Massachusetts coastal zone management preview a preliminary program for public review

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

"alai

Coastal Zone
Vq
Information
Center

jo.

I L

4
47

t)EC. 27,
-97

A-QSACHUSETTS COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT PREVIEW

A Preliminary Program for Public Review

- HT393 4401th of Massachusetts
M4 *-A"Wakis, Governor
11 M393 771A
1976
C. I Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
AM *0

Evelyn F Murphy, Secretary
Matthew B. ConnQfly, Director C;b4---)
Ok. "I-

November 5, 1976

MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PREVIEW

A Preliminary Program for Public Review

Matthew B. Connolly, Jr.
Director
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program
100 Cambridge St.
Boston, Ma. 02202
(617) 727-2808

U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASI AL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOESON AVENUE
Michael S. Dukakis, Governor CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

Evelyn F. Murphy, Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs

Planning Staff: Mark Kraczkiewicz, Daniel Calano, Howard Ris,
Rebekah Zanditon, Patricia Hughes, Clara Batchelor

Public Participation/Information: Marc Kaufman, Margaret Reynolds,
Karen O'Donnell

Legal: Michael Ventresca, Robin Lepore

Coastal Review Center: Sara Carroll, Sharon Alexander, Les Smith,
Richard Chaisson, Charles Aldridge

Outer Continental Shelf: Priscilla Newbury, Jamie Fay

WN Cartography: David Weaver, Ray Williams, Christine M. Smyrski

M rk Property of C8C LlbroW

The preparation of this publication was funded by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce under a program development grant to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

EVELYN F. MURPHY
SECRETARY November 5, 1976

Dear Reader,

From its earliest days two years ago, the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Program has represented a new direction on the part of state
government. Governor Dukakis and I are committed to an open participatory
CZM planning process. For example, public meetings were held early on in
the development of Massachusetts CZM to learn about and meet the needs of
citizens and coastal communities. Public information and involvement
received high priority from the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources,
the Board of Advisors to the CZM Program. Regional Citizen Advisory
Committees were formed to insure ongoing local involvement in CZM.

It is with great pleasure that I present you with the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management Preview-A Preliminary Program for Public Review.
This document has been prepared specifically for public scrutiny and review.

The idea for a Program Preview is our own--we are the only coastal state
in the nation to have prepared a "pre-draft plan" report for review by local,
state and federal agencies, interested citizens, organized groups, and our
own Citizen Advisory Committees. I encourage you to read and evaluate the
objectives, background and proposed policies on the six subject areas of
energy and energy facility sitin , ports and harbors, the marine environment,
the visual environment, coastal hazards like erosion and flooding, and
recreation. The Introduction contains a summary of proposed policies, as
well as the background information necessary for you to understand the
history of coastal zone management in Massachusetts. The chapter on Manage-
ment describes the mechanisms available to implement proposed CZM policies.

You will note that Chapter 4 on Coastal Regions is not completed. This
chapter represents an opportunity for you--a place where your thoughts, values
and experience can be brought to bear in coastal resource management. The ten
regional units will be written in the coming months by Citizen Advisory
Committee members with the help of the CZM staff. I invite you to work with
local citizen advisory committees, the Task Force, and the CZM office on the
regional chapters.

We have an opportunity in Massachusetts to bring a more reasoned perspec-
tive to decision making about future uses and activities along our finite
coastline. Together, we can insure the viability of our coastal resources
economically, and environmentally for this and succeeding generations.

Sincerely,

Evelyn F. Murphy
Secretary

GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE ON COASTAL RESOURCES

Thomas B. Arnold, Esq. Omer Godin Dr. Norton Nickerson
Attorney Mass. Beach Buggy Assoc. Pres., Mass. Assoc. of
Conservation Comm.
George B. Bailey Frank Gregg, Chairman
Exec. Committee, MAPC N.E. River Basins Comm. Richard Paine
Barnstable County
Nicola Barletta Philip Herr Selectmens Assoc.
Mass. League of Cities & Towns Philip Herr Associates
Richard Preston, AIDC
Dr. Leo Beranek James Howell Education Foundation
President, WCVB-TV First National Bank of Boston
Leo Rabinowitz
Garen Bresnick Frank Keefe, Director Winthrop, MA.
Mass. Homebuilders Assoc. Office of State Planning
Martha Reardon
John Buckley, NE Petroleum Rep. Richard Kendall South Shore Chamber of
Development Co., Inc. (D-Falmouth) Commerce

Senator William Bulger Roberta Leary, Senator William Saltonstall
(D-Boston) League of Women Voters (R-Manchester)
Land Use Committee
Earle Carter, New Beford Fred Salvucci, Secretary
Property Conservation Dept. Frank Lee Exec. Office of Transpor-
Boston Edison tation & Construction
John Devanney
MIT Sea Grant Rep. Garreth Lynch Howard Smith, Secretary
(D-Westfield) Exec. Office of Manpower
Charles Downe Affairs
Charles Downe Assoc. Joseph Magaldi, Secretary
Mass. Fed. of Planning Bds. Christine Sullivan
Rep. Richard Dwinell Exec. Office of Consumer
(D-Millbury) Byron Matthews, Mayor Affairs
City of Newburyport
Mrs. Barbara Fegan Harold P. Swain
Wellfleet, Massachusetts Dr. George Matthiessan New England Fisheries
Marine Research, Inc. Steering Committee
Joseph S. Fitzpatrick
Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce Kelly McClintock Rep. Henry Walker
Conservation Law Foundation (R-Salisbury)
William Flynn, Secretary
Exec. Office of Communities Senator Alan R. McKinnon Phillip Ziegler
& Development (D-Weymouth) Boston Harbor Assoc.

