| Category List Back |
| Major: CEEI eco-pedia web site www.eco-pedia.org paper |
| Sub: (Click below) |
| No Subcategories found! |
|
| CEEI eco-pedia web site www.eco-pedia.org paper |
Massachusetts State Water Quality Assesment
Author: Lisa Dangutis
Abstract:
Abstract: (Part 1)
Every two years the EPA distributes a state 303d stream list. It is an indicator list for the water quality of streams, ponds, and river ways in that state. "In 1998 it was estimated, the state of Massachusetts had 906 water ways on the 303d stream list. The water ways placed on this list are considered quality limited waters."(WCEI, 1998.) The causes of limitation to these waterways are from high effluent releases from treatment plants, old dams, non-point source pollution from industry and farms; and urban sprawl. Consequently, there are many reasons from a political, economic, and social perspective as to why these waterways remain on the 303d stream list today in Massachusetts.
Part one of this study focuses on the successes and failures. The study addresses issues surrounding political laws and state programs for the 303d stream list in Massachusetts. By understanding the underlying mechanisms in state laws and programs -- we can improve successes, and eliminate failures. Part one addresses these issues and offers some plausible solutions to further the efforts along in hope of someday eliminating the 303d stream list.
(Part one:)
I. Introduction:
A. The Mass.303d Stream List
B. Explanation of Project.
II. Politics:
A. Explanation of Ma.Wetland Acts and River Act of 1996:
. 1. Definition of the Wetland Acts.
a. Purpose of the Revised Acts.
B. Explanation of Ma. River Ways Program's (Before River Act of 1996).
a. Goals of the Program
b. Set Up of the Program.
C. Accomplishments of Acts and Programs:
1. Unified way of working under watershed management.
2. A solid program which has the possibility for long term efficiency.
D. Failures of Programs:
1. No solid strategy for planning river pollution prevention in high
Population buffer zones.
2. Lacks focus on restoration for polluted rivers on 303d under 305b law.
3 Costs may be inadequate as listed. Clean up is passed to
federal programs such as adopt a stream or onto local org.
4 .Despite strong communication among program, lack of communication
on local levels.
5. Issues of brown not fields included.
E. Solutions which could help to strengthen the River way Act and Programs:
1.Implementation of more cost effective restoration plans
2.Focus on cost effective plans for stream management and restoration.
3.An adequate plan for means of communication between water shed team
4. Implementation of more cost effective restoration plans.
Introduction:
Currently, the government and department of environmental management in the state of Massachusetts have started to work more vigorously toward addressing the problems of dirty streams, rivers and ponds. In the past, the state had some of the dirtiest rivers since the American industrial revolution of the 1800's. Even today, with local ambitions of the legislature -- dirty rivers, streams and ponds are still an important issue which remains unresolved for the state of Massachusetts. Every two years the EPA distributes the 303d stream list. It is an indicator list for the water quality of streams, ponds, and river ways in each state. " In 1998 it was estimated, the state of Massachusetts had 906 water ways on the 303d stream list. The water ways placed on this list are considered quality limited."(WCEI, 1998.) The causes of limitation to these waterways are from high effluent releases from treatment plants, old dams, non-point source pollution from industry and farms; and urban sprawl. Consequently, there are many reasons from a political, economic, and social perspective as to why these waterways remain on the 303d stream list today. In this study the political, economic, and social reasons will be investigated as an approach for possible resolution of quality limited waters in the state of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Water Laws and Acts:
The Wetland Protection Act was the first major act approved in the state of Massachusetts. It was created to protect rivers, big ponds, wetlands and streams in the late 1960's.(EPA,2000)
This occurred during a time, when water quality issues were just coming into serious perspective for the state. The Wetland Protection Act focused on protecting "just the water" in these waterways. The Wetland Act proved to be unsuccessful. Throughout the period, water quality was slightly to if at all improved. The areas and land surrounding the rivers were still highly polluted. In addition, the ecosystems surrounding these areas still remained contaminated. The act did little to protect the water in these areas from runoff from big industry, farms, or from oils on highways, and roads. Large amounts of debris and garbage often surrounded the areas of around ponds and rivers. This was a threat to surrounding wildlife and birds. In this period, local Massachusetts organizations did help pick up the slack with clean up efforts. Clearly, it was apparent. The Wetland Protection Act was failing Massachusetts waterways. On August 7, 1996, the Massachusetts State legislature under the leadership of Lieutenant Governor W. Weld signed The River Act; to address the problem of protecting land areas around waterways. It was a considerable good law or so it seemed to be. The River Act was broken down into several criterion, each criterion proposing a different strategy towards addressing the problems of river and stream quality. "In the first criterion, the River Act [Chapter 258 of the Acts] limits development within "river front areas," determined as the area within 200 feet of rivers, and streams that have low population density."(River Act, 1999.) The 200-foot distance can be defined as a buffer zone. "Buffer zones are important on rivers. These zones can filter runoff. When kept clean, and unpolluted they prove to be healthy habitats for river dependent wild life, and birds." (University of Texas, 1998.) "By law of the River Act, the river front area is reduced to twenty-five feet in municipalities with a population greater than 90,000, a population density greater than 9,000 people per square mile, or in densely developed areas as defined in the act. There is also a process of appeal claused into the act. The second criterion of the act authorizes the expenditure of 30 million dollars to acquire land along rivers and streams. Lastly, the third criterion of the act creates an advisory committee of environmentalists, Realtors, developers, and farmers to assist in writing regulations to implement the act. The fourth criterion requires that $100,000 per year for five years is givent to the Environmental Trust Fund to be used by the Department of Environmental Protection for technical assistance and training for conservation commissions to implement the Act." (River Act, 1996.)
