DOCSLIB.ORG

Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area STRATEGIC VISITOR & FERRY MANAGEMENT PLAN: Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area By BRADLEY MARSHALL MORIARTY B.S. Structural Engineering (1997) Northeastern University M.Ed Physics Education (1995) Boston University B.A. Psychology (1991) Georgetown University Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology February 1999 © 1999 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All Rights Reserved Signature of Author... Bradley M riarty De artment of Civil and Environmental 4 ngineering January 8, 1999 Certified by... John B. Miller Assistan es of C'il and nvironmental Engineering II Thesis Supervisor Accepted by... Andrew J. Whittle Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Studies 2 STRATEGIC VISITOR & FERRY MANAGEMENT PLAN: Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area by BRADLEY MARSHALL MORIARTY Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering On January 15th in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering ABSTRACT This document summarizes the creation and use of a spreadsheet model designed to estimate the visitor capacity, revenue and expense streams, federal matching funds and distribution of revenue by provider of the Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area (BOHA). The model was created under the auspices of the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) and the National Park Service (NPS). George Price of the NPS, and Kathy Abbott of the Island Alliance, along with Andrew Hargens of Massport helped define the scope of the model. The BOHA Partnership, made up of thirteen members from various federal, state and local agencies, estimated that the target number of visitors should be around 500,000. The capacity section of the model shows that the capacity of BOHA depends mostly on the capacity and frequency of the ferry system rather than the inherent ability of any island to support a certain number of visitors. In fact, the capacity of the park using the existing ferry system is nearly 700,000 visitors per season. This assumes that many people would want to visit the park. The model and its illumination of the importance of ferry service led the author to propose one possible future for the park based on a high usage concept. Using an electronic ticketing system to keep track of island usage and ferry performance, the partnership would aim for over 1,000,000 visitors per season, concentrated mostly on two islands, Spectacle and Peddock's. The ferry system would be contracted out to two or more providers who would receive compensation based on the number of passengers who chose to use their electronic tickets for that particular provider. In this way the ticket price could be fixed (and perhaps discounted for particular users) and the providers would compete for business based on customer service. The importance of the electronic ticketing system to the field of park planning hinges on the historically poor data for urban parks in the literature, the data potentially gathered would drastically change the information landscape for parks of its kind in the United States. It would also allow the partnership to protect the natural resources by gauging the use of the system more accurately. Thesis Supervisor: John B. Miller Title: Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...............................................................................-----.. ---... -----------...................------.- 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................ .... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................8 OVERALL GOALS DURING GROWTH:..........................................................8 8 THE CONTRADICTION: ...................................-....--........................................................................ 8 THE SOLUTION:........................................................-----................................................................8 IMPLEMENTATION: ......................................................................................................................... 8 1.0 A REVIEW OF THE FIELD........................................................................................ ..... 9 1.1 USE VS. PRESERVATION.............................................................. 10 1.2 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS ............................................................ .............. ...... 11 1.3 "RECREATION" AREAS VS. "PARK" AREAS............................................. 12 4 2.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE MODEL.................................................................................... 13 2.1 WHY THE NEED FOR A VISITOR MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................ 15 2.2 G EO LO GY ..........................................................................-.-.-.-.... - . -----.---.---.... 15 2 .3 HISTO RY .................................................................................---------------. ------------ . 17 2.4 CURRENT LEVEL OF VISITORSHIP VS. GOAL LEVEL (AND GROWTH BEYOND) .......................... 19 2.5 UNIQUE M ANAGEMENT STRUCTURE....................................................................................... 