CZA=A

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF POLICIES

II. COASTAL POLICIES

A. Introduction -
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Boundary 2-A/1

B. Marine Environment 2-B/l

C. Coastal Hazards 2-C/l

D. Visual Environment 2-D/1

E. Ports and Harbors 2-E/1

F. Recreation 2-F/1

G. Energy 2-G/1

III. MANAGEMENT 3-1

IV. COASTAL REGIONS 4-1

V. DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS 5-1

=At*
ICZ

INTRODUCTION @ SUMMARY
OF OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

THE PREMISE

In the course of two years of planning, the staff of the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program, in the Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs, has talked with and listened to hundreds of
citizens. Residents of coastal communities, developers, public
officials, commercial fishermen, and people who come to the Massachusetts
coast for recreation, have come to CZM public meetings, joined
regional Citizen Advisory Committees, or have otherwise expressed their
needs and concerns to CZM staff members. The Office of State Planning
has conducted an extensive local growth planning exercise in coastal
communities. The Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources has brought
a wide and varied range of interests and concerns to the policy
development aspects of Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management. The
CZM program has conducted a statistically valid public opinion survey
of coastal residents. CZM has examined the record of growth and
development along the coastline of Massachusetts for the past several
decades.

From these efforts and discussions, as well as others described
further on in the introduction, a number of primary needs for
management of the coastal zone have become evident:

-The natural resources of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone are among
our most important economic resources. Businessmen, tourists, and
residents alike are attracted to the coastal areas of Massachusetts.Coastal
Zone communities experience sustained pressures for development. The
coastal zone typically supports commerce, industry, transportation,
housing, recreation, and aesthetic needs. However, the very resources
which attract so many interests to the coastal zone, and support myriad
activities and uses, are endangered.

-Many coastal communities claim they do not want extensive new
growth and development. Most recently,Local Growth Policy Committees
have expressed a sentiment against major new growth. But such feeling
is not a recent phenomenon; it seems to have been the prevailing attitude
of the last decade, as confirmed by the CZM public opinion survey.

-Development interests have typically prevailed, when conflicts
between conservation and development proponents have occurred. Many
people urging the protection and preservation of sensitive and valued
ecological areas along the coast are often unheard. Coastal Zone
Management provides an opportunity to elevate concern about the marine
environment to a higher level in the public policy decision making
process.

Therefore, many of the policies in this CZM program preview have
a base in preserving and protecting rich and valuable coastal re-
sources to which Massachusetts can still lay claim. This is an
economic as well as an environmental position. If this were not
the perspective of CZM, our coastline could lose its ability to nurture
valuable fishing resources. It could lose its great recreational
appeal, and its future economic viability could be impaired.

This is not to imply that coastal zone management will preclude
development. But rather, given the fragile nature of much of the
coastal zone and given the existent pressures for development,
priorities for development and conservation must be established.
Protection and preservation of certain critical resource areas must
come first. Development types that depend upon the ocean, or access
to the ocean, hold the next level of priority. Other development
types receive third priority.

Over the long run, CZM's proposed policies to protect our
coastline's natural riches ensures all the residents of the Commonwealth
that the environmental and economic value of the Mass. Coastal
Zone will be sustained, and even enhanced.

1-2

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES AND PROPOSED CZM POLICIES

MARINE ENVIRONMENT

MARINE ENVIRONMENT OBJECTIVES

To protect and enhance the productivity and values of the
marine environment effecting the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

2. To minimize the adverse impact of man's activities upon the
marine environment

3. To guarantee continued production and harvest of renewable
marine protein sources.

4. To insure man's continuing use and enjoyment of the
Massachusetts coast.

MARINE ENVIRONMENT POLICIES

Policy (1) Conserve ecologically significant resource areas for their
contributions to marine productivity and value as
habitats.

Policy (2) Protect complexes of marine resource systems of unique
productivity; ensure that activities in or adjacent to
such complexes are designed and carried out to minimize
adverse effects on marine productivity, habitat value,
storm buffering and water quality of the entire complex.

Policy (3) Ensure that existing water quality standards for all point
source discharge activities are stringently enforced and
that the standards are continually upgraded to achieve
the highest possible conformance with federally promulgated
water quality criteria.

Policy (4) Ensure existing siting criteria, performance standards,
and activity regulations are stringently enforced and
upgraded to reflect advances in related technology and
knowledge of adverse affects on marine productivity and
public health.

Policy (5) Condition construction in water bodies to minimize inter-
ference with water circulation and sediment transport and
to preserve water quality and marine productivity.