The storm management Act is the final component of the Acts for protection to Massachusetts. It is set up to develop, and handle the problems of storm water and runoff for the state. The major river initiative program for the state is the Massachusetts River way program. It is running under a collective of Massachusetts legislation including the Department of Fish and Wildlife and Law Enforcement, the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, and several other state and federal programs."(River ways program, 1995.) The program is designed as a mechanism to address the quality of river ways in Massachusetts. "The primary activity of the River Ways Program is to provide technical assistance and outreach to communities, citizens groups and others on various aspects of river, stream and watershed protection, restoration and stewardship. The responsibilities included are assisting the formation/strengthening of watershed associations of "Adopt-a-Stream" groups, Stream Teams, and other citizen initiatives for the protection of specific rivers/streams. Another phase of the program involves conducting training sessions for citizens on specific river conservation tools and formulating action plans. The River Way program is responsible for disseminating notices of permit reviews and other pending government actions affecting rivers to citizens groups. The program provides guidance on how to evaluate environmental impact, and participate in government decision making; and assisting communities in drafting and adopting river protection bylaws, ordinances and other local regulatory techniques. In addition, the River Ways Program serves as the primary advocate for rivers on a statewide basis, and seeks to protect their natural integrity through a variety of means, such as formulating and promoting statewide policies and legislation for river protection; encouraging increased recognition of the importance and necessity for river and watershed protection within other state and federal agencies and programs. It also encourages the establishment of public/private partnerships, and other joint ventures for river protection in coordination with the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs."(River way program, 2000.) The program is a major factor in management of the watershed ecosystems for the state of Massachusetts. Under the River way program each river area section called a basin area is divided up into areas in the state of Massachusetts. The set up is similar to the EPA basin regions under the CWA listings to the state of Massachusetts. A watershed team leader is chosen to oversee the basin region. The team leader's goal is to work with and create management partnerships, and keep contact with the federal, state, and local organizations, in order to improve the overall quality of water basin areas. Three to four times a year the program addresses issues in the Water Ways news letters. Previous issues include issues of management, new initiatives, and better ways to address the problems encountered in keeping contact. Included in the recent newsletters are a list of all watershed team leaders as contacts. (River way News Letters, 1998, 1999 and ,2000.) The River Way program falls under an extensive initiative prior to the River Act of 1996. The program began initial development in 1987. Today, it has the possibility of becoming a strong program. The goals of the program are rather complex but have been a proven success in management and monitoring. However, the River way's program has little to do with river restoration which seems to be a key solution for the someday elimination of the 303d stream list. Overall, the Massachusetts initiative has started to scratch the surface for improving the quality of ecosystems for waterways on the 303d. "The positive outcomes of the River Act have been some improved areas of Massachusetts rivers, increased budgeting for the waterways, and the possibility for improved water quality."(Chicopee Basin, 2000.)
The River Ways program has successes as well. Strong volunteer monitoring systems help track pathogens in rivers, lakes and streams. This is a positive success, and key for river restoration. By having the knowledge of what pathogens, and toxins, or noxious plants are present in a river -- restoration cost can be reduced dramatically in clean up. Also, there is a unified management strategy between the state, and the team leaders. It is important, to have key
comunication between legislature, federal government and EOEA, DFWLE, and local basin team leaders. The program has had some good successes in strategies on this level.
For every success of the water program, there are still issues which are not addressed by the Massachusetts legislation, Massachusetts Water Acts, and programs. These issues have direct impact on the Massachusetts ecosystem. The River Act of 1996 has issues which need to be sorted. On the first criterion of the act, it is stated that buffer zones are reduced in areas of high population. It is understandable, development along rivers and water front is highly popular. This poses as an increased risk to the rivers, streams or ponds, which the law is intended for. With closer buffer zones on rivers, there is a highly increased chance for pollution from run off.(Umass, 1998.) Effective storm water management can't guarantee a river or stream will remain clean with buffer zones of only 25 feet from highly populated areas. The second problem the River Acts are the problem of budgeting, funds are not distributed evenly through the state for land purchasing. Thirty-million dollars may sound like a lot of money but considering Massachusetts is currently investing 324 million dollars for a new stadium to replace Fenway park--it is not enough investment. Property is more expensive on waterways, then property not placed along water ways. Thirty-million dollars doesn't go as far as it needs it too when it comes to acquiring land along waterways. And often in Massachusetts land is not aqquried where it is nessacary or will be useful. Some purchases have been in riparian buffer zones,
rather then in areas where roads, or other development which could prove hazardous to a clean river. The land acquirement program needs an major overhaul, to be more efficient.
The third problem is the state and EPA, focus on strict monitoring of the rivers. There are no restoration plans that are included under the River Acts and River Ways Program, or Storm Water Management plans. This places an initial failure in the program -- the responsibility is purposely passed on to other programs, such as federal programs like Adopt a Stream and Americorps, and to local organizations and businesses in Massachusetts who work in the clean up sectors.
"The most recent organizations to join in on the effort of river restoration was the girl scouts."(GSC, 2000.) "The EPA has distributed restoration plans and they are available to groups on line, however some recent studies have shown there is more cost effective ways of managing stream clean-ups, that are sometimes missed by a general clean up restoration project. This in the long term can hurt organizations funding in the clean up process. Other problems fall under
the River Ways communication system. Frequently it has been stated there has been a lack of support between the organizations, local towns, Watershed Team Leaders, and the state. This sometimes makes it difficult for action of local projects to go through. Frequently, on the local level there is inadequate communication between the local orginizations working on restoration efforts. Projects in Central Massachusetts have been stalled due to the barriers of communication.
"The last problem is intertwined with the EPA, it is the issues of brown fields. A brown field is considered an area where a company has left, and left its pollution on site. The EPA commonly sites these as "dead zones."(EPA,2000.) These are a problem in New England in general, many old factories exist, and many are near rivers, due to the industries they were involved in. Frequently, chemical pollution is left in the soils and near the rivers-- generally these areas are devalued property. Brown fields pollute the environment, and they are also an economic burden to the cities. The costs of clean up can run into millions of dollars on each site. There is a plan to address brown fields, but the initiatives are slow, and private organizations roles in the brownfields are not strong. It is mainly a state and federal issue.
