Documentation of Installation and Pumping Records Available at Various Town Board of Health Offices, an Effort Which Is Beyond the Scope of This Project

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Documentation of Installation and Pumping Records Available at Various Town Board of Health Offices, an Effort Which Is Beyond the Scope of This Project Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0 Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Final Report August 2017 Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0 Prepare d for and Edited by: Prepared by: Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 2 2. DELINEATION OF ESTUARINE BOUNDARIES ................................................................................... 3 2.1 Determination of Seaward Boundary ..................................................................................... 3 2.2 Determination of Landward Boundary ................................................................................... 4 2.3 Delineation of Remaining Estuarine Watershed Boundary.................................................... 6 2.4 Delineation of Cape Cod Groundwater Contributing Areas (GWCA) .................................... 6 3. SELECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES.............................................................................. 7 4. ANALYSIS OF ATTRIBUTES............................................................................................................... 17 4.1 Summary of Analysis ........................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Limitations, Data Gaps, and Next Steps .............................................................................. 25 FIGURES Figure 2.1 Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Planning Area ........................................... 2 Figure 2.2 Salem Sound Estuarine Watershed: Freshwater Tributary Inclusion vs. Exclusion ...................5 TABLES Table 3.1 List of new attributes ………………………………. ..................................................................... 7 Table 2.2 List of Attributes and associated statistics applied .....................................................................14 APPENDICES Appendix A: Methodology for Estimating Annual Stormwater Runoff Volume Appendix B: Watershed Delineation Maps Appendix C: Results of Estuarine and Inter-Estuarine Watershed Characterization Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0 Executive Summary In 2012, The Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program (MassBays) was in the process of updating its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) with new, expanded focus on near- shore estuaries and embayments. To facilitate analysis, MassBays undertook an Estuarine Assessment and Delineation (EDA1.0) to accomplish the following: 1. Delineate estuarine watershed boundaries, encompassing all tributary areas that are tidally influenced, as well as open water regions of the estuary that contain important ecological resources; 2. Develop a set of geospatial attributes that can be used to assess the ecological health of each estuarine watershed; and EDA 1.0 resulted in the delineation of 47 estuarine embayments. In response to comments, and recognizing the importance of the role that inter-estuarine habitats (rocky shore areas, dunes, bluffs, and beaches, e.g.) play in the health of estuarine ecosystems, MassBays initiated EDA 2.0. The scope and implementation of EDA 2.0 was as follows: 1. Delineate any inter-estuarine coastal watersheds such that the entire Massachusetts Bays coastline can be assessed, updating existing estuarine watershed boundaries as needed. EDA 2.0 produced a set of 69 estuarine and inter-estuarine assessment areas. The delineations were prepared using topography, attributes of tidal influence, existing USGS and MassGIS watershed boundary lines, and comments and input from MassBays Regional Coordinators. 2. Identify updates to datasets used in EDA1.0 and use these new data to characterize each assessment area. 3. Incorporate a new set of attributes that characterize human uses. New attributes include: Beach closure days Mooring fields Marinas Dredging projects Seawalls and related structures Coastal dunes, coastal beaches, and rocky intertidal shores Public and semi-public beach length Boating access Coastal beach water quality 1 Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0 1. Project Background The Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program (MassBays) is one of 28 designated Estuaries of National Significance in in the National Estuary Program which is authorized by Section 302 of the Clean Water Act and administered by t he U.S. E n v i r o nmental Protection Agency (EPA). The MassBays Planning area covers more than 1000 miles of coastline a l ong I p s w i c h , Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays and serves 