Policy (6) Ensure that dredging and disposal of dredged material
minimize adverse effects on marine productivity.

1-3

Policy (7) Accomodate off-shore sand and gravel mining needs in areas
and in ways that will not adversely effect marine resources
and navigation.

Policy (8) Encourage and assist the development of aquaculture,
commercial fisheries research and development, fish
restoration, and anadromous fish enhancement.

COASTAL HAZARDS

COASTAL HAZARDS OBJECTIVES

1. To reduce current losses of property and lives and to prevent
future losses;

2. To preserve and restore coastal landf orms and natural processes
which are essential to the protection of coastal environments
and landward areas; antd

3. To maximize the effectiveness and economic efficiency of
public investment in hazard protection measures.

COASTAL HAZARD POLICIES

Policy (9) When acquiring coastal lands for recreation and open space
purposes, priority should be given to areas that have a
high propensity for tidal flooding and erosion and serve
as buffers for landward areas.

Policy (10) Prevent further growth and development in high hazard areas
and preserve natural buffers throughout the coastal zone.

Policy (11) Use all available review authorities to ensure that all
publically subsidized development wihtin the 100 year tidal
flood zone and private projects proposed for areas below
mean high water will not:

a. exacerbate existing hazards
b. be damaged by flood and erosion-related forces
c. promote growth and development in damage prone
areas or degrade natural buffers.

Policy (12) Provide funding and technical assi-atance for the restor-
ation and stabilization of foreshore and shore areas in
hazardous zones using non-structural measures.

1-4

Policy (13) a. Implement federal or state structural solutions to
protect property and lives in Special Assistance Areas
only when there will be widespread public benefits and
minimal adverse environmental effects.

b. Approve permits for private flood or erosion control
projects only when it has been determined that there
will be no adverse effects on adjacent properties or
down coast areas.

VISUAL ENVIRONMENT

VISUAL ENVIRONMENT OBJECTIVES

1. To preserve, enhance, and restore the integrity of the coastal
zone as a visual unit with unique sensitivities and opportu-
nities.

2. To increase opportunities for visual access to natural and
man-made scenic features and contemporary waterfront activitieE

3. To ensure that the siting and design of major facilities that
are of regional or state concern will be compatible with the
inherent visual qualities of the coastal zone; and

4. To assiF,t in improving compatability between small scale
development and local visual charater.

VISUAL ENVIRONMENT POLICIES

Policy (14) Maintain a state level inventory of visually important
areas within the coastal viewshed that are of regional,
state, or national concern. Include natural areas and
sites of historical, cultural, or commercial significance
that are unique for their scenic and visual attributes or
for their interest and educational value.

Policy (15) Incorporate visual concerns into the early stages of the
planning and design of facilities proposed for siting in
the coastal zone. Establish a design review process for
development that is of regional, state, or national concern

Policy (16) Provide funding or technical assistance to communities and
local conservation commissions in the development of local
zoning and land use controls which can be utilized to
improve visual access and the compatability of proposed
development with existing community character.

1-5
J

Policy (17) Expand visual access in urban areas and provide vi 'ews of
coastally dependent act.ivities with significant educational
or interest value.

Policy (18) a. Provide technical assistance to the Departments of
Environmental Management and Public Works in the
designation and management of Scenic and Recreational
Rivers and Scenic Highways located in the coastal zone.
b. Petition the board of Outdoor Advertising to designate
sign free areas and corridors in the coastal zone,
support the development and implementation of a system
of roadside information service directories, and
provide technical assistance to communities in the
development of local advertising and signage ordinances

PORTS AND HARBORS

PORTS AND HARBORS OBJECTIVES

1. To allow for expansion of economically important water
dependent activities, including fishing, shipping, and other
marine industries;

2. To facilitate harbor improvements needed by fishermen, cruise
and ferry services, and the general boating public;

3. To encourage revitalization and rehabilitation of developed
harbor areas and promote physical and visual access to water-
front for the general public;

4. To protect the marine environment and conserve significant
ecological resources; and

5. To maximize the economic return and public benefit from
publicly supported port and harbor works.

PORTS AND HARBORS POLICIES

Policy (19) Encour age water-dependent industrial development in port
areas. Deter preemptions of present and proposed water-
dependent industrial uses by favoring the use which is the
more limited in its physical or economic options. Permit
non water-dependent industrial uses when such use would
not preempt forseeable water-dependent industrial uses.

Policy (20) Promote the widest possible public benefit from port and
harbor and channel dredging and ensure such proposals are
consistent with marine environment policies.

1-6

Policy (21) Encourage, through technical and financial assistance, the
expansion of water-dependent uses in port areas and
developed harbors where the risks of damage to the marine
environment are minimal.

Policy (22) Encourage urban waterfront redevelopment and renewal in
developed harbors in order to link residential neighbor-
hoods and commercial downtown areas with physical and visual
access to the waterfront.

