DOCSLIB.ORG

MMA”) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MMA”) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Massachusetts Maritime Academy (“MMA”) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. MA0024368 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) are issuing a final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the Massachusetts Maritime Academy Wastewater Treatment Plant, in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. The Final Permit authorizes MMA to discharge wastewater to the Cape Cod Canal, in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et. seq., and the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, M.G.L. Ch. 21, §26-53. The Draft Permit public comment period began on August 27, 2010, and ended on September 25, 2010. Comments were received from Paul O’Keefe, Director of Facilities, Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Korrin N. Petersen, Esq., Vice President of Advocacy, Coalition for Buzzards Bay ("The Coalition"), and Jack P. Schwartz, Ph.D, Annisquam River Marine Fisheries Station, Division of Massachusetts Marine Fisheries (“Marine Fisheries”), in letters dated: September 20, 2010, September 24, 2010, and August 31, 2010, respectively. Summary of Changes from Draft Permit 1) Fecal coliform limits of 14 colonies/100ml (monthly geometric mean) and 43 MPN/100 ml (maximum daily) have been included. These limits were included in the previous (2001) permit. See response No. 2. 2) The language establishing conditions under which the permittee may seek a reduction in whole effluent toxicity testing has been removed. See response No. 3. 3) The “report” requirement for total copper on Page 3 of the permit has been replaced with a 0.5 mg/l limit. See response No. 9. 4) The last sentence in footnote 3, on Page 4 of the draft permits has been removed. 5) Footnote 6 has been changed to include the following. The fecal coliform limits are EPA permit requirements only. The State Surface Water Discharge Permit (issued jointly with the EPA permit) does not include fecal coliform limits. See “Section 401 Certification” MMA Response to Comments, Page 1 of 9 6) Under Part I.A1 table on Page 2 the WET limit has been corrected to read LC50 ≥ 50%. 7) In Permit Attachment B, the second item for average annual flow has been corrected to read Part I.A.1.f. Comments (1-4) from MMA Comment No. 1: Fact sheet page 2, Section V. A. Process Description: Correct the description to include three lift stations for the MMA campus: Pier, Library, and Influent Pump stations. Response No. 1: The fact sheet is developed to support the Draft Permit and is not typically amended in response to public comment because it is not issued as part of the Final Permit decision. The comments submitted on the fact sheet are part of the administrative record and serve to correct the administrative record for the permit. Comment No. 2: Fact sheet page 6, Conventional Pollutants, Fecal Coliform: The current permit has a fecal coliform limit of 14 colonies/100ml. To ensure that anti-backsliding provisions are not violated, the draft permit should repeat this limit. NOTE: It appears the fact sheet is basing fecal coliform limits on the SB designation for the Cape Cod Canal. Response No. 2: The June 13, 2000 Fact Sheet for the February 20, 2001 permit reissuance states: Due to the close proximity of the shellfish beds to the discharge, the draft permit reflects reduced limits for fecal coliform bacteria, equivalent to that required for Class SA waters. …The discharge from the upgraded facility will then be required to meet the specified more restrictive requirements for fecal coliform of 43 MPN/100 ml maximum daily. Section 402(o) of the CWA generally provides that the effluent limitations of a renewed, reissued, or modified permit must be at least as stringent as the comparable effluent limitations in the previous permit. EPA has also promulgated anti-backsliding regulations which are found at 40 CFR. § 122.44(l). Unless applicable anti-backsliding requirements are met, the limits and conditions in the reissued permit must be at least as