21 2.6 INFRASTRUCTURE, DEVELOPMENT AND VISITOR MANAGEMENT ........................................... 22 2.7 SUM M ARY ...........................................................................--.... - -.. - - -- -- - -- --.........................22 3.0 IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN ....................................... 24 3.1 A TTRACTING V ISITORS .......................................................................... ..... .............. 25 3.2 VISITOR MOTIVATION....................................................................................... 27 3.2.1 IslandE xp erience .......................................................................................................... 28 3.2.2 Needfor a Theme........................................................................................................... 29 4.0 CURRENT SITUATION.................................................................................................. 30 4.1 MANAGEMENT ...................................................................... 31 4.2 ISLAN D S................................................................ ......... ------.. ---------------..-- - 34 4.3 FERRIES ...................................................... .. ................................................................ 35 5.0 RESEARCH THEORY.............................................................................................---..-.----- 37 5.1 COST ESTIMATION .................................................................. 42 5.1.1 Th eory ........................................................................................................................... 42 5.2 SUMMARY...............--.-.-----------------.----------.----......................................................................... 42 6.0 BOSTON HARBOR ISLANDS MODEL............................................................................... 44 6.1 ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................... 45 6.1.1 Park Cap acity................................................................................................................ 46 6.1.2 Development D raws Visitors ....................................................................................... 48 6.1.3 Flow Control by Ferry ................................................................................................ 49 5 6.1.4 InstantaneousIsland Capacity Estimates...................................................................... 51 6.2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE ................................................................................. .. 51 6.2.1 Getting Started.............................................................................................................. 52 6.2.2 Useful Features............................................................................................................. 53 6.2.3 Important Points............................................................................................................ 53 6.2.4 How Does It Work ......................................................................................................... 53 6.2.5 Overall Organization.................................................................................................. 54 6.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR USE .................................................................. ...... ... 57 6.3.1 Other Islands.................................................................................................................. 57 6.3.2 Operationsand Maintenance ....................................................................................... 58 6.3.3 Infrastructure................................................................................................................ 58 6.4 FUND DISTRIBUTION.................................................................................. 59 6.4.1 Contributionby Partner.............................................................................................. 59 6.5 STRENGTHS AND W EAKNESSES OF M ODEL ..............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Boston Harbor Watersheds Water Quality & Hydrologic Investigations
    Boston Harbor Watersheds Water Quality & Hydrologic Investigations Fore River Watershed Mystic River Watershed Neponset River Watershed Weir River Watershed Project Number 2002-02/MWI June 30, 2003 Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection Boston Harbor Watersheds Water Quality & Hydrologic Investigations Project Number 2002-01/MWI June 30, 2003 Report Prepared by: Ian Cooke, Neponset River Watershed Association Libby Larson, Mystic River Watershed Association Carl Pawlowski, Fore River Watershed Association Wendy Roemer, Neponset River Watershed Association Samantha Woods, Weir River Watershed Association Report Prepared for: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Robert W. Golledge, Jr., Commissioner Bureau of Resource Protection Cynthia Giles, Assistant Commissioner Division of Municipal Services Steven J. McCurdy, Director Division of Watershed Management Glenn Haas, Director Boston Harbor Watersheds Water Quality & Hydrologic Investigations Project Number 2002-01/MWI July 2001 through June 2003 Report Prepared by: Ian Cooke, Neponset River Watershed Association Libby Larson, Mystic River Watershed Association Carl Pawlowski, Fore River Watershed Association Wendy Roemer, Neponset River Watershed Association Samantha Woods, Weir River Watershed