RECREATION

RECREATION OBJECTIVES

1. To improve the quantity and quality of coastal recreational
opportunities for all citizens of the Commonwealth.

2. To improve public access to coastal recreation resources.

3. To ensure that the improved quantity and quality of coastal
recreational opportunities are provided while minimizing
conflicts, over-utilization and economic environmental impacts

4. T6 involve citizens and user groups in the further planning,
development and management of public coastal recreational
facilities.

5. To suggest, initiate and conduct research into areas of
special needs for coastal recreation and to develop management
standards and criteria for utilization in public recreational
facilities and areas.

5. To promote tourism where appropriate through the provision,
improvement, and diversification of coastal recreational
amenities.

RECREATION POLICIES

Policy (23) Improve public access to coastal recreation facilities,
and alleviate auto traffic and parking problems, through
improvements in public transportation.

Policy (24) In addition to expanding major access, link existing
coastal recreation sites to nearby coastal inland
facilities via trails for bicycles, hikers and equestrians,
and via rivers for boaters.

Policy (25) Expand existing state or local recreation facilities in
regions with a high need.

1-7

Policy (26) Increase capacity of existing recreational areas by
facilitating the multiple use of the site and by improving
maintenance. Resolve conflicting uses whenever possible
through improved management rather than through exclusion
of uses.

Policy (27) Facilitate expansion and improvements of private
recreational facilities and sites that provide public
coastal access.

Policy (28) a. Acquire and develop new sites favoring small to
moderate size facilities, in conjunction with trans-
portation improvements, in deficient regions especially
where there are few remaining opportunities.
b. Give lower priority to acquisition of larger sites
except under the following circumstances:

1) When high recreation potential, waterfront
military sites become available
2) When special floodplain purchases become
available (refer to Coastal Hazards Section).
3) When sites with ci.itical environmental visual,
or other unique characteristics become available
(refer to Areas for Preservation or Restoration
in Management).

ENERGY

ENERGY OBJECTIVES

1. To provide adequate sites for needed energy facitilies

2. To allow for an adequate supply of energy

3. To ensure that coastal energy facilities are sited and
designed to minimize impacts on the marine and visual
environment.

ENERGY POLICIES

Policy (29) Maximize use of existing marine terminal capacity.

Policy (30) Discourage siting of tank farms on the coast.

Policy (31) Accomodate new base load LNG facilities or additional LNG
deliveries where and when the risks to public saf.ety and
the environment are minimized.

Policy (32) Consider siting of electric generating facilities in
non-coastal areas.

1-8

Policy (33) Evaluate refinery and deepwater ports and site:s to
ensure that proposed facilities and sites will cause
minimum harm to the coastal environment. Ensure that
facilities make use of technology that minimizes public
health and safety risks.

1-9

THE SITUATION

Behind Massachusetts CZM's proposed policies are people--residents
of the Commonwealth with varying needs, demands, and concerns tied to
the coastal zone. In developing proposed policies, these are the kinds
of concerns CZM addressed:

A Northshore fisherman: "I've fished out of Gloucester for 23
years and I know the commercial fishing industry is in trouble. Our
ships are old, our children don't want to become fishermen. Many of
our harbor facilities need to be repaired and expanded. We can't
compete with the foreign fleet off-shore on Georges Bank. And now
they're talking about off-shore oil development in our prime fishing
area - Georges Bank! We need help. What can be done to help fisher-
men?"

A Boston area resident: "Sure I like the beach. My whole family
likes to lie on the sand and to swim. But if I don't want to go to an
MDC Beach in Boston, where can I go? A hundred miles to the Cape Cod
National Seashore? 50 miles to Crane's Beach? I can't go to any
other beaches -- they're mostly private or for town use only. I'd Ir
like to see more beaches open to everyone. What is CZM doing to
solve this dilemma?"

A Southshore home builder and developer: "I think there has to
be a change in the way towns and the state treat developers. You
canit imagine how hard it is to put up a subdivision these days what
with all the waiting periods, reports, permits, different forms ...
everybody wants something else. My carpenters and electricians want
to work. What can you do to cut through all the red tape?"

A Southeastern Mass. planning board member: "I want my town to
be a prosperous and growing community. But I want the town to be at-
tractive too. It's hard making decisions sometimes when we don't have
the exact expertise. It would be helpful to call upon a resource per-,
son like a lawyer, a-planner, or a marine biologist - but the town
just can't afford that. The state may have funds or people available,
but can we trust the state? Can CZM help here?"

A Cape Cod conservationist: "I'm a member of the Association for
the Preservation of Cape Cod (APCC), and several other civic groups.
I don't want development to overrun Cape Cod. Most of us moved on to
Cape Cod to get away from crowds, long lines, and traffic. We want
to see Cape Cod preserved as a special part of Massachusetts, a rural
open place. There's precious little room for large scale development
here. Will CZM help us to preserve Cape Cod?"

A Worcester resident: "I don't live along the coast and that
makes me a second class citizen when I want to go swimming, boating,
or fishing along the ocean. I've been turned away or locked out of

1-10

beaches and launching areas. I've just about stopped going to the
beach for the day - unhappily. Is it possible for CZM to help non-
coastal residents too?"