By no means are clean up efforts failing completely on local or federal government levels, just the process is slow, and budgeting is weak. Overall, there has been some improvements to the Massachusetts waterways on the 303d list. A point of fact on budgeting-- in areas of Massachusetts where EPA ratings are listed as water quality 5, budgeting is less.
Solutions are not always easy when it comes to state laws. Passing bills through legislature is often tricky. Some simple solutions could certainly help speed up restoration, and further help the 303d list from the political front. Increasing the buffer zones in municipal areas from 25 to 100 feet in feasible areas would make some rivers further from civilization. Other reasonable techniques could be implemented within the restoration to guarantee cleaner river ways in those regions.
A solid communication plan between organizations, government, and local legislation in towns under the RiverWays program would certainly also shorten the time between filing for restoration plans, permitting, and beginning the plans, and there would be a stronger support system for carrying through on the restoration efforts.
Perhaps a stronger approach is even more so required. Massachusetts legislation and the Department of Environmental Management, and Department of Environmental Protection could help mandate a law for river restoration efforts. In this law, they could include tax breaks for
corporations helping clean the waterways or offer an incentive program to organizations. Having this added program for restoration would be a very positive step for Massachusetts. Massachusetts including that extra initiative to include a solid plan for river restoration. Would certainly help further reduce the 303d stream list.
Politics certainly play a huge role in the restoration of rivers. However, we must not forget Legislation and the state departments are not the only ones responsible for the 303d stream list in Massachusetts. Federal law, economics and social factors also play a role 303d management. These factors must also be incorporated into the plan. Each is an essential component for solving the issues of Massachusetts water quality and the 303d stream list.
(END OF PART I)
(SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY AT END.)
____________________________________________________________
(PART II)
ABSTRACT: PART II
Economics play a large factor in river restoration projects, and the 303d stream list. Every waterway in Massachusetts is affected in one way or another by economics. Economic factors can include surrounding industry, recreational usage, and the costs of clean up once a stream is placed on the 303d stream
list.Through examining the economic impact on rivers ways, ponds, and streams in Massachusetts though micro-cases. Further understanding, can be brought
forth about needed principle changes in Massachusetts laws and budgeting for the carrying out of stream restoration efforts in the state.
Outline:
Part II
I. Introduction:
A. River Economics.
B. Orginizations Role.
II. Citizen Projects:
A. The Housatonic River Walk.
1. What It is?
2. Rachel Fletchers Role.
3. Significance.
B. Massachusetts Impact:
1. Massachusetts state role in economics
a. Lack of funding.
b. Corrections of problem.
c. Lemonister Mass.
III.Larger Roles:
1. Federal Government
2. Litigation
3. Outcomes - Charles River Inititive
4. Roles of Orgs
IV. Corporations:
1. The Deerfield Project.
2. Orginizations Roles.
3. Policy
V. Other Budgeting
1. The Environmental Trust of Massachusetts
2. Projects and Funds
IV. Conclusion
INTRODUCTION TO MASSACHUSETTS RIVER ECONOMICS AND
ROLES:
(PART II)
Economics play a large factor in river restoration projects, and the 303d stream list. Every water-way in Massachusetts is affected in one way or another by economics. Economic factors can include surrounding industry, recreational usage, and the costs of clean up once a stream is placed on the 303d stream
list.Through examining the economic impact on rivers ways, ponds, and streams in Massachusetts-- better understanding can be gained towards how water-ways are not only harmed but sometimes helped by economics. With this further understanding, there is further possible elimination for the 303d stream list in
Massachusetts. Based on the political set up and the laws that govern the principles for river restoration in Massachusetts— it can be said rivers remain often a local issue with mostly outside politics looking in. This leaves restoration projects and monitoring left up to many local organizations. Many clean up projects in Massachusetts include small and large clean up efforts led by local orginizations.(SEE APPENDIX FOR LISTING OF ORGANIZATIONS.) Restoration efforts by these organizations are important, because it actually
does involve the timely cost of effort and money in the restoration project itself.
Organizations in Massachusetts are blessed and cursed in this way. Organizations are cursed in the way, they very often don't have millions of dollars, and blessed by the fact they often develop cost effective and community strong ways to restore rivers. By examining clean up efforts in Massachusetts-- it truly shows how the organizations and local people sometimes play a strong role in the Massachusetts 303d stream list model.
(Housatonic River Walk:)(Citizen Action):
One of the greatest threats to streams on the 303d list is the problem of trash and debris. The problem is it is not a little trash, each water-way on the 303d stream list faces the threat of being filled with tons of debris, from past and present.
The Housatonic River was just one of those rivers in Mass., and with a great deal of effort-- it is no longer. Great Barrington Mass. was a mill town, and like with many towns in Massachusetts-- a river ran through it. The river was known as the Housatonic River. "Even prior to the mills, the waterway hadn't been used for much other than dumping even since the Mahican Indians (not to be confused with the Mohicans) who blazed a path for Wisconsin in 1724."(BOYLE, 1999.) In later years, when the mills came; people could tell what color fabrics were being made by the river. The left over dyes and waste were pumped into
the river.The river was often turned colors pink, blue or green from the dyes. After the Mills closed, the river was used as a debris dumping ground.