50 coastal communities from Salisbury, on the New Hampshire border, to Provincetown at the tip of Cape Cod (Figure 2.1). The planning area is divided into five management regions: Upper North Shore, Lower North Shore, Metro Boston, South Shore, and Cape Cod. In 2012, MassBays published the first Estuarine Delineation and Assessment (EDA1.0) which defined and characterized 47 estuarine embayments within the MassBays planning area using ecosystem-based landward and seaward boundaries, and metrics for which data were available across the planning area. With the ongoing revision of the MassBays Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan Figure 2.1: Massachusetts Bays National (CCMP), MassBays is focusing on priority needs and Estuary Program Planning Area changing ecosystem conditions at the embayment level. To support this effort, MassBays contracted with Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) to conduct a comprehensive update of the 2012 EDA1.0. EDA 2.0 will serve as a tool for assessing and tracking localized trends and changing conditions of estuarine and inter-estuarine species and habitats, providing information for use by resource managers and decision- makers to improve ecosystem health and alleviate the impacts of stressors. The goals of EDA 2.0 were to: 1. Delineate any inter-estuarine coastal watersheds such that the entire Massachusetts Bays coastline can be assessed, updating existing estuarine watershed boundaries as needed. 2. Identify updates to datasets used in EDA1.0 and use these new data to characterize each assessment area. 3. Incorporate a new set of attributes that characterize human uses. 2 Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0 2. Delineation of Assessment Units The basis for the delineation in EDA 2.0 was the set of 47 estuarine assessment units produced in 2012 in EDA1.0. The original process of estuarine watershed delineation generally consisted of the following three steps: 1. Determine a seaward boundary that encompassed the assessment area and any nearby major estuarine ecological resources; 2. Determine a landward boundary that is reflective of the extent of tidal influence within the estuary; and 3. Delineate the watershed that is dictated by the boundaries established in steps 1 and 2. Given the variety of embayment characteristics across the estuaries, the process described above was sometimes varied on a case-by-case basis. For instance, some assessment areas may not have a major freshwater tributary on which to establish a landward boundary. Instead, these watersheds were delineated simply by determining the proximal area contributing to the embayment using topography. Also, several of the areas are located on Cape Cod and are influenced by a groundwater contributing area rather than a typical watershed defined by surficial topography. Where special circumstances dictated a deviation from the general delineation process, best professional judgment was used to determine what the most informative and useful “estuarine watershed” would be. For EDA 2.0, areas of the coast that were not previously characterized during EDA1.0 were delineated and assessed. These areas were generally near-shore stretches of beach or headland that existed between estuaries. The process for identifying and delineating these assessment units was as follows: Step 1: The MassGIS “Drainage Sub-basins” was intersected with the existing estuarine assessment units from EDA1.0. The resulting subbasins and subbasin segments that did not overlap EDA1.0 assessment units and that were also coastal, were selected as the draft basis for the inter-estuarine assessment units. Step 2: The extent of Chapter 91 Jurisdiction was determined by overlaying the MassGIS “Tidelands Jurisdiction Datalayer” on the new EDA 2.0 assessment units. As with EDA1.0, Chapter 91 Jurisdiction is used to indicate the landward extent of tidal influence. In any cases where an inter-estuarine assessment unit from Step 1 extended beyond the Chapter 91 Jurisdiction extent, the assessment unit was trimmed (See section 2.2). Step 3: Some stretches of coastline were divided into multiple sub-basins by the MassGIS “Drainage Sub-basins” layer. When multiple sub-basins were contiguous between existing EDA1.0 assessment units, these sub-basins were merged into a single assessment unit. After completing this process, the draft delineations were reviewed with MassBays Regional Coordinators and revised based on their comments. Some existing estuarine assessment units from EDA1.0 were also updated based on MassBays review (e.g., the Merrimack River assessment unit was split
Recommended publications
  • 2020 Coastal Massachusetts COASTSWEEP Results (People