Each of these citizens' examples have one thing in common --
they have a need or series of needs tied to coastal resources. The
Massachusetts coast is a place for people - carpenters, sailors,
sport and commercial fishermen, office workers, longshoremen, fac-
tory workers, business people, store owners, home owners -- and very
often a place of conflict when the needs of different interests meet
one another in an area of finite resources. Disputes arise: build
vs. conserve, local vs. state control, private vs. public beach ac-
cess, accept vs. reject onshore facilities tied to offshore oil de-
velopment, protect vs. develop critical coastal ecosystems.

The Massachusetts coast supports commerce, transportation, in-
dustry, recreation, housing, tourism and energy facilities. The
Massachusetts coast is rich in history and tradition and still
serves as a preserve of open space, a place to contemplate the past,
observe the present, and dream about the future. However, uses and
values conflict in the coastal zone. Quite often differing activi-
ties demand the same resources, the same scarce or fragile piece of
land and water. It is impossible to meet the needs of all of the
conflicting demands for uses and activities along the coast in a
finite resource area. The policies and proposals in this document
attempt to resolve conflicts where possible, and to establish values
and priorities for coastal areas and resources to help mitigate con-
flicts in the future.

THE MASSACHUSETTS COAST

The Massachusetts coast winds and meanders over an incredible
1,200 miles of rocky shore, sand beach, productive estuaries, fragile
salt marshes, massive urban harbors, smaller town harbors and marinas,
wide open spaces, tidal flats, and dozens of islands. It is one of
the longest state coasts in the country - longer even than that of
California.

For over 350 years, the Massachusetts coast has offered protec-
tive shelter, natural ports, and a means of commercial livelihood
for generations of Americans new and old. Much of the history and
evolution of the United States eminates from Massachusetts' ports of
call -- Newburyport, Ipswich, Salem, Boston, Plymouth, Provincetown,
New Bedford, Fair Haven, Fall River, Edgartown, and Nantucket.

Massachusetts' coastal traditions and values live on. Many of
our people still live by the sea, work by the sea, and recreate by the
sea. Some 40% of the state's population lives in Massachusetts' 87
coastal communities, an area representing less than a quarter of the
land mass of the Commonwealth. More than half of all current develop-
ment in the state occurs in the coastal zone. Many suburban and rural

1-11

coastal communities have experienced two-fold, three-fold, and in some
cases four-fold increases in population over the past ten years. This
is especially true for the south shore suburban communities and some of
the towns on Cape Cod. Simultaneously, the former nerve centers of
Massachusetts' life, our urban ports, have experienced declining popu-
lations and revenues. Boston, Salem, New Bedford and Fall River fall
into this category.

The coast often supports facilities and industries important to
the economy of the entire state. Three-fourths of all energy supplies
enter Massachusetts through an urban port. 80% of all electric power
generating plants in the state are located along the coast. Tourism
is a $1.2 billion industry in Massachusetts. More than half of this
income is generated through tourism in coastal areas. Commercial fish-
ing, including fresh and frozen fish processing, and supporting trans-
portation and marketing services, is a multi-million dollar industry.

Much of the growth and development in the Commonwealth since
World War II has been unplanned and uncoordinated. The implications
of this process are just beginning to surface.

Over the 20 year period, 1951-1971, 39% of the crop land and 26%
of the pasture land in a coastal strip about a half mile wide, has been
lost to other uses. The amount of land used for housing, commerce, and
industry has increased 34%. Land consumed by transportation facilities
has increased by 27%.

The long term implications of this growth pattern have come to
haunt many coastal communities. For example:

--Boston's handsome urban waterfront was forgotten when the cen-
tral artery cut the harbor off from the city in the mid 1950's.

--Many suburban coastal communities have found themselves in the
seemingly endless cycle of accommodating new housing development,
which in turn created new demands on municipal services such as schools,
fire protection, police, water, sewer services, road maintenance, etc.
Developments were often poorly planned, and valuable open space lost.
To pay for new municipal services communities increased property tax
rates and encouraged more new housing development. New development
continues the cycle.

--Valuable wetlands were filled, shellfish flats polluted., and
critical coastal areas lost; homes were built in hazardous flood
prone and erosion prone areas along the coast, such as on barrier
beaches. '

--Many Massachusetts communities began to feel the impacts from
developments in neighboring communities. Regional problems took on
new importance.

1-12

Solutions to issues and problems of erosion, flooding, dredging,
sewage treatment, protection of critical environmental areas and re-
,sources, transportation, economic development, port redevelopment,
harbor management, marine development, air and water quality planning,
improved -@ecreation facilities and access, energy facilities siting,
and large scale housing or industrial developments -- all call for a
broader perspective, a regional or state perspective as opposed to a
purely local perspective. The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone
Management in the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs attempts
to provide a regional or state wide perspective on issues and problems
that transcend town boundaries. Massachusetts CZM will not interfere
with traditional decision making important only to a single locale.

NATIONAL COASTAL ETHIC

More than half of the nation's population lives in the counties
bordering the oceans and the Great Lakes. The 31 coastal and Great
Lakes states contain more than 75% of the U.S. population. Commerce,
jobs, recreation, climate, and a coastal aesthetic are among the rea-
sons coastal areas are such people magnets. Large population aggre-
gations often create additional problems.