In the early nineties, a women named Rachel Fletcher who worked for the Community Land trust (plus with a few friends) started hauling trash out of the river. People thought it was a ludicrous feat. In the first tries people showed adversity. Fletcher in an interview, pointing across the Housatonic River to the back of an apartment house, stated herself "some guys were sitting on lawn chairs, laughing and tossing beer bottles at us."(Boyle, 1999.) Later on under
Fletcher's leadership, the river was to be cleaned by 1,000 volunteers, with nothing more then hands, shovels, and wheel-barrows. The people of this small town in stretch of the Housatonic, have built a scenic "river walk" trail right behind the town's main street. Unheard of anywhere else, they did it with sweat and tears and civic pride. An all-volunteer feat! "Even the beer guzzlers who heckled Fletcher cleaned up their patch of the riverbank."(Boyle,
1999.) During the clean up effort; teachers at Searles Middle School asked Fletcher to come down stream and clean their bank.In the same interview-- "Fletcher replied, 'No, but we'll train your students to do it.'"(Boyle, 1999.) . Fletcher's true goal was to teach a lesson about civic spirit and environmental stewardship to the 70 eighth graders. Fletcher further quoted, "Those kids just worked like crazy, hauling out vines and enormous amounts of trash. When they
were finished, there was this beautiful nature walk."(Boyle, 1999.) Fletcher is a professional designer of outdoor spaces who devotes 20 hours of each week to River Walk, for no pay"(Boyle, 1999.) The river trail is 825 feet and extending, has been made by the will and might of all those who participated. No feasibility studies, no grand schemes, no big contractors.
This is one of the most significant projects, in the state. It took eight years to complete and 1,000 volunteers. Truly this is what local effort should come to mean. The project has been dubbed a Green Way project and has won a American River Green Way award. However, projects of this magnitude are rare.
As stated earlier, Massachusetts laws sometimes fail to encourage local spirit in clean river restoration projects. The state should really help increase the organizations finacial ability to maintain the area, and help place incentives to other small town communities to follow similar plans, especially where rivers are such local issues such as the case of this one. State incentives and tax breaks for businesses who may want to participate in large clean up projects-would increase projects such as the Housatonic River Walk Project in other towns.
Many other organizations have started implementing similar means to clean up, in Leominister Massachusetts local orginizations have began cleaning up their rivers as well, rather then by hand and shovel-- the people who do river clean up use boats and canoes and lift the heavy debris out of the water.Communities should be awarded grants for these efforts. Money to invest would not only help towns in Massachusetts to be rejuvinated but bring back local
businesses and community pride. The Massachusetts River Acts are good laws. However, the laws don't frequently innitiate these kind of projects. This a
failure which should be addressed in the laws and economics of Massachusetts waterways.
ORPORATIONS AND RIVERS IN MASSACHUSETTS
Recently, in Massachusetts there have been several major efforts by towns, state government, federal government, local organizations and corporations to work towards improving the quality of some rivers after damage has occurred. Often with current policy, restoration efforts are often limited to a few big projects and many more small restoration efforts. Several projects in the state have been brought to the table, by citizens groups suing corporations after the
river has been damaged by pollutants, or after stressful conditions have been brought to the river by these corporations. Two such rivers which exemplify this cause and effect process are the Charles River, and the Deerfield River. Each case is very promininant in river restoration efforts and central to other efforts in Massachusetts.
(A Federal Governments Venture)
The EPA is participating in one large venture to help a Massachusetts River. In 1998, the EPA designed what is known as the Clean Charles River by 2005 campaign; this occurred after several major court cases over enforcement of polluters to the Charles River. The Charles River at the time was one of the worse contaminated rivers in the state. In reaction to this EPA fined several water municipalities with fines pending from 64,000 to 136,000 per polluter. This
greatly benefited the Charles River in a number of ways, not only by making polluters pay but by making the Charles a prerogative for enforcement by the EPA under the Clean Charles River by 2005 initiative. "In the project the EPA has built a broad coalition of allies in its effort to make the Charles River fishable and swimmable by earth Day 2005. Known as the Clean Charles 2005 Task Force, it is comprised of environmental advocacy groups, including the Charles
River Watershed Association, Boston Harbor Associates, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay, and the Friends of the Muddy River, as well as officials from all ten communities bordering the lower Charles, and the MWRA, MA DEP, and MDC. The group meets quarterly and has formed working groups on storm water management and water quality research."(EPACR, 2000.)
"Some of the initiatives of the plan include improved storm water management and the EPA is requiring nine communities that border the Charles River to submitstate-of-the-art storm water management plans by July 1, 1998, and to move forward in their implementation. A advance study is underway to assess the effectiveness of chlorination treatment of CSO discharges used at the Cottage Farm treatment plant. The study will determine if chlorination is an effective tool to kill pathogens in the discharge and whether chlorination adequately protects public health.Discharges from Cottage Farm could constitute as much as 90% of the remaining CSO discharges to the river under the MWRA's CSO control plan, recently approved by EPA and MA DEP and finally a watershed study is being undertaken to identify nutrient loadings, hypoxia levels (low dissolved oxygen) that can choke aquatic systems, the effects of saltwater intrusion, and a study of sediment contamination all of which are important contaminates in accordance to
the 303d stream list. The plans will identify the sources of pollution and recommend alternatives for cleanup." (EPA 2000)
Each step is a costly effort but essential to the restoration of one of the worse contaminated rivers in Massachusetts. The estimated cost of clean up is in
the millions of dollars.
(CORPORATE ISSUES:)
The right to sue is sometimes essential in river economics and social factors pertaining to the 303d stream list. One of the most significant hydro-power projects in Massachusetts occurred on the Deerfield River. History was made on the Deerfield River in Vermont and Massachusetts when a settlement agreement was signed with New England power over these
waterways. Over a dozen resource agencies and other organizations participated. The law suit was completed in 1994, and licensing occurred in the spring of 1997. The completion of the project is estimated to be done by 2000. The agreement, with a mitigation and
enhancement package valued at $30 million dollars. Provides for the protection of over 18,000 acres, improved flows in the river for over 60 miles - 12 miles of river which had been completely DE-watered by diversions and created wildlife and recreational
improvements. Orginizations in Massachusetts are carrying out the needed and significant follow-up work required to make sure the terms of the settlement are implemented,
particularly with the transition of these properties and assets from litigation. Though complicated the overall cost and case, will have direct positive effect for future hydro-projects. However, the careful planning must be carried out by these citizens groups-- dams frequently are not sustainable. Projects for wildlife introduction, and protection from overuse, of the river must be incorporated for such plan to even be considered a success.