    COASTSWEEP 2020 - Cleanup Results Town Location Group Name People Pounds Miles TOTALS 703 9016.2 151.64 Arlington Mystic River near River Street 1 2 Arlington Mystic River 1 2.12 1.20 Barnstable Sandy Neck Beach Take Care Cape Cod 4 27.5 3.95 Barnstable Jublilation Way, Osterville 1 0.03 Barnstable Sandy Neck Beach Take Care Cape Cod 2 10.13 0.53 Barnstable Sandy Neck Beach Take Care Cape Cod 1 8 Barnstable Sandy Neck Beach Take Care Cape Cod 2 8.25 1.07 Barnstable Sandy Neck Beach Take Care Cape Cod 3 14.25 1.16 Barnstable Oregon Beach, Cotuit 6 30 Barnstable KalMus Park Beach 2 23.63 0.05 Barnstable Dowes Beach, East Bay Cape Cod Anti-Litter Coalition 4 25.03 0.29 Barnstable Osterville Point, Osterville Cape Cod Anti-Litter Coalition 1 3.78 0.09 Barnstable Louisburg Square, Centerville 2 Barnstable Hathaway's Ponds 2 4.1 0.52 Barnstable Hathaway's Ponds 2 5.37 0.52 Barnstable Eagle Pond, Cotuit Lily & Grace Walker 2 23.75 3.26 Beverly Corning Street SaleM Sound Coastwatch 2 0.02 Beverly Corning Street SaleM Sound Coastwatch 1 0.07 0.02 Beverly Corning Street SaleM Sound Coastwatch 1 0.03 0.02 Beverly Corning Street SaleM Sound Coastwatch 1 0.11 0.02 Beverly Corning Street SaleM Sound Coastwatch 1 0.18 0.01 Beverly Dane Street Beach SaleM Sound Coastwatch 1 0.36 0.04 Beverly Clifford Ave 2 11.46 0.03 Beverly Near David Lynch Park 1 0.43 0.03 Beverly Rice's Beach SaleM Sound Coastwatch 3 28.61 0.03 Beverly Rice's Beach SaleM Sound Coastwatch 3 1.61 Beverly Rice's Beach SaleM Sound Coastwatch 1 0.07 COASTSWEEP 2020 - Cleanup Results Town
    [Show full text]
  • Nahant Reconnaissance Report
    NAHANT RECONNAISSANCE REPORT ESSEX COUNTY LANDSCAPE INVENTORY MASSACHUSETTS HERITAGE LANDSCAPE INVENTORY PROGRAM Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Essex National Heritage Commission PROJECT TEAM Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Jessica Rowcroft, Preservation Planner Division of Planning and Engineering Essex National Heritage Commission Bill Steelman, Director of Heritage Preservation Project Consultants Shary Page Berg Gretchen G. Schuler Virginia Adams, PAL Local Project Coordinator Linda Pivacek Local Heritage Landscape Participants Debbie Aliff John Benson Mark Cullinan Dan deStefano Priscilla Fitch Jonathan Gilman Tom LeBlanc Michael Manning Bill Pivacek Linda Pivacek Emily Potts Octavia Randolph Edith Richardson Calantha Sears Lynne Spencer Julie Stoller Robert Wilson Bernard Yadoff May 2005 INTRODUCTION Essex County is known for its unusually rich and varied landscapes, which are represented in each of its 34 municipalities. Heritage landscapes are those places that are created by human interaction with the natural environment. They are dynamic and evolving; they reflect the history of the community and provide a sense of place; they show the natural ecology that influenced the land use in a community; and heritage landscapes often have scenic qualities. This wealth of landscapes is central to each community’s character; yet heritage landscapes are vulnerable and ever changing. For this reason it is important to take the first steps toward their preservation by identifying those landscapes that are particularly valued by the community – a favorite local farm, a distinctive neighborhood or mill village, a unique natural feature, an inland river corridor or the rocky coast. To this end, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and the Essex National Heritage Commission (ENHC) have collaborated to bring the Heritage Landscape Inventory program (HLI) to communities in Essex County.
    [Show full text]
  • Ballston Proposal
    Unintended Consequences of Uncontrolled Public Access to a Fragile Shoreline Gordon Peabody & Jacalyn Gorczynski, July, 2010 1 Ballston Beach is located in Truro on the oceanside of Cape Cod at 42°N and 70°W. It is a historically and continually popular beach and receives thousands of visitors each summer that access the beach via pathways from a parking lot to the South and a trail to the North. Behind the coastal bank and barrier dune that abuts Ballston Beach are the headwaters of the Pamet River, which runs east/west across Cape Cod and empties into Cape Cod Bay. The Pamet River is diked in three locations. It was first diked in 1869 when a culvert and clapper valve where placed in the river underneath Route 6A, was later diked in 1873 when the railroad passed through Truro, and was lastly diked in 1952 with the construction of a concrete culvert underneath Route 6. These dikes changed the marsh system of Pamet River from a marsh that was entirely salt to one that is fresh on the oceanside and salt on the bayside. As such, over the years, vegetation that is indicative of these two environments has taken root. N Ballston Beach aerial satellite photograph (Google Maps). 2 Photograph from above of Pamet River, running east/west from the headwaters behind Ballston Beach (at the bottom of the photograph) to Cape Cod Bay (at the top of the photograph). (“The Perfect Storm, Ballston Beach, Truro.” Changing Coastline: Understanding the Anthropogenic Impact of Climate Change.) 1909 photograph of Ballston resort looking north.