    [Show full text]
  • The Changing Flora of the Boston Harbor Islands
    The Changing Flora of the Boston Harbor Islands Dale F. Levering, Jr. After more than three and one-half centuries of vicissitude, the deciduous forest that once covered the Boston Harbor islands may have begun to return Situated just to the north of the sandy, up- ing animals, the Eastern Deciduous Forest- lifted coastal plain of Cape Cod and just to the which was dominated by broad-leaved, south of the rocky coastline of northern New round-topped deciduous trees (as opposed to England, the Boston Harbor islands consti- needle-leaved, spire-topped evergreens)-was tute a unique maritime ecosystem. To the a richer source of food for the colonists than south of the Harbor, pines dominate the the evergreen forests to the north and south. sandy, mineral-deficient soil where the land No doubt this was one reason the English meets the sea; to the north, hemlock, white settled northward, rather than southward, pine, spruce, and fir. Some twenty thousand from Plymouth. years ago, when the Pleistocene ice sheet was The present-day vegetation of Moswe- at its maximum, the shoreline lay approxi- tusset Hummock, a small island situated at mately thirty miles east of where it does now; the northern end of Wollaston Beach in when the glacier first began to recede, what Quincy, is perhaps the closest indication we are now the Boston Harbor islands were ex- will ever have of what the Boston Harbor posed as high spots on what was then the islands’ vegetation looked like at the time of mainland. Alluvium from the Boston Basin English settlement.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Harbor South Watersheds 2004 Assessment Report
    Boston Harbor South Watersheds 2004 Assessment Report June 30, 2004 Prepared for: Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Prepared by: Neponset River Watershed Association University of Massachusetts, Urban Harbors Institute Boston Harbor Association Fore River Watershed Association Weir River Watershed Association Contents How rapidly is open space being lost?.......................................................35 Introduction ix What % of the shoreline is publicly accessible?........................................35 References for Boston Inner Harbor Watershed........................................37 Common Assessment for All Watersheds 1 Does bacterial pollution limit fishing or recreation? ...................................1 Neponset River Watershed 41 Does nutrient pollution pose a threat to aquatic life? ..................................1 Does bacterial pollution limit fishing or recreational use? ......................46 Do dissolved oxygen levels support aquatic life?........................................5 Does nutrient pollution pose a threat to aquatic life or other uses?...........48 Are there other water quality problems? ....................................................6 Do dissolved oxygen (DO) levels support aquatic life? ..........................51 Do water supply or wastewater management impact instream flows?........7 Are there other indicators that limit use of the watershed? .....................53 Roughly what percentage of the watersheds is impervious? .....................8 Do water supply,
    [Show full text]
  • The Boston Harbor Project and the Reversal of Eutrophication of Boston Harbor
    The Boston Harbor Project and the Reversal of Eutrophication of Boston Harbor Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Environmental Quality Department Report 2013-07 Citation: Taylor DI. 2013. The Boston Harbor Project and the Reversal of Eutrophication of Boston Harbor. Boston: Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Report 2013-07. 33p. i THE BOSTON HARBOR PROJECT AND THE REVERSAL OF EUTROPHICATION OF BOSTON HARBOR Prepared by David I Taylor MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY Environmental Quality Department and Department of Laboratory Services 100 First Avenue Charlestown Navy Yard Boston, MA 02129 (617) 242-6000 June 2013 Report No: 2013-01 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report draws on data collected by a number of monitoring projects. Grateful thanks are extended to the following Principal Investigators (PI) of these projects: Nancy Maciolek and James A. Blake AECOM Environment, Marine & Coastal Center, 89 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA Anne E. Giblin and Jane Tucker The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA Robert J. Diaz Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Pt., VA 23061, USA Charles T. Costello Division of Watershed Management, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 1 Winter Street, Boston MA 02108, USA Kelly Coughlin, Wendy Leo, Ken Keay, Laura Ducott ENQUAD, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, 100 First Ave, Charlestown Navy Yard, MA 02129 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………. iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………. 2 2.0 THE BOSTON HARBOR PROJECT (BHP) AND THE DECREASES IN INPUTS TO BOSTON HARBOR 2.1 Background on the BHP………………………………………… 3 2.2 Changes to the nutrient and organic matter inputs to the harbor….