OTHER PROGRAMS AND FUNDING
One other major source of grant funding for river projects in Massachusetts is established under the environmental Trust of Massachusetts. "The Massachusetts Environmental Trust is an environmental philanthropy established by the Massachusetts Legislature in 1988 through the settlement of a federal lawsuit over the pollution of Boston Harbor."(ET, 2000.) The Trust is governed by and a board of Trustees appointed by the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. Trust funding programs are designed to encourage grassroots
activity, to address specific environmental needs as determined by the Board of Trustees, and to stimulate cooperative activity among environmental entities.(EVT, 2000).
(SEE LIST BELOW)
Water Grants by the Environmental Trust:
Massachusetts* "FY 2001 GRANT AWARDS GENERAL GRANTS
PROGRAM (Water Quality related grants to the 303d
Stream List)
"Citizens for the Protection of Waquoit Bay - $12,300
CPWB will develop and conduct a survey to collect
demographic data and to raise awareness and concern
about the impacts of nitrogen loading. Working in
cooperation with the Town of Falmouth and the Waquoit
Bay National Estuary Research Reserve, this project
seeks to facilitate public acceptance of comprehensive
wastewater planning solutions.
Friends of the Muddy River - $9,100
Friends of the Muddy River will the stencil storm
drain system in the highly urbanized Muddy River
watershed. The program will alert the public to the
connections of the storm drain system to the river and
will help to reduce pollutants entering the river.
Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions
-
$20,000 To create an Advanced Certificate program in
environmental protection that will
providesophisticated legal and scientific education
for the professionals, semi-professionals and citizens
who administer the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection
Act as well as plan for, acquire, and manage community
open spaces.
New England Board of Higher Education - $18,000
To enable four nonprofit organizations to participate
in the 2000 Environmental Internship Program by
supporting student stipends for internships within
nonprofit agencies working on water resource issues.
New England Mountain Bike Association - $5,000
To rehabilitate a multi-use trail system with major
emphasis placed on restoring a wetland resource
critical to the public water supply in the Town of
Bourne and to educate school children and resource
users of the importance of preserving public drinking
water sources and natural habitats.
New England Wildlife Center - $20,000
To bring NEWC's innovative water education program,
H2O to 2,500 3-5th grade students in the under-served
Boston and South Shore communities of Brockton,
Dorchester, Mattapan, Rockland, Roxbury, Hull and
Weymouth. The students will develop a first-hand
understanding of how water functions in their own
bodies, animals and plants.
Rivverways Program - $10,000
(State Program) Riverways will develop an Urban Rivers
Fellows Program of graduate students to work on five
urban river projects across the state. Issues
addressed by the Fellows may include brownfields
redevelopment, public access, storm-water pollution,
greenway development, and/or habitat/fishery
restoration.
Taunton River Watershed Alliance - $10,000
To conduct BugWatch, a long-term study of benthic
macroinvertebrates in the Taunton River watershed. The
program will supplement TRWA's ongoing water quality
analyses with ongoing habitat assessment and
evaluation of land use changes and will further
efforts to build a school-based watershed education
program.
The Watershed Institute, Inc. - $20,000 To launch an
Ecological Cities Program in Massachusetts to identify
and define urbanecosystems and to provide legal and
technical tools for protecting and restoring urban
natural resources. The central theme is the connection
between land use and water quality.
NEW ALLIANCES PROGRAM Berkshire Regional Planning
Commission - $15,000 To conduct personal interviews
with community residents, municipal officials and
otherstakeholders to collect thoughts about pertinent
watershed perceptions and issues. Theinformation from
these interviews will be utilized to organize
moderated community forums to discuss current issues
and foster greater trust between environmental
agencies and citizens.
Housatonic Valley Association - $15,000
To support the formation of the Housatonic Business
and Environmental Roundtable that will work to
formulate a list of actions to address water quality
issues in the watershed.
Massachusetts Audubon- North Shore Conservation
Advocacy - $20,250
To create a partnership and dialogue between business
owners, representatives from the tourism industry,
chambers of commerce and the environmental community
regarding the value of the area's natural resources
and the barriers to their protection and management.
Research will also be conducted regarding the economic
value of a healthy environment to regional visitor
service and outdoor tourism-based businesses.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
Massachusetts Audubon Society- Broad Meadow Brook -
$14,643 To establish a Quality Assurance/Quality
Control Plan, expand the present monitoring program to
include flow monitoring and macroinvertebrate
sampling, assist the City of Worcester with
implementation of its EPA Stormwater Management Plan
and expand community outreach efforts.
Merimack River Watershed Council - $12,857 To
establish a long-term monitoring program in the
watershed by providing organizational and technical
training and support to newly formed stream teams in
the watershed.
UMASS/Amherst- Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership -
$22,500
To expand the geographic and programmatic scope of
MWWP's assistance to volunteer monitoring groups.
Services include the establishment of technical
advisory committees(TACs), written study
designs/quality assurance project plans (QAPPs), data
interpretation, program review and integration of each
group's efforts with EOEA-sponsored Watershed Teams
and other volunteer monitors in their watersheds."
(MET, 2000.)
Conclusion of Part Two:
Rivers in Massachusetts are threatened not only by pollution, but the political and economic factors as well. Only by understanding the issues, the threats, the economics, and the pollutants-- can we solve the problems for Massachusetts river ways on the 303d
list. A someday elimination of this list is not an impossibility. However, it is a hope that the issues that surround the 303d stream list should be resolved, in order to quicken the elimination of the 303d list.