stringent as those in the previous permit. MMA Response to Comments, Page 2 of 9 EPA agrees that the fecal coliform limits of 14 colonies/100ml (monthly geometric mean) and 43 MPN/100 ml (maximum daily), should be carried forward from the 2001 permit based on anti-backsliding requirements and has included these limits in the Final Permit. EPA notes that the fecal coliform criteria for SA shellfishing waters in the most current state water quality standards (approved by EPA on September 19, 2007) are more stringent than those in the standards in effect at the time the 2001 permit was issued (the 10 percent exceedance value has been reduced to 28 colonies/100 ml). EPA does not believe that the fecal coliform limits need to be made more stringent than in the 2001 permit to protect shellfishing in adjacent SA waters. Comment No. 3: Fact sheet pages 9-10, Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET): MMA currently performs annual WET testing and has been in compliance for the previous four years. MMA is requesting that EPA review the previous four years of data to verify compliance with WET testing standards and reduce the testing and reporting requirements to a biennial (every two years) monitoring requirement. Response No. 3: The language found on Page 10 of the Fact Sheet is standard language for permittees required to conduct WET tests. The language allowing the reduction of WET testing requirements should not have been included in the Fact Sheet or in the Draft Permit because the WET testing frequency in the Draft Permit was already at the minimum frequency allowed under the Clean Water Act. Specifically, 40 CFR § 122.44(i)(2) states that …requirements to report monitoring results shall be established on a case-by-case basis with a frequency dependent on the nature and effect of the discharge, but in no case less than once a year. Accordingly, the WET testing requirements in the permit have not been changed, and the language establishing conditions under which the permittee may seek a reduction in testing has been removed. Comment No. 4: Fact sheet page 13, Sludge Conditions: MMA uses a licensed sanitary disposal company to transport biosolids (sludge) from the wastewater treatment plant to the local, licensed publicly owned treatment works. MMA requests exemption from the reporting requirement under section 8 of the draft permit since sludge is not land disposed, disposed in a surface unit, nor incinerated. MMA Response to Comments, Page 3 of 9 Response No. 4: As long as MMA engages a contractor or contractors for sludge preparation and ultimate use or disposal, the annual report need contain only the name and address of the contractor responsible for sludge preparation, use or disposal, the quantity of sludge from the POTW that is transferred to the sludge contractor, and the method(s) by which the contractor will prepare and use or dispose of the sewage sludge. If MMA changes its sludge use or disposal practice, then additional sludge requirements may apply. The sludge language in the permit has not been changed. Comments (5 and 6) from the Coalition Comment No. 5: MMA WWTP Nitrogen Performance - According to the Fact Sheet, from June 1, 2006 to August 31, 2009, the average total nitrogen concentration for the MMA WWTP discharge was 38.28 mg/l. While the average discharge flow and overall load to Buzzards Bay is relatively low, approximately 8.3lbs/day, this discharge concentration is much greater than the concentrations achieved by other WWTPs throughout the Buzzards Bay watershed. Therefore, The Coalition supports 'Special Condition F' in the Draft Permit requiring the permittee to complete an evaluation of alternative methods of operating the existing wastewater treatment facility to optimize the removal of nitrogen. The Coalition recognizes that certain features of this waste stream may present treatment challenges. For example, this facility serves a fluctuating student population which creates inconsistent wastewater flow volumes making treatment for nitrogen more difficult, however not impossible. Many of our local communities operating wastewater treatment