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Harbor National Park Service Sites Alternative Transportation Systems Evaluation Report
    U.S. Department of Transportation Boston Harbor National Park Service Research and Special Programs Sites Alternative Transportation Administration Systems Evaluation Report Final Report Prepared for: National Park Service Boston, Massachusetts Northeast Region Prepared by: John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, Massachusetts in association with Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Norris and Norris Architects Childs Engineering EG&G June 2001 Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Harbor Watersheds
    Boston Harbor Watersheds BOSTON HARBOR WATERSHED 6 Boston Harbor Watersheds Boston Harbor Watersheds Weir River Hingham Stream Length (mi) Stream Order pH Anadromous Species Present 4.9 Third 6.4 River herring, smelt, white perch, tomcod Obstruction # 1 Foundry Pond Dam Hingham River Type Material Spillway Spillway Impoundment Year Owner GPS Mile W (ft) H (ft) Acreage Built 2.7 Dam Concrete and 100 9.0 6.0 1998 Town of 42° 15’ 48.794” N stone Hingham 70° 51’ 38.082” W Foundry Pond Dam Fishway Present Design Material Length Inside Outside # of Baffle Notch Pool Condition/ (ft) W (ft) W (ft) Baffles H (ft) W (ft) L (ft) Function Notched Concrete 73.5 3.0 4.6 12 3.0 1.5 6.5 Good weir-pool Passable Fishway at Foundry Pond Dam 7 Boston Harbor Watersheds Remarks: Weir River forms a 6 acre impoundment as it flows to Boston Harbor. The 9 foot dam which creates the impoundment has recently been restored and the fishway that provides access was also modified at this time. Juvenile herring out-migration may be negatively impacted by the new rip-rap facing piled at the base of the dam. Efforts should be made to correct some of the detrimental impacts of the dam restoration. The area immediately downstream of the dam has historically supported a strong smelt population and white perch are known to spawn in the lower river. 8 Boston Harbor Watersheds Straits Pond Cohasset, Hull Stream Length (mi) Stream Order pH Anadromous Species Present 1.0 Second 8.9 River herring Obstruction # 1 Straits Pond Tidegate Cohasset, Hull River Type Material Spillway Spillway Impoundment Year Owner GPS Mile W (ft) H (ft) Acreage Built 1.0 Tide gate Metal 10.5 - 95.8 - Town of 42° 15’ 37.146” N Hull 70° 50’ 40.373” W Tidegate at Straits Pond Fishway None Remarks: This 95.8 acre salt pond is maintained at low salinities by a tide gate operated by the Town of Hull.
    [Show full text]
  • (Osmerus Mordax) Spawning Habitat in the Weymouth- Fore River
    Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report TR-5 Rainbow Smelt (Osmerus mordax) Spawning Habitat in the Weymouth- Fore River Bradford C. Chase and Abigail R. Childs Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Commonwealth of Massachusetts September 2001 Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report TR-5 Rainbow Smelt (Osmerus mordax) Spawning Habitat in the Weymouth-Fore River Bradford C. Chase and Abigail R. Childs Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Annisquam River Marine Fisheries Station 30 Emerson Ave. Gloucester, MA 01930 September 2001 Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Paul Diodati, Director Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement Dave Peters, Commissioner Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Bob Durand, Secretary Commonwealth of Massachusetts Jane Swift, Governor ABSTRACT The spawning habitat of anadromous rainbow smelt in the Weymouth-Fore River, within the cities of Braintree and Weymouth, was monitored during 1988-1990 to document temporal, spatial and biological characteristics of the spawning run. Smelt deposited eggs primarily in the Monatiquot River, upstream of Route 53, over a stretch of river habitat that exceeded 900 m and included over 8,000 m2 of suitable spawning substrate. Minor amounts of egg deposition were found in Smelt Brook, primarily located below the Old Colony railroad embankment where a 6 ft culvert opens to an intertidal channel. The Smelt Brook spawning habitat is degraded by exposure to chronic stormwater inputs, periodic raw sewer discharges and modified stream hydrology. Overall, the entire Weymouth-Fore River system supports one of the larger smelt runs in Massachusetts Bay, with approximately 10,000 m2 of available spawning substrate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Massachusetts Bay Hydrodynamic Model: 2005 Simulation