Bibliography:(Hyper linked: Sources)
(PART I):
EPA:
1. Brown Field information
2. Federa; Water Act and Region 1--maps.
Mass Laws Interpertated:
3. DEM
4 . Federal Wetland Laws:
5.River Act of 1996
6. River Ways News letters
7.River Ways Program 1995-2000
8.Storm Water Management Act
Orginizations:
9. Chicopee Watershed: information/ Basin , 2000.
10. Mashapee River Orginization , 1999.
11. The National Girl Scout Council.
12. WCEI (Western Center for Environmental Information), "303 D Stream list Mass." 1998.
University Research:
13.University of Texas, "Research on Plants being used to increase buffers" 1999.
14. Umass Research on Buffer Zones 1998.
Bibliography:(HyperLink Resources)(part II)
1.EPA Region 1 - Charles River (2000).
2.EPA Office of Wastewater Management (2000)
3.Charles River Reservation (1999)
4.Housatonic River Walk Links; Bolye Interview
(1999)5.Parker River Clean Water Association: Data
(1999)6.Connecticut River Watershed Council -
7. CT River Forum (2000)
8.Massachusetts Environmental Trust; Budget: Boston
Ma. (2000).
9-14.Author Unknown:
EPA Details Aggressive Pollution Prevention and
Enforcement Strategy for the Charles Rive Public
Information ORIGINATOR: Regional Administrator's
Office
PUBLICATION DATE: 03/02/98 ACCESS CONSTRAINTS: N/A
AVAILABILITY: N/A a. Distributor: b. Order Process: c.
Technical Prerequisites: d. Automated Linkage: e.
Downloadable Files: (2000).
Subject: cheer up! Got the glitches out. Final Draft.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 08:30:24 -0800 (PST)
From: lisa dangutis
To: wcei@micron.net
INTRODUCTION TO MASSACHUSETTS RIVER ECONOMICS AND ROLES:
(PART II)
Economics play a large factor in river restoration projects, and the
303d stream list. Every waterway in Massachusetts is affected in one way or
another by economics. Economic factors can include surrounding industry,
recreational usage, and the costs of clean up once a stream is placed on the
303d stream list.Through examining the economic impact on rivers ways,
ponds, and streams in Massachusetts-- better understanding can be gained
towards how waterways are not only harmed but sometimes helped by economics.
With this further understanding, there is further possible elimination for
the 303d stream list in Massachusetts. Based on the political set up and
laws that govern the principles for river restoration in Massachusetts— it
can be said rivers remain often a local issue with mostly outside politics
looking in. This leaves restoration projects and monitoring left up to many
local organizations. Many clean up projects in Massachusetts include
small and large clean up projects led by local orginizations.(SEE APPENDIX
FOR LISTING OF ORGANIZATIONS.) Restoration efforts by these organizations
are important, because it actually does involve the timely cost of effort
and money in the restoration project itself.Organizations in Massachusetts
are blessed and cursed in this way. Organizations are cursed in the way,
they very often don't have millions of dollars, and blessed by the fact they
often develop cost effective and community strong ways to restore rivers. By
examining clean up efforts in Massachusetts-- it truly shows how the
organizations and local people sometimes play a strong role in the
Massachusetts 303d stream list model.
(Housatonic River Walk:)(Citizen Action):
One of the greatest threats to streams on the 303d list is the problem
of trash and debris. The problem is it is not a little trash, each river on
the 303d stream list faces the threat of being filled with tons of debris,
from past and present. The Housatonic River was just one of those rivers in
Mass, and with a great deal of effort- it is no longer. Great Barrington
Mass. was a mill town, and like with many towns in Massachusetts-- a river
ran through it. The river was known as the Housatonic River. "Even prior to
the mills, the waterway hadn't been used for much other than dumping even
since the Mahican Indians (not to be confused with the Mohicans) who blazed
a path for Wisconsin in 1724."(BOYLE, 1999.) In later years, when the mills
came; people could tell what color fabrics were being made by the river. The
left over dyes and waste were pumped into the river.The river was often
turned colors pink, blue or green from the dyes. After the Mills closed, the
river was used as a debris dumping ground. In the early nineties, a women
named Rachel Fletcher who worked for the Community Land trust (plus with a
few friends) started hauling trash out of the river. People thought it was
a ludicrous feat. In the first tries people showed adversity. Fletcher in an
interview, pointing across the Housatonic River to the back of an apartment
house, stated herself "some guys were sitting on lawn chairs, laughing and
tossing beer bottles at us."(Boyle, 1999.) Later on under Fletcher's
leadership, the river was to be cleaned by 1,000 volunteers, with nothing
more then hands, shovels and wheel-barrows. The people of this small town
in stretch of the Housatonic, have built a scenic "river walk" trail right
behind the town's main street. Unheard of anywhere else, they did
it with sweat and tears and civic pride. An all-volunteer feat! "Even the
beer guzzlers who heckled Fletcher cleaned up their patch of the
riverbank."(Boyle, 1999.) During the clean up effort; teachers at Searles
Middle School asked Fletcher to come down stream and clean their bank.In the
same interview-- "Fletcher replied, 'No, but we'll train your students to do
it.'"(Boyle, 1999.) . She noted in that same interview, "It would have been
a whole lot easier for us to do the job ourselves."(Boyle,1999.) Fletcher's
true goal was to teach a lesson about civic spirit and environmental
stewardship to the 70 eighth graders. Fletcher further quoted, "Those kids
just worked like crazy, hauling out vines and enormous amounts of trash.
When they were finished, there was this beautiful nature walk." She is a
professional designer of outdoor spaces who devotes 20 hours of each week to
River Walk, for no pay"(Boyle, 1999.) The river trail is 825 feet and
extending, has been made by the will and might of all those who
participated. No feasibility studies, no grand schemes, no big contractors.