facilities face similar treatment challenges in that their populations are seasonal. However, The Coalition is confident that in complying with this special condition, MMA will identify various technologies and strategies which will reduce the nitrogen in their effluent, and emerge as a leader in enhanced treatment of nitrogen in the face of these waste stream challenges. The Coalition looks forward to reviewing this evaluation. In support of this evaluation, The Coalition and MMA have agreed that MMA shall monitor and report on monthly basis, and for the duration of this permit, the total nitrogen concentration in its effluent, and report such results to The Coalition and EPA. Such monitoring shall be in accordance with Footnote 3, page 4 of the Draft NPDES Permit. MMA Response to Comments, Page 4 of 9 Response No. 5: We understand that the permittee has already begun working with engineers to maximize the potential nitrogen removal from the existing treatment system. The reports required by the permit will be available to the public (unless in the unlikely event the permittte claims that information in the reports is confidential business information). Regarding the memorandum of understanding between MMA and the Coalition for Buzzards Bay, the permittee is obviously free to monitor its discharge more frequently than required by the permit (the permit requires quarterly monitoring). Also, while we understand that the MOU requires the submittal of this additional monitoring data to EPA, we wish to remind MMA that the reporting of this data to EPA and MassDEP is required by Part II.D.4.(2) of the permit and 40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(ii).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A. Geology, Soils and Topography Geology and Topography Glacial Deposits Formed the Shape of Cape Cod
    Section IV: Environmental Inventory and Analysis A. Geology, Soils and Topography Geology and Topography Glacial deposits formed the shape of Cape Cod. Approximately 25,000 years ago the Canadian Ice Sheet reached its southernmost point at Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. Three lobes of ice covered Cape Cod: the Cape Cod Bay Lobe, the South Channel Lobe, and the Buzzards Bay Lobe. About 15,500 years ago the sheets of ice began retreating, depositing rock debris, known as drift, as they receded. Drift ranges from till, an unstratified mixture of fine to coarse material, to deposits sorted by the flow of water and spread across the landscape. The drift deposited by the ice created the major landscape forms found in Falmouth and the Cape: moraines, outwash plains, kames (knobs), and kettle holes. Moraines are terminal ridges that represent the edge of a glacier. As the glacier retreated, drift was churned up and deposited in a ridge. The Buzzards Bay Moraine runs northeast from the Elizabeth Islands through Woods Hole to Sandwich. Outwash plains slope gradually away Map 4-1: Geologic Map of Cape Cod from the Buzzards Bay Moraine to the sea (Figure 4- 1). They are formed by sand Lake deposits and gravel deposits left by water streaming out of the Younger ice-contact deposits melting glacial lobes. Kames and kettles are known as ice Younger outwash deposits contact features. Kames are knobs of drift deposits left by Moraine deposits debris once embedded in ice. Kettles are holes in the ground Older outwash deposits formed by large ice blocks.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Anadromous Fish Passage in Coastal Massachusetts
    Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report TR-16 A Survey of Anadromous Fish Passage in Coastal Massachusetts Part 2. Cape Cod and the Islands K. E. Reback, P. D. Brady, K. D. McLaughlin, and C. G. Milliken Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Department of Fish and Game Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Commonwealth of Massachusetts Technical Report Technical May 2004 Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report TR-16 A Survey of Anadromous Fish Passage in Coastal Massachusetts Part 2. Cape Cod and the Islands Kenneth E. Reback, Phillips D. Brady, Katherine D. McLauglin, and Cheryl G. Milliken Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Southshore Field Station 50A Portside Drive Pocasset, MA May 2004 Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Paul Diodati, Director Department of Fish and Game Dave Peters, Commissioner Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Ellen Roy-Herztfelder, Secretary Commonwealth of Massachusetts Mitt Romney, Governor TABLE OF CONTENTS Part 2: Cape Cod and the Islands Acknowledgements . iii Abstract . iv Introduction . 1 Materials and Methods . 1 Life Histories . 2 Management . 4 Cape Cod Watersheds . 6 Map of Towns and Streams . 6 Stream Survey . 8 Cape Cod Recommendations . 106 Martha’s Vineyard Watersheds . 107 Map of Towns and Streams . 107 Stream Survey . 108 Martha’s Vineyard Recommendations . 125 Nantucket Watersheds . 126 Map of Streams . 126 Stream Survey . 127 Nantucket Recommendations . 132 General Recommendations . 133 Alphabetical Index of Streams . 134 Alphabetical Index of Towns . .. 136 Appendix 1: List of Anadromous Species in MA . 138 Appendix 2: State River Herring Regulations . 139 Appendix 3: Fishway Designs and Examples . 140 Appendix 4: Abbreviations Used . 148 ii Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the following people for their assistance in carrying out this survey and for sharing their knowledge of the anadromous fish resources of the Commonwealth: Brian Creedon, Tracy Curley, Jack Dixon, George Funnell, Steve Kennedy, Paul Montague, Don St.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 WATER HEALTH REPORT-Draft
    State of the Waters: Cape Cod 2019 Cape Cod Water Health Report State of the Waters: Cape Cod 2019 Cape Cod Water Health Report Association to Preserve Cape Cod October 1, 2019 Prepared by: Andrew Gottlieb, Jo Ann Muramoto, Ph.D., Jordanne Feldman, Bryan Horsley, Kristin Andres and Don Keeran 1. Introduction The State of the Waters: Cape Cod is an assessment of the Cape’s water quality, designed to help you understand the water quality problems that we face and the actions that are needed to address these problems. The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) launched this project in 2019 in order to answer the question: “How healthy are Cape Cod’s waters?” This website is the place to find out about the Cape’s water quality and what can be done to address water pollution and achieve clean water. For this multi-year project, APCC collected existing data on water quality on Cape Cod for the purpose of determining the health of Cape Cod’s waters. APCC evaluated water quality in coastal waters (saltwater), freshwater ponds and lakes, and public drinking water supplies. APCC used existing methods to score water quality and used the scores to distinguish between degraded surface waters where immediate action is needed to improve water quality vs. surface waters with acceptable quality where ongoing protection is needed to avoid any decline in quality. The results are summarized in this annual water health report. To guide public action, APCC prepared a Water Action Plan that contains recommendations for changes in policies, actions, and regulations to improve and protect our waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Colonial Times on Buzzard's Bay
    mw fa noll mJI BRIGHT LEGACY ODe half tile IDCOlDe froID tb1I Leaaer. "b1eh .... re­ ee1..ed 10 .810 oDder tile "W of JONATHAN BIlOWN BIlIGHT of WoItIwo. M_hoa.tu.1oto be ellpeDd.d for bookl for tile CoU. Library. The otller half of til. IDcolDe :e:::t::d~=h.r 10 H....... UDI...nltyfortll. HINIlY BIlIGHT. JIl•• "ho cIIed at Waterto..... MaaadI_.10'686. 10 til. aboeDCD of loch deoceodootl. otller penoD' oro eUpbl. to til. ocbolanhlpo. Th.,,1U reqolreo tIIat t1110 100000_ lDeDt Ihall be ...... 