Three national studies conducted during the mid 1960's-1970's
(The National Pollution Study, 1969; The National Estuary Study,
1970; and Our Nation and the Sea, a report from the Federal Commis-
sion on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources) convinced Congress
that coastal areas were in immediate danger and need. Pressures from
population growth, water pollution, and large scale unplanned develop-
ment were wreaking havoc on ecosystems and resources important for the
natural protection of the coast, for maintaining future water quality
and supplies, and essential for protecting productive ecosystems as a
part of the ocean food chain. Our Nation and the Sea had stated, "The
key to more effective use of our coastline is the introduction of a
management system permitting conscious and informed choices among de-
veloped alternatives... for this productive region in order to ensure
both its enjoyment and sound utilization."

In 1972, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA),
which offered coastal states an opportunity to develop comprehensive
land and water use management programs. All but one of the 34 states
and territories eligible for the voluntary CZM program have requested
CZM program assistance.

The language of the Coastal Zone Management Act is quite explicit.
Congress declared it to be the national policy, "To preserve, protect,
develop, and when possible to restore or enhance the resources of the
nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations..." Ulti-
mately, Congress passed CZM legislation to help states develop and
implement "management programs to achieve wise use of land and water.

1-13

resources of the coastal zone giving full consideration to ecological,
cultural, historic and aesthetic values as well as to needs for eco-
nomic development."

Like all coastal states, Massachusetts was allowed three years of
funding to develop a CZM plan. Once a plan is reviewed by local
citizens and officials, members of the legislature, and state and fed-
eral agencies, it is submitted by the Governor to the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Commerce for approval. Massachusetts will then re-
ceive large annual federal grants to implement the plan.

Congress was more concerned with the "process" devised by each
state in developing management programs rather than with any specific
land or water use decision. States must address six planning themes
in preparing management programs. They include:

- an identification of the boundary of the coastal zone - how
far inland and seaward does the area to be managed extend.

- a definition of land and water uses within the coastal zone
which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters.

- an identification of the means by which the state proposes
to control those land and water uses having a direct and signifi-
cant impact on coastal waters.

- an inventory and designation of critical areas within the
coastal zone requiring special management for development or conser-
vation.

- establishing priorities for uses in particular areas, includ-
ing specifically those uses of lowest priority.

- a description of the organizational structure proposed to im-
plement the management program including the responsibilities and
interrelationships of local, regional, and state agencies in the man-
agement process.

While these six themes do not appear as chapter headings in this
Program Preview, they serve as the underlying basis for the organiza-
tion and content of the document.

MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL ETHIC

Massachusetts has a tradition of looking forward and of thinking
about future programs, policies, and directions. The Commonwealth was
first in the nation to pass legislation to protect irreplaceable coast-
al and inland wetlands. The establishment of local conservation com-
missions served as a model for the rest of the nation. The state was

1-14

first in establishing a series of town forests. Our rich and varied
past supports this quality of thinking. One goal of the Massachusetts
CZM Program is to establish a broad vision for the future of our coast-
al areas "for this and succeeding generations."

Rather than support past patterns of unplanned growth and develop-
ment, many of the policies prepared in this Preview attempt to pre-
scribe a vision of the Massachusetts coastline 20, 40, and 60 years
from now. Proposed CZM policies have evolved from new information and
insight, and new understandings on the part of citizens, local offi-
cials, scientists, and CZM planners. The overriding goal of CZM's
proposed policies is to maximize coastal use, activities and develop_
ment for the greatest number of people in the Commonwealth.

The coastal zone is a finite resource. Except for accretion and
erosion,the size of our coastline remains relatively stable. Land use
economics suggest that at some point the finite resourcesof the coast
will become unaffordable to any but the very wealthy. Seventy years
ago, beach land on Cape Cod sold for $7.00 an acre. Today, the same
acre of ocean front land can cost $1 - 1.5 million. Land values will
only increase. One part of the future vision of the Massachusetts
coastline calls for a more accessible, more usable coastline by larger
numbers of people. Increasing casual and active recreational opportu-
nities can benefit large numbers of citizens.

Certain coastal resources must be conserved if they are to be re-
used in the future. Sport and commercial fishing, and recreation fit
this category. Conserving those resources of the coastal zone import-
ant for maintaining water quality and supply is another example. The
CZM vision for the coastal zone seeks to allocate wide use and develop-
ment of the coast while recognizing the needs for replenishment of re-
newable resources.

Economic development of the Massachusetts coastline of the future
is a must. However, the ways and means of development and expansion
should recognize the aesthetic aspects of coastal areas, the natural
systems of the coastal zone, and the need to replenish the living and
non-living resources of the coastal zone.

The coastline of the future can be a place where uses and acti-
vities mix and support one another. Revitalizing urban port areas
and providing for visual and physical access can make for a thrilling
urban coastal experience. Watching a 50,000 ton ship pull into port '
fishing from a harbor pier, or waiting for the fishing fleet to return
from Georges Bank are exciting public events.