    [Show full text]
  • NEERS 2017 Spring Meeting March 16 – 18, 2017 University of Connecticut, Avery Point Campus Groton, CT
    NEERS 2017 Spring Meeting March 16 – 18, 2017 University of Connecticut, Avery Point Campus Groton, CT Organized and Hosted By: Jamie Vaudrey, University of Connecticut Sarah Crosby, Harbor Watch Craig Tobias & Michael Whitney of UCONN ABSTRACTS Alldred*, M. (1), Hoellein, T. (2), Bruesewitz, D. (3), and Zarnoch, C. (1); (1) Baruch College, City University of New York, New York, NY; (2) Loyola University, Chicago, IL; (3) Colby College, Waterville, ME. [email protected] NITROGEN-REMOVAL SERVICES OF RESTORED SALT MARSHES IN JAMAICA BAY (NEW YORK, NY) Coastal wetlands are important sites of nitrogen removal, a critical ecosystem service in highly eutrophic environments. In Jamaica Bay, over 92% of historic wetland area has been lost over the past century. Despite considerable efforts to restore wetland ecosystems in Jamaica Bay and throughout New York City, few studies have examined the value of ecosystem services used to justify their cost, and little is known about the ecological mechanisms contributing to the success or failure of reconstruction. Past and ongoing restoration efforts in Jamaica Bay provide a unique opportunity to study nitrogen-removal ecosystem services in natural and restored wetlands in an urban, eutrophic environment. In collaboration with researchers from several institutions, we are using a chronosequence of marsh restorations to assess how marsh vegetation, sediment characteristics, and key processes of the nitrogen cycle develop over time following restoration. The goal of our project is to determine the restoration age and environmental conditions under which salt-marsh restoration will effectively provide ecosystem services such as nitrogen removal. We employ a combination of flow-through incubation, field survey, and experimental methods to identify the key biological and abiotic factors limiting nitrogen-removal services in natural and restored marshes.
    [Show full text]
  • Larson Fisher Associates, Inc
    Larson Fisher Associates, Inc. Historic Preservation and Planning Services P.O. Box 1394 Woodstock, N.Y. 12498 845-679-5054 www.larsonfisher.com COASTAL ZONE HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY Marblehead, Essex County, Massachusetts Final Report 18 September 2016 Abstract The project conducted an intensive-level survey of historic resources within the coastal zone established by the Town of Marblehead. This project was the top priority in the Town’s Historic Resource Survey Master Plan (2013) as historic properties on the coastline are considered to be most vulnerable to change. The goal of the survey is to promote the preservation of these valuable properties by raising public awareness of their significance through detailed and cogent narratives of their individual histories and their role as landmarks in the evolving physical and cultural character of their neighborhoods. In addition, the local Marblehead Historical Commission (LHC) desired to upgrade existing levels of documentation and provide information useful in the evaluation of significance for preservation planning and the town’s review of permit applications involving historic properties. The LHC has no direct jurisdiction in project review but hopes survey documentation will lead to informed decisions where significant historic resources are involved. This project recorded architectural, historical and photographic documentation for 186 properties in the coastal zone on survey forms for individual properties and areas provided by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). Individual properties and historic districts that appear eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places have been identified. Due to the large number of properties documented, exceeding the contractual obligation of 120 properties, those on Marblehead Neck were deferred to a later project with one exception.
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts Estuaries Project
    Massachusetts Estuaries Project Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Threshold for the Barnstable Great Marshes-Bass Hole Estuarine System Town of Barnstable & Dennis, Massachusetts University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Massachusetts Department of School of Marine ScienceMassachusetts and Technology Estuaries Environmental Project Protection DRAFT REPORT – June 2017 Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Threshold for the Barnstable Great Marshes -Bass Hole Estuarine System Town of Barnstable & Dennis, Massachusetts DRAFT REPORT – June 2017 Brian Howes Roland Samimy Ed Eichner David Schlezinger Trey Ruthven John Ramsey Phil "Jay" Detjens Contributors: US Geological Survey Don Walters and John Masterson Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. Elizabeth Hunt and Sean Kelley Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Charles Costello and Brian Dudley (DEP project manager) SMAST Coastal Systems Program Jennifer Benson, Michael Bartlett, Sara Sampieri Cape Cod Commission Tom Cambareri ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Massachusetts Estuaries Project Technical Team would like to acknowledge the contributions of the many individuals who have worked tirelessly for the restoration and protection of the critical coastal resources of Barnstable and Dennis and drove for the completion of the Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine the Critical Nitrogen Loading Threshold for the Barnstable Great Marshes - Bass Hole Estuarine System. Without these stewards and their efforts, this project would not have been possible. First and foremost we would like to recognize and applaud the commitment shown by both the Town of Dennis and the Town of Barnstable in carrying forward with the Massachusetts Estuaries Project and the protection/restoration of all the estuaries of the Towns. Significant time and attention has been dedicated to this effort by Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan
    Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan Volume 2 Baseline Assessment and Science Framework December 2009 Introduction Volume 2 of the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan focuses on the data and scientific aspects of the plan and its implementation. It includes these two separate documents: • Baseline Assessment of the Massachusetts Ocean Planning Area - This Oceans Act-mandated product includes information cataloging the current state of knowledge regarding human uses, natural resources, and other ecosystem factors in Massachusetts ocean waters. • Science Framework - This document provides a blueprint for ocean management- related science and research needs in Massachusetts, including priorities for the next five years. i Baseline Assessment of the Massachusetts Ocean Management Planning Area Acknowledgements The authors thank Emily Chambliss and Dan Sampson for their help in preparing Geographic Information System (GIS) data for presentation in the figures. We also thank Anne Donovan and Arden Miller, who helped with the editing and layout of this document. Special thanks go to Walter Barnhardt, Ed Bell, Michael Bothner, Erin Burke, Tay Evans, Deb Hadden, Dave Janik, Matt Liebman, Victor Mastone, Adrienne Pappal, Mark Rousseau, Tom Shields, Jan Smith, Page Valentine, John Weber, and Brad Wellock, who helped us write specific sections of this assessment. We are grateful to Wendy Leo, Peter Ralston, and Andrea Rex of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority for data and assistance writing the water quality subchapter. Robert Buchsbaum, Becky Harris, Simon Perkins, and Wayne Petersen from Massachusetts Audubon provided expert advice on the avifauna subchapter. Kevin Brander, David Burns, and Kathleen Keohane from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Robin Pearlman from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Region Bacteria Source Tracking 2007 Results
    DRAFT Technical Memorandum Northeast Region Bacteria Source Tracking 2007 Results DWM Control Number: CN XXX.X Prepared By: Jenny Birnbaum Katie Zink January 2008 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Ian A. Bowles, Secretary Massachusetts Department Of Environmental Protection Laurie Burt, Commissioner Bureau of Resource Protection Glenn Haas, Acting Assistant Commissioner Division of Watershed Management Glenn Haas, Director Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................... 9 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 10 2.0 METHODS................................................................................................................................12 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONS, RESULTS, AND SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS ............................................... 13 3.1 Boston Harbor - Mystic..........................................................................................................................13 Mill Brook (Arlington) ......................................................................................................... 13 Sub-watershed Description ............................................................................................... 13 Results..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Marblehead Reconnaissance Report
    MARBLEHEAD RECONNAISSANCE REPORT ESSEX COUNTY LANDSCAPE INVENTORY MASSACHUSETTS HERITAGE LANDSCAPE INVENTORY PROGRAM Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Essex National Heritage Commission PROJECT TEAM Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Jessica Rowcroft, Preservation Planner Division of Planning and Engineering Essex National Heritage Commission Bill Steelman, Director of Heritage Preservation Project Consultants Shary Page Berg Gretchen G. Schuler Virginia Adams, PAL Local Project Coordinator Rebecca Curran, Town Planner Local Heritage Landscape Participants Wayne Butler Rebecca Curran Bill Conly Charlie Dalferro Joseph Homan Bette Hunt Judy Jacobi John Liming Frank McIver Ed Nilsson Miller Shropshire William Woodfin May 2005 INTRODUCTION Essex County is known for its unusually rich and varied landscapes, which are represented in each of its 34 municipalities. Heritage landscapes are places that are created by human interaction with the natural environment. They are dynamic and evolving; they reflect the history of the community and provide a sense of place; they show the natural ecology that influenced land use patterns; and they often have scenic qualities. This wealth of landscapes is central to each community’s character; yet heritage landscapes are vulnerable and ever changing. For this reason it is important to take the first steps towards their preservation by identifying those landscapes that are particularly valued by the community – a favorite local farm, a distinctive neighborhood or mill village, a unique natural feature, an inland river corridor or the rocky coast. To this end, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and the Essex National Heritage Commission (ENHC) have collaborated to bring the Heritage Landscape Inventory program (HLI) to communities in Essex County.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard And
    MINUTES OF THE WOODS HOLE, MARTHA’S VINEYARD AND NANTUCKET STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY The Meeting in Public Session February 2, 2017 The Members of the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority met this 2nd day of February, 2017, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in the Falmouth Art Center, located at 137 Gifford Street, Falmouth, Massachusetts. All five Members were present: Chairman Moira E. Tierney of New Bedford; Vice Chairman Robert F. Ranney of Nantucket; Secretary Robert R. Jones of Barnstable; Marc N. Hanover of Dukes County (who participated remotely by Skype); and Elizabeth H. Gladfelter of Falmouth. Port Council member Robert S. C. Munier of Falmouth was also present, as were the following members of management: General Manager Wayne C. Lamson; Treasurer/ Comptroller Robert B. Davis; Director of Information Technologies Mary T. H. Claffey; Director of Marketing Kimberlee J. McHugh; Director of Engineering and Maintenance Carl R. Walker; Woods Hole Terminal Manager Kevin Smith; Reservations and Community Relations Manager Gina L. Barboza; Operations Manager Mark K. Rozum; Director of Human Resources Phillip J. Parent; and General Counsel Steven M. Sayers. Mr. Hanover’s Remote Participation in the Meeting: Ms. Tierney announced that she had been notified by Mr. Hanover that he desired to participate remotely in this meeting because his geographic distance from Falmouth made his physical attendance today unreasonably difficult. Ms. Tierney stated that she agreed with Mr. Hanover and that, as the Authority’s Chairman, she had determined that Mr. Hanover’s physical attendance was unreasonably difficult due to his geographic distance from Falmouth and that, therefore, he may participate remotely in this meeting, which includes voting on all matters.