10 ...ery book "ded to tile Library ....r Ito ,rorioIooo. .... ogle R FROM THE- BRIGHT LEGACY. Descendants of Henry Brifl'hl, jr., who died at Water. town,MasS., in J6S6,are entitled to hold scholarships in Harvard College, established in ,830 under the wil,-of JONATHAN BROWN BRIGHT of Waltham, Mass., with one half the income of this l.egacy. ~uch descendants failing, other persons are eligible to the scholarships. The will requires that this a.I)nOUDcement shall be made in every book added'" to the Library under its provisions. Received £ j Coogle COLONIAL TIMES ON BUZZARD'S BAY BY WILLIAM ROOT BLISS ..ThIs Is the place. Stand still, my steed, Let me review the scene, And summon from the shadowy Put The (ClI1IllI lhat once haye been.It LoKGnLLOW. / ,'BOSTON AND NEW YORK HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY _fie flitl~ibe tl'rr-" ftam~ 1888 Dig; Ized by Google Copyright, .888, By WILLIAM ROOT BLISS. Tlu RirJlf',iu P...... Ca..u..itl,p: Electrotyped and Printed by H. O. Houghton 8: Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Map of Massachusetts' Watersheds
    AMESBURY Massachusetts' 28 Watersheds SALISBURY MERRIMAC N EW BU RY PO RT WEST NEWBURY HAVERHILL VT NEWBURY GROVELAND CLARKSBURG MONROE NH METHUEN LAWRENCE PARKER GEORGETOWN ROWLEY ROWE WILLIAMSTOWN LEYDEN NORTH ADAMS HEATH BERNARDSTON FLORIDA COLRAIN NORTHFIELD WARWICK ROYALSTON BOXFORD IPSWICH ASHBY DUNSTABLE R N MERRIMACK O DRACUT O WINCHENDON TOWNSEND PEPPERELL H R C G K U T ASHBURNHAM O H TOPSFIELD P R O CHARLEMONT O A SB N R G ANDOVER D T YN O GILL T LOWELL V G E L R HAMILTON O HUDSON U TEWKSBURY ESSEX NEW ASHFORD ADAMS C GREENFIELD ERVING E GROTON S T SAVOY ORANGE IPSWICH E DEERFIELD MILLERS CHELMSFORD MIDDLETON WENHAM R BUCKLAND SHELBURNE HAWLEY FITCHBURG LUNENBURG ATHOL WESTFORD MANCHESTER GARDNER NORTH READING CHESHIRE SHAWSHEEN DANVERS P BEVERLY H SHIRLEY N I TEMPLETON O L AYER BILLERICA MONTAGUE T L WENDELL L Y IP WESTMINSTER G N S N N I F K T LANESBOROUGH M I C O READING E NY L I L O N D C LITTLETON W PEABODY SALEM N CARLISLE A PLAINFIELD ASHFIELD H WINDSOR DEERFIELD N CONWAY O T NASHUA G LEOMINSTER HARVARD N I GH BEDFORD L DALTON OU R D R U O B N HUBBARDSTON LANCASTER B ACTON S X T A WOBURN NORTH COASTAL O B O L LEVERETT WAKEFIELD LYNN MARBLEHEAD R SHUTESBURY N CUMMINGTON S E E A SWAMPSCOTT D PITTSFIELD PETERSHAM H U N CONCORD M G A E L U R M U NEW SALEM E RO S ST S S PRINCETON HE E HINSDALE GOSHEN LEXINGTON INC WHATELY STERLING W PERU D BOLTON R M N R A E DE STOW D MAL E N NAHANT LINCOLN A F V Y R O BARRE N L E A I R O NG T R M D T T T E IN B O E L E N R WORTHINGTON C L E WILLIAMSBURG M V RICHMOND O E W HUDSON SUDBURY N
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Annual Report
    2015 ANNUAL REPORT IT IS OUR GREAT PLEASURE TO SHARE THIS 2015 ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE with you - our members and supporters – whose outstanding commitment PRESIDENT to our success made possible such amazing achievements over the past year. The accomplishments featured in this report are wonderful investments AND CHAIR in the future of our Bay. And they point the way to so much exciting work ahead. They are models, not end points. The Acushnet Sawmill is not simply the best waterfront park created in Greater New Bedford in decades; it is a template we can use to restore fish and wetlands at dozens of similarly-damaged sites on all of the Bay’s rivers. The protection of 411 coastal acres on Nasketucket Bay is not simply the biggest land preservation victory on Buzzards Bay in a generation; we can apply the public-private funding model we created to thousands of new acres of threatened land. The installation of 20 new septic systems on West Falmouth Harbor is not simply another step in the ongoing restoration of that degraded waterway; neighborhoods all along the Bay can apply this model to select technologies and engage homeowners to create workable solutions to local wastewater pollution. These successes were built around the Coalition’s unique approach: strong collaborations with towns, neighborhoods, and landowners; a commitment to seeking out new ways to solve tough problems; and unabashed doggedness. The challenges facing our Bay require nothing less. The Acushnet Coalition founder George Hampson’s last day on the Bay last fall was spent on our boat, the R/V Buzzards Baykeeper®, teaching staff how to Sawmill restoration, monitor the health of the tiny creatures that live in the Bay’s bottom.