1-15

CITIZEN VALUES

Many of the values, priorities and policies in this Preview were
developed with the help of hundreds of citizens. The Governor's Task
Force on Coastal Resources, a group of 41 volunteers representing the
Legislature, all levels of government, and major user groups in the
coastal zone, served as CZM's Board of Advisors. A series of Citizen
Advisory Committees representing coastal communities worked month by
month to insure that CZM policies meet the needs of sub-areas of the
coast. CZM conducted a statistically valid public opinion survey of
1000 randomly selected coastal residents to further ascertain the
needs and desires of coastal citizens. Finally, CZM staff members
have met with over 2000 citizens and officials in several series of
public meetings.

GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE

The Governor's Task Force established a series of goals which
served to guide Task Force activities and the long term CZM planning
effort. Many of the ideas in this Program Preview developed from
these goals and from CZM work products directed by the Task Force.
These goals are:

--to develop a coastal zone management program which builds
upon the Commonwealth's strong tradition of local government, but
which also allows the state to make decisions on matters with far_
reaching impacts on the coastal zone, or on the state as a whole..

--to encourage commercial, industrial, port, and energy facil-
ity developments which are required to meet the Commonwealth's so-'
cial and economic needs, and to locate such development in the areas
which can best absorb those activities without damaging the coastal
environment or conflicting with neighboring activities.

--to improve public access to coastal land and waters which are
important for recreation and leisure activity, and to provide better
opportunities for those people now restricted or prevented from en-
joying the recreational use of coastal lands and waters.

--to protect coastal land, water, and living resources of ma-
jor significance from pollution and over-use, and to preserve from
development areas of natural productivity and areas prone to damage
from floods and hurricanes.

--to protect and preserve areas of valued coastal scenic charac-
ter, especially those areas providing clear unobstructed views of
coastal lands and waters.

--to encourage economic revitalization of urban coastal water-
fronts through siting of facilities, redeveloping and restoring ports,

1-16

and improving physical and visual access to urban waterfronts.

--to protect coastal water supply, coastal water quality, and
coastal air quality as plans evolve for future growth and develop-
ment.

--to insure a program that meets local needs by placing em-
phasis on citizen and community participation in the evolution of a
CZM plan and management system.

--to begin to plan for the potential on-shore and near-shore as-
pects of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas development as a
part of the Commonwealth's CZM program (though not yet a part of the
CZM Preview).

--to encourage orderly growth in developing areas, and to en-
courage revitalization and new growth in urban areas with growth po-
tential.

--to develop a management system sensitive to the Commonwealth's
fragile natural resources, and recognizing future economic, social,
environmental, aesthetic, and historic needs. The management system
should provide for a careful review of developments of regional import-
ance, and provide mechanisms to guide future growth and development.

These goals are consistent with the long term growth policies
established by individual local growth policy committees, the Legis-
lature through the Wetmore Commission, and the Commonwealth's long
term growth and development needs established by Governor Michael S.
Dukakis.

Each of these groups seek economic revitalization for the Com-
monwealth. However, they recognize the need to develop around exist-
ing institutional infrastructures such as energy and transportation
facilities. They understand the need to slow urban and suburban sprawl
and the concommitant need to protect remaining farm and pasture land
from development. A consensus to develop future recreational opportu-
nities close to population centers has developed. Overall, the bene-
fits of planned economic development have been accepted by the Com-
monwealth. The Task Force's goals respond to this trend.

CZM SURVEY

Task Force goals parallel many citizen goals as established
through the CZM public opinion survey. The survey supports the notion
of a special Massachusetts Coastal Ethic.

CZM was told in its public opinion survey that people who live in
the coastal zone enjoy where they live. Massachusetts' traditional
seafaring character is an important factor in their enjoyment of the
Massachusetts coast. Eighty-three percent of the people surveyed

1-17

expressed "character" to be a very important or somewhat important
part of their enjoyment of the coast. This parallels the Task Force's
goals of protecting and preserving areas of valued coastal character.

Citizens who live in the coastal zone are generally optimistic
about their area. Thirty-five percent of those sampled said their
area will "improve" (assumed to mean quality of life and economic
well being) over the next five years, while 32% thought their area
would remain the same.

Citizens expressed concern over natural problems like erosion and
occasional flooding. Many more have concern over the siting of major
industrial developments like power plants, refineries, and other energy
related facilities. Consistent with the Task Force's goals, the great
majority of people look to a combination of state and local authority
to deal with the siting of major developments, and the resolution of
some problems caused by natural forces.

When asked to order four potential coastal uses, citizens chose
open space/conservation first, recreational facilities second, hous-
ing third, and industrial/commercial activities fourth.

The pattern held true when we asked how federal financial re-
sources should be allocated in dealing with coastal issues. In the
rank ordering, improved water quality came up first, beach and recre-
ational improvements second, housing development third, and attracting
commerce and industry fourth. Task Force goals on improving recrea-
tional facilities, maintaining coastal character, and maintaining
coastal water quality, are supported by these survey results.

When choosing among six industrial/commercial uses, commercial
fishing and fish processing, small shops and restaurants, and tourist
accommodations, were chosen above electric power plants, heavy manu-
facturing and shopping centers.

