Massachusetts Tern Inventory 2000

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Massachusetts Tern Inventory 2000 Massachusetts Tern Inventory 2000 Bradford G. Blodget, State Ornithologist Overview The year 2000 was a challenging one for terns in Massachusetts. Long-term fundamental problems confronting terns asserted themselves during the 2000 season. The diabolical problems of predation and lack of suitable colony site alternatives work in concert to limit tern numbers and to threaten recovery and long-term stability of tern populations in Massachusetts. For the second year in a row, fox activity precluded nesting at Plymouth Beach. Although some 1,000 pairs of Common Terns appeared early in the season, they quickly abandoned the site. Presumably many relocated to the immense colony at Monomoy-South, Chatham. Nesting at New Island in Eastham/Orleans was unproductive on account of Great Horned Owl predation. Another chronically unproductive site usually beset with owl problems, Gray’s Beach, Yarmouth, reportedly experienced some production this year. Despite these trouble spots, 81% of all the Common Terns in the state, which were concentrated at three sites-- Monomoy-South in Chatham, Ram Island in Mattapoisett and Bird Island in Marion-- experienced good to excellent productivity. Weather conditions during the season were generally benign, except for an unseasonable northeast storm that struck on 6 June, washing out some nests, particularly those of Least Terns at exposed sites. During the 2000 season, nesting terns were reported from 67 sites out of the aggregate total of 114 sites reported active in at least one year from 1970 to the present. Common Tern numbers declined 6% to 13,340 pairs, reversing seven consecutive years of increase. Roseate Tern numbers, however, increased 17% to 2,124 pairs, marking the first time their numbers have ventured above the 2,000 pair level since 2,023 were estimated in 1979. Since 1970, the highest Roseate Tern estimate was 2,300 pairs in 1972. Least Tern numbers were estimated at 3,276 pairs, down 4% from the year-earlier level. Laughing Gull numbers grew 36% to 1,097 pairs, the first time their numbers have surpassed the 1,000 pair mark since 1991. Agencies in the cooperative monitoring network continue to be engaged in a number of large projects. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Avian Diversity Program at Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge entered its fifth year in 2000. While Common Tern numbers there have soared, 2 Roseate Tern numbers have not responded as well as expected (actually declining to three pairs from 27 in 1999). Superlative nesting habitat at Ram Island, Mattapoisett, along with social factors, may have drawn birds from other sites, including Monomoy. In addition, habitat conditions for Roseate Terns may not be optimal at Monomoy. If the Monomoy Common Tern colony holds together long enough, conditions there—such as dense vegetative cover—may gradually develop and become more attractive to Roseate Terns. In the meantime, Common Terns produced at Monomoy should recolonize and foster growth at new sites, including those where aggressive Common and Roseate Tern restoration efforts are underway. Two of these sites include MassWildlife’s project at Penikese Island, Gosnold (initiated in 1998 after pilot work in 1995) and a new project begun this year at Muskeget Island, Nantucket by The Nature Conservancy, with additional funding support from the Blake Fund and other private sources. General Methodology Censusing of terns in Massachusetts is accomplished using “pairs” as the basic census unit. Generally, complete nest counts are made, at some sites corrected using the Lincoln Index. At a few sites, pair estimates may be extrapolations based on partial nest counts or adult estimates adjusted to pairs by multiplying by 0.8. Where nest counts are made, only nests with eggs are counted and the number of nests is converted to pairs on a 1:1 ratio. Estimates of the number of pairs reported and discussed in this summary, unless otherwise noted, are “A-period” estimates made during a standard 5-20 June window. “B-period” estimates, as sometimes referenced herein, are estimates made later than the “A-period” counts and not included in the total pair estimates for the state. Common Tern Common Tern numbers, after seven consecutive yearly increases, declined in 2000 to 13,340 pairs at 32 sites. The drop amounted to about 6%, essentially erasing the previous year’s increase. Terns attempted to recolonize Plymouth Beach, but quickly aborted when faced with fox predation. Most of the Common Tern nesting activity northward from Plymouth to the New Hampshire state line continued to be at marginal sites such as flood-prone salt marshes and dilapidated piers and pilings. Portions of the old Central Square Piers in East Boston collapsed in 2000, taking some nests down with it. While there was reportedly some productivity at Gray’s Beach, Yarmouth, the colony at New Island, Eastham/Orleans was—as usual—severely disrupted by Great Horned Owls and there was little or no productivity. At the Monomoy Islands, Chatham, numbers increased to 6,897 from 5,536 a year earlier, a 26% increase (on top of a 134% increase in 1999). Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge now harbors about half (51.7%) the Common Terns in Massachusetts. Other sites harboring 1,000 pairs included Ram Island, Mattapoisett (2,030 pairs) and Bird Island, Marion (1,880 pairs). Eighty-one percent of nesting Common Terns were concentrated in these three sites and experienced good to excellent productivity. The total number of active Common Tern sites dropped to 32 from 34 in 1999. 3 Six additional sites reporting 100 pairs included New Island, Eastham/Orleans (997 vs. 2,176 in 1999), Gray’s Beach, Yarmouth (684 vs. 953), Haystack Point at the Edgartown end of Sengekontacket Pond (140 vs. 160), Penikese Island, Gosnold (126 vs. 101), Woodbridge Island, Newburyport (120 vs. 240), and Central Square Piers, East Boston (114 vs. 176). Note that all these sites except for Penikese registered declines. Least Tern The estimated Least Tern population declined 4% to 3,267 pairs in 2000 from last season’s record high of 3,416 pairs. This still goes into the records as our second best year since careful record keeping began in 1970. Given the unstable nature of Least Tern colonies and the difficulty censusing them accurately, the decline is likely within the margin of censusing error. From 1997 onward, estimates have held above the 3,000 pair level. This year’s results reflect continued ideal habitat conditions offset by predation at some sites and a northeast storm on 6 June that washed-out nests at some sites. The largest colony in 2000 developed, as in 1999, at Dunbar Point (Kalmus), Barnstable, where 817 pairs were estimated. Nine additional sites reported estimates of 100 pairs in 2000 (vs. seven in 1999) including Dead Neck-Sampson’s Island, Barnstable (383 pairs vs. 87 in 1999), Little Beach, Edgartown (237 vs. 0), Crane Beach, Ipswich (220 vs. 220), Barney’s Joy— Little Beach, Dartmouth (138 vs. 61), North River mouth, Scituate (133 vs. 44), Sandy Neck, Barnstable (128 vs. 148), Monomoy-South, Chatham (119 vs. 103), Tuckernuck Island, Nantucket (110 vs. 75), and Great Island, Wellfleet (105 vs. 83). Note that seven out of these nine additional sites carried substantially more pairs than in 1999 and one site had the same number of pairs as in the previous year, reflecting a generally broader distribution of birds among sites in 2000 compared with 1999. Also indicative of this pattern, Least Tern nesting activity was reported from 50 sites this year, up from 44 a year ago. Roseate Tern The estimated Roseate Tern population increased to 2,124 pairs in 2000, up 17% from 1,810 pairs last season. This marks the first time that estimated roseate numbers have risen above the 2,000 pair level since 1979 (2,023 pairs). Since 1970, the highest Roseate Tern numbers were recorded in 1972 (2,300 pairs). This season’s strong performance was fueled almost exclusively by dramatic increase (57%) at Ram Island, Mattapoisett where numbers rose to 998 pairs from 630 pairs in 1999. This increase may be attributable to the fact that no winter storms overwashed the island during the winter season. As a result, lush vegetation—ideal for roseate nesting—developed. In addition to ideal nesting cover, the strong numbers were likely also driven by other factors including the absence of any serious predation threats and natural recruitment within the Northeastern population. Also, the possibility that last year’s numbers were underestimated to some degree cannot be ruled out. Unfortunately, the good news on numbers of pairs was offset by less encouraging progress on other parameters. Essentially 100% of the Roseate Tern pairs this year were concentrated at only two sites—Bird Island, Marion (1,130) and Ram Island, Mattapoisett (988). 4 On outer Cape Cod, only an additional six pairs could be located---three at Monomoy-South, Chatham and three at Nauset-New Island, Eastham/Orleans. Thus there were only four stations with nesting Roseate Terns, down from six in 1999; this is the poorest showing since 1986. Plymouth Beach, long a small but steady roseate station, was abandoned in 1999 on account of fox predation. Restoration efforts at Penikese brought stronger numbers of Common Terns to the site in 2000, but, while Roseate Terns frequented the site, none nested. At Monomoy-South, numbers actually fell to three pairs this year from 27 a year earlier, despite explosive growth in the numbers of Common Terns there. And at Muskeget Island, no nesting roseates appeared this year despite last season’s five pioneering pairs. But on a positive note, efforts are underway to remedy the fox problems at Plymouth and the difficulties there will eventually be resolved.