    [Show full text]
  • PLYMOUTH COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS (ALL JURISDICTIONS) Volume 1 of 4
    PLYMOUTH COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS (ALL JURISDICTIONS) Volume 1 of 4 COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ABINGTON, TOWN OF 250259 BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF 250260 BROCKTON, CITY OF 250261 CARVER, TOWN OF 250262 DUXBURY, TOWN OF 250263 EAST BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF 250264 HALIFAX, TOWN OF 250265 HANOVER, TOWN OF 250266 HANSON, TOWN OF 250267 HINGHAM, TOWN OF 250268 HULL, TOWN OF 250269 KINGSTON, TOWN OF 250270 LAKEVILLE, TOWN OF 250271 MARION, TOWN OF 255213 MARSHFIELD, TOWN OF 250273 MATTAPOISETT, TOWN OF 255214 MIDDLEBOROUGH, TOWN OF 250275 NORWELL, TOWN OF 250276 PEMBROKE, TOWN OF 250277 PLYMOUTH, TOWN OF 250278 PLYMPTON, TOWN OF 250279 ROCHESTER, TOWN OF 250280 ROCKLAND, TOWN OF 250281 SCITUATE, TOWN OF 250282 WAREHAM, TOWN OF 255223 WEST BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF 250284 WHITMAN, TOWN OF 250285 REVISED NOVEMBER 4, 2016 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 25023CV001C NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this Preliminary FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS
    [Show full text]
  • Buzzards Bay Tern Restoration Project
    - College Internships - Roseate Tern Terns are small, ground-nesting Buzzards Bay Tern seabirds that are highly charismatic. The species we are Restoration Project working with nest in dense colonies and are very aggressive. They protect their nests and young by diving at, pecking, and College-level interns are needed to restore rare and defecating on intruders, including endangered terns to Bird, Ram, and Penikese Islands in researchers. Extreme care must Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. These islands support nearly be exercised when working half the North American population of the federally around their camouflaged eggs endangered Roseate Tern; active management to protect the and chicks. population is critical to recovery. Interns are a critical part of our Nest monitoring team: they will work closely with Most interns can expect to rotate the Project Leader and Site among islands. When at Ram and Bird, Managers and will gain a variety of the crew will travel to islands on a daily hands-on skills. Activities include basis in a small boat on an irregular 5-6 censusing of Common, Roseate, day/week schedule. When at Penikese, and Arctic Terns; monitoring tern the crew will set up and live in a field growth and productivity; trapping camp and work on an irregular 5-7 and banding; reading bands on day/week schedule depending on adults through spotting scopes; weather and an irregular boat schedule. monitoring productivity of Applicants must be able to carry heavy American Oystercatchers; field equipment a distance of ½ mile for discouragement, censusing, and camp set-up and break-down, and be monitoring productivity of nesting Tern chick comfortable living in a remote island gulls; habitat management; banding setting with limited facilities for up to 2- maintaining field notebooks; and 3 weeks at a time.
    [Show full text]
  • Quashnet River Wildlife Management Area
    !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! QUASHNET! WOODS STATE RESERVATION ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! QUASHNET! RIVER! WMA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! P! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! MASHPEE! PINE BARRENS WMA ! ! ! ! ! ! P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! CE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! BOURNE SANDWICH ! ! ! ! MASHPEE BARNSTABLE FALMOUTH http://www.mass.gov/dfw QUASHNET RIVER 0 1,000 2,000 Feet WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA Falmouth, MA.) ! ! ! ¯ ! ! ! ! ! ! !P Parking Right of Way ! WMA Boundary ! Surrounding WMAs Boundary between land CE Conservation Easement held by held
    [Show full text]
  • Open PDF File, 61.37 KB, for 07/01/05 Notice of Shellfish Area
    Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02114 (617) 626.1520 Paul J. Diodati Director Fax (617) 626.1509 July 1, 2005 Boards of Selectmen of: Duxbury, Plymouth, Kingston, Bourne, Wareham, Wellfleet and Chatham Ladies & Gentlemen: The Division of Marine Fisheries has determined that shellfish, except for surf clams (Spisula solidissima), Ocean Quahogs (Arctica islandica), and carnivorous snails, from the below-defined areas no longer contain biotoxins (PSP) from the phytoplankton Alexandrium (spp) in excess of established standards. Therefore, under authority of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 130, Section 74A, 75 and 322 CMR 7.01 (7) the below-defined areas will revert to their former status prior to the PSP closures of May 20, 2005 in Duxbury, May 26, 2005 in Bourne, Barnstable, Yarmouth, Dennis and Wellfleet and June 3, 2005 in Chatham. Those areas classified as APPROVED and in the “open “ status to shellfish harvesting are now open to the harvest of shellfish, except surf clams, ocean quahogs and carnivorous snails, for direct human consumption subject to local rules and regulations under authority of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 130, section 52. Similarly, those areas classified as CONDITIONALLY APPROVED are open subject to the classification conditions. STATUS: OPEN TO SHELLFISHING Duxbury/Plymouth/Kingston CCB: 42 - 47 “The waters, flats and all tributaries west of a line drawn from Long Point to the westernmost point of Saquish Head in the Town of Plymouth Northern
    [Show full text]
  • Green Budget FY2017
    1% for the Green Budget Environment • Healthy Communities • Great Parks • Clean, Abundant Water FY2017 February 2016 Below are the 75 organizations that endorse the Green Budget. Environmental League of Massachusetts Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions American Farmland Trust Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition Appalachian Mountain Club Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition Arborway Coalition Massachusetts Climate Action Network Association to Preserve Cape Cod Massachusetts Congress of Lake and Pond Associations Berkshire Environmental Action Team (BEAT) Massachusetts Farm to School Berkshire Grown Massachusetts Forest and Park Friends Network Boston Cyclists Union Massachusetts Horticultural Society Boston Harbor Island Alliance Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition Boston Park Advocates Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters Brookline GreenSpace Alliance Massachusetts PipeLine Awareness Network (MassPLAN) Buzzards Bay Coalition Massachusetts Organization of State Engineers and Scientists Charles River Conservancy Massachusetts Rivers Alliance Charles River Watershed Association Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance Clean Water Action Massachusetts Society of Municipal Conservation Professionals Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) Massachusetts Watershed Coalition Connecticut River Watershed Council Merrimack River Watershed Council Conservation Law Foundation Millers River Watershed Council East Quabbin Land Trust Mount Grace Land Conservation Trust Emerald Necklace Conservancy Mystic River Watershed
    [Show full text]
  • Field Study of Water Quality in Support of Eelgrass Habitat Restoration Planning in the Annisquam River
    Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management 2007 FIELD STUDY OF WATER QUALITY IN SUPPORT OF EELGRASS HABITAT RESTORATION PLANNING IN THE ANNISQUAM RIVER Anthony R. Wilbur Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management ABSTRACT Water clarity and chemistry were studied in the Annisquam River and Gloucester Harbor from June to October 2006. Secchi disk depth (m) was measured to provide a relative assessment of water clarity, and a hand­held water quality monitor was used to collect water chemistry data (water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and pH). The five­month study described geographic and temporal characteristics of water clarity and chemistry in the Annisquam River. Results demonstrated a gradient of relatively higher water quality in northern waters of the Annisquam River to comparatively depressed water quality in southern waters of the Annisquam River, with the poorest water clarity, highest temperature, and lowest dissolved oxygen observed in the Little River. This study is part of an effort by the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management to develop an eelgrass habitat restoration plan for the Annisquam River. INTRODUCTION Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is an underwater plant that forms valuable shallow water habitat in coastal Massachusetts. Wasting disease, caused by the slime mold Labyrinthula, decimated eelgrass populations in the 1930s throughout the north Atlantic Ocean, including Massachusetts. This catastrophe substantially altered coastal food webs and processes (e.g., current and sediment transport patterns), severely diminished populations of waterfowl and bay scallops, and caused the extinction of a marine snail (Carlton et al. 1991), demonstrating the ecological and economic value of eelgrass (Thayer 1984). Although site­specific information on recovery is rare (e.g., Dexter 1985), sporadic observations through time indicate eelgrass generally recovered throughout its range from this epidemic by the 1950s­60s.
    [Show full text]