    [Show full text]
  • Outdoor Recreation Recreation Outdoor Massachusetts the Wildlife
    Photos by MassWildlife by Photos Photo © Kindra Clineff massvacation.com mass.gov/massgrown Office of Fishing & Boating Access * = Access to coastal waters A = General Access: Boats and trailer parking B = Fisherman Access: Smaller boats and trailers C = Cartop Access: Small boats, canoes, kayaks D = River Access: Canoes and kayaks Other Massachusetts Outdoor Information Outdoor Massachusetts Other E = Sportfishing Pier: Barrier free fishing area F = Shorefishing Area: Onshore fishing access mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/fba/ Western Massachusetts boundaries and access points. mass.gov/dfw/pond-maps points. access and boundaries BOAT ACCESS SITE TOWN SITE ACCESS then head outdoors with your friends and family! and friends your with outdoors head then publicly accessible ponds providing approximate depths, depths, approximate providing ponds accessible publicly ID# TYPE Conservation & Recreation websites. Make a plan and and plan a Make websites. Recreation & Conservation Ashmere Lake Hinsdale 202 B Pond Maps – Suitable for printing, this is a list of maps to to maps of list a is this printing, for Suitable – Maps Pond Benedict Pond Monterey 15 B Department of Fish & Game and the Department of of Department the and Game & Fish of Department Big Pond Otis 125 B properties and recreational activities, visit the the visit activities, recreational and properties customize and print maps. mass.gov/dfw/wildlife-lands maps. print and customize Center Pond Becket 147 C For interactive maps and information on other other on information and maps interactive For Cheshire Lake Cheshire 210 B displays all MassWildlife properties and allows you to to you allows and properties MassWildlife all displays Cheshire Lake-Farnams Causeway Cheshire 273 F Wildlife Lands Maps – The MassWildlife Lands Viewer Viewer Lands MassWildlife The – Maps Lands Wildlife Cranberry Pond West Stockbridge 233 C Commonwealth’s properties and recreation activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Secretarycertificate-Barnstable CWMP Special Review Procedures
    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Charles D. Baker GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Karyn E. Polito Fax: (617) 626-1081 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR http://www.mass.gov/eea Kathleen A. Theoharides SECRETARY January 8, 2021 CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE PROJECT NAME : Barnstable Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Barnstable PROJECT WATERSHED : Cape Cod EEA NUMBER : 16148 PROJECT PROPONENT : Town of Barnstable DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : November 23, 2020 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA; M.G. L. c. 30, ss. 61- 62I) and Section 11.09 of the MEPA regulations, I hereby establish a Special Review Procedure (SRP) to guide the implementation of the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (CWMP) for the Town of Barnstable. Notice of the issuance of this SRP will be published in the next edition of the Environmental Monitor on January 22, 2021. Project Description As previously described in the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF)/Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (CWMP), the CWMP describes the Town of Barnstable’s plan to address water quality management concerns resulting from population growth and increased development. The CWMP is a 30-year plan focused on traditional sewering solutions to replace the current dependence on septic systems; these solutions will be implemented in three 10-year phases. The plan has been designed to address multiple goals and needs of the community, specifically: nutrient removal, pond protection, drinking water protection, economic development and other related concerns regarding wastewater management.
    [Show full text]