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]
  • English Settlement Before the Mayhews: the “Pease Tradition”
    151 Lagoon Pond Road Vineyard Haven, MA 02568 Formerly MVMUSEUM The Dukes County Intelligencer NOVEMBER 2018 VOLUME 59 Quarterly NO. 4 Martha’s Vineyard Museum’s Journal of Island History MVMUSEUM.ORG English settlement before the Mayhews: Edgartown The “Pease Tradition” from the Sea Revisited View from the deck of a sailing ship in Nantucket Sound, looking south toward Edgartown, around the American Revolution. The land would have looked much the same to the first English settlers in the early 1600s (from The Atlantic Neptune, 1777). On the Cover: A modern replica of the Godspeed, a typical English merchant sailing ship from the early 1600s (photo by Trader Doc Hogan). Also in this Issue: Place Names and Hidden Histories MVMUSEUM.ORG MVMUSEUM Cover, Vol. 59 No. 4.indd 1 1/23/19 8:19:04 AM MVM Membership Categories Details at mvmuseum.org/membership Basic ..............................................$55 Partner ........................................$150 Sustainer .....................................$250 Patron ..........................................$500 Benefactor................................$1,000 Basic membership includes one adult; higher levels include two adults. All levels include children through age 18. Full-time Island residents are eligible for discounted membership rates. Contact Teresa Kruszewski at 508-627-4441 x117. Traces Some past events offer the historians who study them an embarrassment of riches. The archives of a successful company or an influential US president can easily fill a building, and distilling them into an authoritative book can consume decades. Other events leave behind only the barest traces—scraps and fragments of records, fleeting references by contemporary observers, and shadows thrown on other events of the time—and can be reconstructed only with the aid of inference, imagination, and ingenuity.
    [Show full text]
  • Return of Organization Exempt from Income
    r Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax Form 990 527, or 4947(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (except black lung Under section 501(c), LOOL benefit trust or private foundation) Department or me Ti2asury Internal Revenue Service 1 The organization may have to use a copy of this return to satisfy state reporting requirements A For the 2002 calendar year, or tax year period beginning APR 1 2002 and i MAR 31, 2003 B Check if Please C Name of organization D Employer identification number use IRS nddmss label or [::]change print or HE TRUSTEES OF RESERVATIONS 04-2105780 ~changa s~ Number and street (or P.0 box if mad is not delivered to street address) Room/suite E Telephone number =Initial return sPecisc572 ESSEX STREET 978 921-1944 Final = City or town, state or country, and ZIP +4 F Pccoun6npmethad 0 Cash [K] Accrual return Other =Amended~'d~° [BEVERLY , MA 01915 licatio" ~ o S ~~ . El Section 501(c)(3) organizations and 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trusts H and I are not applicable to section 527 organizations. :'dl°° must attach a completed Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) . H(a) Is this a group retain for affiliates ~ Yes OX No G web site: OWW " THETRUSTEES . ORG H(b) It 'Yes,' enter number of affiliates 10, J Organization type (cnakonly one) " OX 501(c) ( 3 ) 1 (Insert no) = 4947(a)(1) or = 52 H(c) Are all affiliates inciuded9 N/A 0 Yes 0 No (If -NO,- attach a list ) K Check here " 0 if the organization's gross receipts are normally not more than $25,000 .