This is one of the most significant projects, in the state. Because it took
eight years to complete and 1,000 volunteers. It is truly what local effort
should come to mean. The project has been dubbed a green way project and has
won a American River Greenway award. However, projects of this magnitude are
rare.
As stated earlier, Massachusetts laws sometimes fail to encourage local
spirit in clean river restoration projects. The state should really help
increase the organizations ability to maintain the area, and help place
incentives to other small town communities to follow similar plans,
especially where rivers are such local issues such as the case of this one.
State incentives and tax breaks for businesses who may want to participate
in large clean up projects-would increase projects such as the Housatonic
River Walk Project in other towns as well.
Many other organizations have started implementing similar means to clean
up, in Leominister Massachusetts local orginizations have began cleaning up
their rivers as well, rather then by hand and shovel-- the people who do
river clean up use boats and canoes and lift the heavy debris out of the
water.
Communities should be awarded grants for these efforts. Money to invest
would not only help towns in Massachusetts to be rejuvinated but bring back
local businesses and community pride. The Massachusetts river acts are good
laws. However, the laws don't frequently innitiate these kind of projects.
This a failure which should be addressed in the laws and economics of
Massachusetts waterways.
CORPORATIONS AND RIVERS IN MASSACHUSETTS
Recently, in Massachusetts there have been several major efforts by
towns, state,government, federal government, local organizations and
corporations to work towards improving the quality of some rivers after
damage has occurred. Often with current policy, restoration efforts are
often limited to a few big projects and many more small restoration efforts.
Several projects in the state have been brought to the table, by citizens
groups suing corporations after the river has been damaged by pollutants, or
after stressful conditions have been brought to the river by these
corporations. Two such rivers which exemplify this cause and effect process
are the Charles River, and the Deerfield River. Each case is very
promininant in river restoration efforts and central to other efforts in
Massachusetts.
(A Federal Governments Venture)
The EPA is participating in one large venture to help Massachusetts
Rivers. In 1998, the EPA designed what is known as the Clean Charles River
by 2005 campaign; this occurred after several major court cases over
enforcement of polluters to the Charles River. The Charles River at the time
was one of the worse contaminated rivers in the state. In reaction to this
EPA fined several water municipalities with fines pending from 64,000 to
136,000 per polluter. This greatly benefited the Charles River in a number
of ways, not only by making polluters pay but by making the Charles a
prerogative for enforcement and the beginning of Clean Charles River by
2005 initiative. "In the project the EPA has built a broad coalition of
allies in its effort to make the Charles River fishable and swimmable by
earth Day 2005. Known as the Clean Charles 2005 Task Force, it is comprised
of environmental advocacy groups, including the Charles River Watershed
Association, Boston Harbor Associates, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay, and the
Friends of the Muddy River, as well as officials from all ten communities
bordering the lower Charles, and the MWRA, MA DEP, and MDC. The group meets
quarterly and has formed working groups on storm water management and water
quality research."(EPACR, 2000.) "Some of the initiatives of the plan
include improved storm water management and the EPA is requiring nine
communities that border the Charles River to submitstate-of-the-art storm
water management plans by July 1, 1998, and to move forward in their
implementation. A advance study is underway to assess the effectiveness of
chlorination treatment of CSO discharges used at the Cottage Farm treatment
plant. The study will determine if chlorination is an effective tool to kill
pathogens in the discharge and whether chlorination adequately protects
public health.Discharges from Cottage Farm could constitute as much as 90%
of the remaining CSO discharges to the river under the MWRA's CSO control
plan, recently approved by EPA and MA DEP and finally a watershed study is
being undertaken to identify nutrient loadings, hypoxia levels (low
dissolved oxygen) that can choke aquatic systems, the effects of saltwater
intrusion, and a study of sediment contamination all of which are important
contaminates in accordance to the 303d stream list. The plans will identify
the sources of pollution and recommend alternatives for cleanup." (EPA
2000) Each step is a costly effort but essential to the restoration of one
of the worse contaminated rivers in Massachusetts. The estimated cost of
clean up is in the millions of dollars.
(CORPORATE ISSUES:)
The right to sue is sometimes essential in river economics and social
factors pertaining to the 303d stream list. One of the most significant
hydro-power projects in Massachusetts occurred on the Deerfield River.
History was made on the Deerfield River in Vermont and Massachusetts when a
settlement agreement was signed with New England power over these waterways.
Over a dozen resource agencies and other organizations participated. The law
suit was completed in 1994, and licensing occurred in the spring of 1997.
The completion of the project is estimated to be done by 2000. The
agreement, with a mitigation and enhancement package valued at $30 million
dollar. Provides for the protection of over 18,000 acres, improved flows in
the river for over 60 miles - 12 miles of river which had been completely
DE-watered by diversions and created wildlife and recreational improvements.
*Orginizations in Massachusetts are carrying out the needed and significant
follow-up work required to make sure the terms of the settlement are
implemented, particularly with the transition of these properties and assets
from litigation. Though complicated the overall cost and case, will have
direct positive effect for future hydro-projects. However, the careful
planning must be carried out by these citizens groups because dams
frequently are not sustainable. Projects for wildlife introduction, and
protection from overuse, of the river must be incorporated for such plan to
even be considered a success.
OTHER PROGRAMS AND FUNDING
One other major source of grant funding for river projects in Massachusetts
is established under the environmental Trust of Massachusetts. "The
Massachusetts Environmental Trust is an environmental philanthropy
established by the Massachusetts Legislature in 1988 through the settlement
of a federal lawsuit over the pollution of Boston Harbor."(ET, 2000.) The
Trust is governed by and a board of Trustees appointed by the Secretary of
the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. Trust funding programs are
designed to encourage grassroots activity, to address specific environmental
needs as determined by the Board of Trustees, and to stimulate cooperative
activity among environmental entities.(EVT, 2000).(SEE LIST
BELOW)
Water Grants by the Environmental Trust:
Massachusetts*
"FY 2001 GRANT AWARDS
GENERAL GRANTS PROGRAM
(Water Quality related grants to the 303d Stream List)
"Citizens for the Protection of Waquoit Bay - $12,300
CPWB will develop and conduct a survey to collect demographic data and to
raise awareness and concern about the impacts of nitrogen loading. Working
in cooperation with the Town of Falmouth and the Waquoit Bay National
Estuary Research Reserve, this project seeks to facilitate public acceptance
of comprehensive wastewater planning solutions.