    The Massachusetts Bay Hydrodynamic Model: 2005 Simulation Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Environmental Quality Department Report ENQUAD 2008-12 Jiang MS, Zhou M. 2008. The Massachusetts Bay Hydrodynamic Model: 2005 Simulation. Boston: Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Report 2008-12. 58 pp. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Boston, Massachusetts The Massachusetts Bay Hydrodynamic Model: 2005 Simulation Prepared by: Mingshun Jiang & Meng Zhou Department of Environmental, Earth and Ocean Sciences University of Massachusetts Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125 July 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Boston Harbor, Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay system (MBS) is a semi- enclosed coastal system connected to the Gulf of Maine (GOM) through boundary exchange. Both natural processes including climate change, seasonal variations and episodic events, and human activities including nutrient inputs and fisheries affect the physical and biogeochemical environment in the MBS. Monitoring and understanding of physical–biogeochemical processes in the MBS is important to resource management and environmental mitigation. Since 1992, the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA) has been monitoring the MBS in one of the nation’s most comprehensive monitoring programs. Under a cooperative agreement between the MWRA and University of Massachusetts Boston (UMB), the UMB modeling team has conducted numerical simulations of the physical–biogeochemical conditions and processes in the MBS during 2000-2004. Under a new agreement between MWRA, Battelle and UMB, the UMB continues to conduct a numerical simulation for 2005, a year in which the MBS experienced an unprecedented red–tide event that cost tens of millions dollars to Massachusetts shellfish industry. This report presents the model validation and simulated physical environment in 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Massachusetts Coastal Waters
    CIRCULATION AND CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT IN MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL WATERS: A SUMMARY OF ACHIEVEMENTS AND FUTURE PLANS work conducted under a JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT between THE MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY and THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY By M.H. Bothner, M. Buchholtz ten Brink, Bradford Butman, H. J. Knebel, F.T. Manheim, and R. P. Signell U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report # 94-649 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................ 3 Summary of USGS Program Components: Long-term Current Observations. ............................ 9 Geochemical Studies ..................................... 13 Sea-floor Mapping ....................................... 18 Circulation Modeling .................................... 23 Contaminated-Sediment Database ........................... 27 References cited in this summary ................................ 35 Publications resulting from the MWRA-USGS Joint Funding Agreement and related USGS programs in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay 1989-1994 .................. 36 This report has not been reviewed for conformity with USGS editorial standards. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The USGS is developing a conceptual model for the transport and accumulation of sediments and associated contaminants in the Massachusetts Bays. Our approach is multidisciplinary. Each of five discipline
    [Show full text]
  • Sculptors Gallery Proudly Hosts “34,” a Group Exhibition Curated by Liz Devlin of FLUX
    !"#$"% #&'()$"*# +,((-*. !"#$%&'"(!) *++, 486 Harrison Ave, Boston,."t ! XXXCPTUPOTDVMQUPSTDPNtCPTUPOTDVMQUPST!ZBIPPDPN FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 7, 2015 Exhibition Title: 34 Exhibition Dates: July 22 – August 16, 2015 Artists’ Reception: July 26 from 3 – 5 pm SOWA First Friday Reception: August 7 from 5 – 8 pm Gallery Hours: Wed. – Sun. from 12 – 6 pm (Boston, MA): As a part of the Isles Arts Initiative, a summer long public art series on the Boston Harbor Islands and in venues across Boston, the Boston Sculptors Gallery proudly hosts “34,” a group exhibition curated by Liz Devlin of FLUX. Boston Sculptors Gallery will showcase work inspired by the intrinsic beauty and divergent tales of the Boston Harbor Islands National and State Park. “34” is a group exhibition that includes 34 regional artists each responding to one of the 34 Boston Harbor Islands. Each imaginative work will be accompanied by a placard, featuring text from Chris Klein’s Discovering the Boston Harbor Islands, which outlines a brief history of the particular island and will provide additional context for the work itself. The exhibition serves as a physical beacon on land that will be in conversation with the artwork on the harbor. Artists’ work will educate and inspire visitors, sharing unique perspectives and visionary iconography that will demonstrate why the islands’ history is among the most fascinating in our region. About Boston Sculptors: Founded in 1992, Boston Sculptors Gallery is an artist-run organization that presents and promotes innovative, challenging sculpture and installations. It is the only sculptors organization in the United States that maintains its own exhibition space. The organization has presented exhibitions of its sculptors in other venues and countries and occasionally invites Curators to present exhibitions in its gallery in Boston’s South End.
    [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]