    [Show full text]
  • Cape Poge Wildlife Refuge, Leland Beach, Wasque Point, and Norton Point Beach Edgartown
    Impact Avoidance and Minimization Plan: Cape Poge Wildlife Refuge, Leland Beach, Wasque Point, and Norton Point Beach Edgartown, Martha’s Vineyard January 2020 The Trustees of Reservations 200 High Street Boston, MA 02110 Table of Contents 1. Site Description 1.a Maps……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 1.b Description of site…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 1.c habitat and management………………………………………………………………………………………. 5 1.d Plover breeding a productivity………………………………………………………..…………………….. 6 2. Responsible Staff 2.a Staff biographies……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 3. Beach Management 3.a.i Recreational Activities………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 3.a.ii Parking and Roads……………………………………………………………………………………….……. 9 3.a.iii Beach cleaning and refuse management…………………………………..……………………. 10 3.a.iv Rules and regulations…………………………………………………………………………….……….... 10 3.a.v Law enforcement…………………………………………………………………………….………………… 10 3.a.vi Other management……………………………………………………………………………………………. 10 3.a.vi Piping plover management……………………………………………………………………………….. 10 4. Covered Activities 4.1.a OSV use in vicinity of piping plover chicks…………………………………………………………….. 12 4.1.b Reduced symbolic fencing……………………………………………………………………………………. 15 4.1.c Reduced proactive symbolic fencing……………………………………………………………………… 16 4.2 Contingency Plan…………………………………………………………………………………….……………. 18 4.3 Violations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18 4.4 Self-escort program reporting………………………………………………………………………………… 18 5. Budget………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • GO Pass User Benefits at Trustees Properties with an Admission Fee
    GO Pass User Benefits at Trustees Properties with an Admission Fee Trustees Property Non-Member Admission Member Admission GO Pass Admission Appleton Grass Rides $5 Parking Kiosk Free $5 Parking Kiosk Ashley House $5 House Tour/Grounds Free Free Free Bartholomew’s Cobble $5 Adult/ $1 Child (6-12) + $5 Free Free + $5 Parking Kiosk Parking Kiosk Bryant Homestead $5 General House Tour Free Free Cape Poge $5 Adult/ Child 15 and under free Free Free Castle Hill* $10 Grounds + Tour Admission Grounds Free/Discounted Tours Grounds Free/ Discounted Tours Chesterfield Gorge $2 Free Free Crane Beach* Price per car/varies by season Up to 50% discounted admission Up to 50% discounted admission Fruitlands Museum $14 Adult/Child $6 Free Free Halibut Point $5 Parking w/MA plate per DCR Free (display card on dash) $5 Parking w/MA plate per DCR Little Tom Mountain $5 Parking w/MA plate per DCR $5 Parking w/MA plate per DCR $5 Parking w/MA plate per DCR Long Point Beach $10 Per Car + $5 Per Adult Free Admission + 50% off Parking Free Admission + 50% off Parking Misery Island – June thru Labor $5 Adult/ $3 Child Free Free Day Mission House $5 Free Free Monument Mountain $5 Parking Kiosk Free $5 Parking Kiosk Naumkeag $15 Adult (age 15+) Free Free Notchview – on season skiing $15 Adult/ $6 Child (6-12) Wknd: $8 A/ $3 C | Wkdy: Free Wknd: $8 A/ $3 C | Wkdy: Free Old Manse $10 A/ $5 C/ $9 SR+ST/ $25 Family Free Free Rocky Woods $5 Parking Kiosk Free $5 Parking Kiosk Ward Reservation $5 Parking Kiosk Free $5 Parking Kiosk Wasque – Memorial to Columbus $5 Parking + $5 Per Person Free Free World’s End $6 Free Free *See separate pricing sheets for detailed pricing structure .