Friends of the Muddy River - $9,100
Friends of the Muddy River will the stencil storm drain system in the highly
urbanized Muddy River watershed. The program will alert the public to the
connections of the storm drain system to the river and will help to reduce
pollutants entering the river.
Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions - $20,000 To create an
Advanced Certificate program in environmental protection that will provide
sophisticated legal and scientific education for the professionals,
semi-professionals and citizens who administer the Massachusetts Wetlands
Protection Act as well as plan for, acquire, and manage community open
spaces.
New England Board of Higher Education - $18,000
To enable four nonprofit organizations to participate in the 2000
Environmental Internship Program by supporting student stipends for
internships within nonprofit agencies working on water resource issues.
New England Mountain Bike Association - $5,000
To rehabilitate a multi-use trail system with major emphasis placed on
restoring a wetland resource critical to the public water supply in the Town
of Bourne and to educate school children and resource users of the
importance of preserving public drinking water sources and natural habitats.
New England Wildlife Center - $20,000
To bring NEWC's innovative water education program, H2O to 2,500 3-5th grade
students in the under-served Boston and South Shore communities of Brockton,
Dorchester, Mattapan, Rockland, Roxbury, Hull and Weymouth. The students
will develop a first-hand understanding of how water functions in their own
bodies, animals and plants.
Rivverways Program - $10,000 (State Program)
Riverways will develop an Urban Rivers Fellows Program of graduate students
to work on five urban river projects across the state. Issues addressed by
the Fellows may include brownfields redevelopment, public access,
storm-water pollution, greenway development, and/or habitat/fishery
restoration.
Taunton River Watershed Alliance - $10,000
To conduct BugWatch, a long-term study of benthic macroinvertebrates in the
Taunton River watershed. The program will supplement TRWA's ongoing water
quality analyses with ongoing habitat assessment and evaluation of land use
changes and will further efforts to build a school-based watershed education
program.
The Watershed Institute, Inc. - $20,000
To launch an Ecological Cities Program in Massachusetts to identify and
define urban
ecosystems and to provide legal and technical tools for protecting and
restoring urban natural resources. The central theme is the connection
between land use and water quality.
NEW ALLIANCES PROGRAM
Berkshire Regional Planning Commission - $15,000
To conduct personal interviews with community residents, municipal officials
and other
stakeholders to collect thoughts about pertinent watershed perceptions and
issues. The
information from these interviews will be utilized to organize moderated
community forums to discuss current issues and foster greater trust between
environmental agencies and citizens.
Housatonic Valley Association - $15,000
To support the formation of the Housatonic Business and Environmental
Roundtable that will work to formulate a list of actions to address water
quality issues in the watershed.
Massachusetts Audubon- North Shore Conservation Advocacy - $20,250 To
create a partnership and dialogue between business owners, representatives
from the tourism industry, chambers of commerce and the environmental
community regarding the value of the area's natural resources and the
barriers to their protection and management. Research will also be conducted
regarding the economic value of a healthy environment to regional visitor
service and outdoor tourism-based businesses.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
Massachusetts Audubon Society- Broad Meadow Brook - $14,643 To establish a
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan, expand the present monitoring
program to include flow monitoring and macroinvertebrate sampling, assist
the City of Worcester with implementation of its EPA Stormwater Management
Plan and expand community outreach efforts.
Merimack River Watershed Council - $12,857
To establish a long-term monitoring program in the watershed by providing
organizational and technical training and support to newly formed stream
teams in the watershed.
UMASS/Amherst- Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership - $22,500
To expand the geographic and programmatic scope of MWWP's assistance to
volunteer monitoring groups. Services include the establishment of
technical advisory committees
(TACs), written study designs/quality assurance project plans (QAPPs), data
interpretation, program review and integration of each group's efforts with
EOEA-sponsored Watershed Teams and other volunteer monitors in their
watersheds." (MET, 2000.)
Conclusion of Part Two:
Rivers in Massachusetts are threatened not only by pollution, but the
political and economic factors as well. Only by understanding the issues,
the threats, the economics, and the pollutants-- can we solve the problems
for Massachusetts river ways on the 303d list. A someday elimination of this
list is not an impossibility. However, it is a hope that the issues that
surround the 303d stream list should be resolved, in order to quicken the
elimination of the 303d list.
Bibliography:
EPA Region 1 - Charles River (2000).
EPA Office of Wastewater Management (2000)
Charles River Reservation (1999)
Housatonic River Walk Links; Bolye article (1999)
Parker River Clean Water Association: Data (1999)
Connecticut River Watershed Council - CT River Forum (2000)
Massachusetts Environmental Trust; Boston Ma. (2000).
EPA; 2000
TITLE: EPA Details Aggressive Pollution Prevention and Enforcement Strategy
for the Charles Rive
Public Information
ORIGINATOR: Regional Administrator's Office
PUBLICATION DATE: 03/02/98
ACCESS CONSTRAINTS: N/A
AVAILABILITY: N/A a. Distributor: b. Order Process: c. Technical
Prerequisites: d. Automated Linkage: e. Downloadable Files:
RTF is ok Scientific format is Ok. Composition format is OK ( include summary) Use ceei (www.Eco-pedia.org)
to input papers 8th grade, high school, college post grad. www.eco-pedia org has 5 files for you.
under construction
_______________________________________________________________________________________ |
|
|
National Geographic Image Collection/Annie Griffiths Belt |
|
