaborative effort of many individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Salem Maritime National Historic Site Transportation System Existing Conditions
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Salem Maritime National Historic Site Salem, Massachusetts Salem Maritime National Historic Site Transportation System Existing Conditions PMIS No. 99923 November 2010 Report notes This report was prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Project Team was led by Michael Dyer, of the Infrastructure and Facility Engineering Division, and included Alex Linthicum of the Transportation Systems Planning and Assessment Division. This effort was undertaken in fulfillment of PMIS 99923. The project statement of work was included in the August 2008 interagency agreement between the Northeast Region of the National Park Service and the Volpe Center (F4505087777). Table of Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Project overview ................................................................................................................................................. 1 3 Overview of Salem ............................................................................................................................................. 2 4 Park location and attractions ........................................................................................................................... 5 5 Visitation ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]