    [Show full text]
  • Birdobserver7.2 Page52-60 a Guide to Birding on Martha's
    A GUIDE TO BIRDING ON MARTHA'S VINEYARD Richard M. Sargent, Montclair, New Jersey A total of 35T species have been recorded on Martha’s Vineyard, This represents 85 per cent of all the hirds recorded in the state of Massa- chusetts, Prohably the Most faMous of theM, excluding the now extinct Heath Hen, was the Eurasian Curlew, first identified on February I8, 1978» and subsequently seen by several hundred birders during the Month that it reMained "on location." Of the 357 species, approxiMately 275 are regular, occuring annually. The variety of species present and the overall charM of the Vineyard Make it a fun place to bird. The Island is reached by ferry froM Woods Hole and if you plan to tahe your car it is very advisable, if not a necessity, to Make advance res- ervations with the SteaMship Authority for both in-season and out-of~ season trips. And heré a note of caution: Much of the property around the ponds and access to Many of the back areas is private property and posted. The areas discussed in this article are open to the public and offer a good cross-section of Vineyard birding areas. If there are private areas you want to cover, be sure to obtain perMission before entering them. The Vineyard is roughly triangular in shape with the base of the triangle twenty Miles, east to west, and the height, north to south, ten Miles. It is of glacial origin with Much of the north shore hilly and forMed by glacial Morain. To the south there are broad, fíat outwash plains cut by Many fresh water or brackish ponds separated froM the ocean by bar- rier beaches, Probably the best tiMe to bird the Vineyard is the Month of SepteMber.
    [Show full text]
  • Horsley Witten Group Technical Analysis Upper Alewife Brook Basin
    +RUVOH\:LWWHQ*URXS 6XVWDLQDEOH(QYLURQPHQWDO6ROXWLRQV 5RXWH$6DQGZLFK0$ 3KRQH)D[ZZZKRUVOH\ZLWWHQFRP 7HFKQLFDO$QDO\VLV 8SSHU$OHZLIH%URRN%DVLQ ,PSDFW6WXG\ )HEUXDU\ 3UHSDUHGIRU (OOHQ0DVV )ULHQGVRI$OHZLIH5HVHUYDWLRQ $OHZLIH%URRN3DUNZD\ %HOPRQW0$ 6SRQVRUHGE\ %HOPRQW/DQG7UXVW &DPEULGJH*UHHQ %HOPRQW&LWL]HQV)RUXP Upper Alewife Brook Watershed Technical Analysis Table of Contents Page 1.0 Purpose 1 2.0 The Study Area 1 3.0 Flooding and Stormwater 2 4.0 Habitat 6 5.0 Water Quality 8 6.0 Smart Growth and Low Impact Development 10 7.0 References 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 ± Hydrologic Analysis 3 Table 2 ± Scientific Studies on Wildlife Habitat at the Belmont Uplands 6 Table 3 ± Phosphorus Loading Analysis 9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 ± Mystic River Watershed and Subbasins Figure 2 ± FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer Alewife Subbasin Figure 3 ± Recharge Rates Figure 4 ± Impervious Cover Alewife Subbasin Figure 5 ± Impervious Cover vs. Native Fish Species Figure 6 ± Phosphorus Loading Rates 8 Figure 7 ± Phosphorus Loading Analysis 9 Figure 8 ± Low Impact Development Stormwater BMPs Technical Analysis ± Upper Alewife Brook Watershed 1.0 Purpose This report was prepared to provide the towns of Arlington, Belmont and Cambridge a clear understanding of the hydrologic and ecological considerations associated with continued development of environmentally-sensitive lands associated with the upper Alewife Brook Watershed which includes Little River in Cambridge and several ponds and streams. A specific focus is provided on the proposed development project at the Belmont Uplands site which is characterized by Charles Katuska, PVVS, Chair conservation Commission in Sutton, as a silver maple forest monoculture. The report provides a technical summary of flooding, habitat, water quality, and climate change as they substantially affect the regional subject area.
    [Show full text]
  • Mystic River Watershed Stormwater Retrofits Woburn, Massachusetts 30% Concept Plans June 2021
    MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED STORMWATER RETROFITS WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS 30% CONCEPT PLANS JUNE 2021 Sheet List Table WOBURN Sheet Number Sheet Title 1 COVER 2 GENERAL NOTES 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 DEMO & ESC PLAN 5 SITE PLAN 6 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN 7 DETAIL GRADING PLAN 8 STREAM RESTORATION PLAN 9 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 10 PLANTING DETAILS North WINN ST MASSACHUSETTS SCALE 1" = 150000' PROJECT SHERIDAN ST AREA BURLINGTON WOBURN GENERAL NOTES: 1. THIS PLAN SET IS FOR CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ONLY AND NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. 2. SITE INFORMATION: PLAT: 41 LOT: 16 ADDRESS: 75 BEDFORD ROAD ZONING DISTRICT: RESIDENTIAL 1 Plan Set: MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED SITE STORMWATER RETROFITS WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS Prepared For: Mystic River Watershed Association 20 Academy St Ste 306 H:\Projects\2021\21008 upper mystic river watershed\Drawings\_Woburn\21008 WOBURN CN.dwg Arlington, MA 02476 North (781) 316-3438 Prepared By: Horsley Witten Group, Inc. WOBURN Sustainable Environmental Solutions SCALE 1" = 20000' SITE www.horsleywitten.com Headquarters SCALE 1" =1000' 112 Water Street, 6th Floor 55 Dorrance Street, Suite 200 90 Route 6A 113 Water Street, R2 Boston, MA 02109 Providence, RI 02906 Sandwich, MA 02563 Exeter, NH 03833 (857) 263-8193 voice (401) 272-1717 voice (508) 833-6600 voice (603) 658-1660 (617) 574-4799 fax (401) 439-8368 fax (508) 833-3150 fax Registration: Project Number: Revisions 21008 1 2 Sheet Number: 3 1 of 10 DRAFT 4 NOT FOR 5 Drawing Number: 6 CONSTRUCTION 7 - 1C last modified: 06/30/21 printed: by ml Rev. Date By Appr. Description GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: BASIC CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE: EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • MDPH Beaches Annual Report 2008
    Marine and Freshwater Beach Testing in Massachusetts Annual Report: 2008 Season Massachusetts Department of Public Health Bureau of Environmental Health Environmental Toxicology Program http://www.mass.gov/dph/topics/beaches.htm July 2009 PART ONE: THE MDPH/BEH BEACHES PROJECT 3 I. Overview ......................................................................................................5 II. Background ..................................................................................................6 A. Beach Water Quality & Health: the need for testing......................................................... 6 B. Establishment of the MDPH/BEHP Beaches Project ....................................................... 6 III. Beach Water Quality Monitoring...................................................................8 A. Sample collection..............................................................................................................8 B. Sample analysis................................................................................................................9 1. The MDPH contract laboratory program ...................................................................... 9 2. The use of indicators .................................................................................................... 9 3. Enterococci................................................................................................................... 10 4. E. coli...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Marine and Freshwater Beach Testing in Massachusetts Annual Report
    Marine and Freshwater Beach Testing in Massachusetts Annual Report: 2015 Season Massachusetts Department of Public Health Bureau of Environmental Health Environmental Toxicology Program http://www.mass.gov/dph/beaches May 2016 PART ONE: THE MDPH/BEH BEACHES PROJECT 4 I. Overview .......................................................................................................... 5 II. Background ...................................................................................................... 5 A. Beach Water Quality & Health: The Need for Testing ...................................................... 5 B. Establishment of the MDPH/BEH Beaches Project .......................................................... 6 III. Beach Water Quality Monitoring ....................................................................... 7 A. Sample collection .............................................................................................................. 7 B. Sample analysis ................................................................................................................ 7 1. The MDPH contract laboratory program .................................................................... 7 2. The use of indicators .................................................................................................. 7 3. Enterococci ................................................................................................................. 8 4. E. coli .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arlington Master Plan DRAFT Interim Report
    Arlington Master Plan REVISED Working Paper Series: Natural Resources and Open Space Introduction Arlington’s landscape is defined by natural features that influence the location and intensity of development. Lakes and ponds, brooks, wetlands, and protected open space provide important public health and ecological benefits, as well as recreational opportunities. Activities in Arlington also affect neighboring towns, so local policies and practices relating to water and other natural resources have regional consequences. This master plan element focuses on irreplaceable land and water resources that must be considered in Menotomy Rocks Park trail. decisions about where, what, and how much to build as Arlington continues to evolve. A. GOALS FOR OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES • Ensure that Arlington’s neighborhoods, commercial areas, and infrastructure are developed in harmony with natural resource concerns. • Value, protect, and maintain the Town’s physical beauty, natural habitats, water bodies, parks, and other open spaces. • Use sustainable planning and engineering approaches to improve air and water quality, reduce flooding, and enhance ecological diversity by managing our natural resources. • Mitigate and adapt to climate change. B. KEY FINDINGS • Arlington’s beauty is influenced by many factors – its varied landscape and topography, the presence of water resources along its borders, and its historic architecture. Arlington’s distinctive street trees and urban woodlands also play a critical role in Arlington’s appearance, walkability, and environmental health. Increased investments in tree maintenance and replacement, including enough personnel to carry out a comprehensive tree and streetscape management program, will be important for Arlington’s future quality of life. • Arlington’s ability to address critical environmental challenges will hinge, in part, on the policies it adopts to guide and regulate future development, and in particular along the corridor encompassing Massachusetts Avenue and the Mill Brook.
    [Show full text]
  • Chappy Newsletter Summer 2020Final2
    Chappaquiddick Island Association June 2020 CHAPPAQUIDDICK ISLAND ASSOCIATION Summer 2020 Newsletter A Message fom the Board Important We hope that you are well in these turbulent times. Summer is Dates: finally here. The weather has NO CIA Summer improved, so it looks like summer 2020 Meetings may be off to a good start. With COVID-19 it will be a very Due to COVID-19 there will different summer with many be no in-person Summer events curtailed. We have 2020 meetings canceled our July Annual Meeting and are including updates that we Tick Talk Zoom usually include in our annual June 27, 2020, 9-10:30 AM meeting in this Summer with Richard Johnson and Newsletter. We will strive to keep Photo Credit: All photos by Sheny Leon, Sam Telford (pp. 7-8) except where otherwise noted you updated as the summer goes on and will make a decision about 2nd Annual the format of an August annual meeting as the summer progresses. Chappy Point-to- Sincerely, Point Run The Board of the Chappaquiddick Island Association Rescheduled to August 30th, Remembrances 8:30 AM Please take a moment to remember those from Chappy who have https://runsignup.com/Race/ MA/Edgartown/ passed in 2019-2020: Siamak Adibi, Marie Fountain, Dick Knight, Lanning Macfarland The Chappaquiddick Island Association (CIA) works to promote the welfare and operate in the best interests of the Island of Chappaquiddick and of those who make it their permanent or seasonal home. We aim to preserve the beauty and charm of the island, and to maintain its ecological and environmental character by directing progress into channels which will retain its uniqueness without causing hardships to its residents.
    [Show full text]