Housing is a desired coastal use, but so is improved access to
the shoreline for active and passive recreation. Citizens were gen-
erally in favor of opening up the entire shoreline between high and
low tide to public use. Some 49% felt that "lateral rights of access"
should exist, while some 30% were opposed to the idea. This response
supports the Task Force's notion of improving access.

A majority of residents went to the beach last year (76%), and
more than half went boating at least once.

Overall, the survey results support a future coastal image where
people have opportunities for passive and active recreational pur-
suits, where the quality of life is high, where traditional values
and activities can exist, and where, with careful planning and fore-
thought, future growth and development can be accommodated.

1-18

CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEES

CZM established a series of Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC) to
meet the need of having an on-going, regular group of local-regional
participants to evaluate, guide, and at times prepare parts of the
CZM Preview. The CAC's served as a final check on the values and
perspectives underlying Massachusetts CZM. The CAC's meet monthly
on a regular basis and have a major role in the value and priority
setting evidenced in the regional chapter of this plan which is now
under preparation. CAC membership consists of an appointee of the
mayor or board of selectmen, as well as representatives of the major
user-interest groups in the area.

The seven Advisory Committees verified and updated maps and other
planning documents, helped in setting local priorities and needs, and
are helping to apply broad policies to regional areas. CAC members
are responsible for making sure CZM meets the needs of their region
of the coast.

PAST PLANNING AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

The CZM staff was determined to draw upon all existing resources
in its planning and participation activities. Early in the program's
development, CZM staff planners visited and collected reports and
documents pertinent to coastal zone management fron individual town
halls, regional planning agencies, universities, state agencies, in-
terstate agencies, and federal agencies. Much time was spent synthe-
sizing and correlating this information. The process enabled CZM to
view issues comprehensively, to know what information existed, and to
know what information and data would have to be collected.

One of the most important of these resources proved to be the
New England River Basins Comnission's-Southeastern New England Study
(SENE). SENE had established recommendations for growth and develop-
ment for much of Southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island in a 3-1/2
year planning program. The SENE project had included wide public in-
volvement and served as an introductory guide to citizen and community
desires. Some 50% of Massachusetts CZM's initial planning data came
from SENE, saving the Commonwealth much time and expense.

After reviewing the SENE Study, the Task Force directed the CZM
staff to study past development trends, alternative means of guiding
growth and development, and to evaluate the efficacy of using exist-
ing state and local laws, to deal with problems and issues in coastal
areas. The Task Force was interested in maximizing public investments,
protecting fragile resources, preserving the coastal feel and tradition
important to residents and tourists alike, and ways to make develop-
mental opportunities more efficient and assured.

1-19

MANAGEMENT

After careful analysis, CZM has concluded that state and local
governments have the basic administrative, legal, and institutional
means available to do much of what is necessary to apply CZM policies
and to manage future growth and development. Recognizing that Massa-
chusetts has both strong state government and strong local government,
what is needed is a new era of mutual support and cooperation between
these two levels of government, and the development community which has
had such a large say in the siting, scale and density of developments.

The SENE Study had stated "Municipalities should continue to
make the bulk of land use decisions because they are of local signi-
ficance. For these development decisions which because of their size
or effect on certain critical resources will affect more than one
community, a regional or state perspective will be needed." CZM
agrees with this conclusion.

Under CZM, the state will play a more effective "resource role"
to communities providing information, technical assistance, and spe-
cialized personnel when needed, on the local level. The state's role
vis-a-vis certain developments of regional impact, including energy
facilities, solid waste and sewage treatment plants, and new trans-
portation systems, is clarified in this plan. With additional fund-
ing from CZM, communities can expect improved administration of exist-
ing state laws.

The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering has undergone
an internal reorganization which will help CZM to reach many of its
goals. Some regulatory laws will be administered on a regional basis,
allowing state laws to better meet regional and local needs. A com-
prehensive permit tracking program will help to keep the state to a
known time schedule. A comprehensive permit application form will
simplify permit application procedures. Overall, these changes will
help to streamline and unify the Commonwealth's environmental regula-
tory programs, and to reduce the amount of time necessary to receive
state environmental decision on projects. This will all be accom-
plished without any loss in the depth or quality of state analysis in
permit approvals.

State funded resource personnel will be available upon request
to assist local units of government to respond quickly, reasonably,
and in a more informed manner to local permit approvals. If desired,
CZM will prepare a series of model land use by-laws which communities
may choose to adopt to improve conditions in the locale.

Each of these improvements require a new era of cooperation be-
tween local government and state government. It is only through this

1-20

symbiotic relationship that government can effectively guide growth
and development into those areas able to sustain development, and to
protect and conserve critical environmental resources.

THE PROGRAM PREVIEW

Each chapter of this draft Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Plan has a distinct purpose. Chapter II contains a series of long
term state coastal policies on the marine environment, coastal haz-
ards, visual access and quality, ports and harbors, recreation and
physical access, and on energy related uses of the coastal zone.
These statements of state policy will guide state programs and acti-
vities in coastal areas. 'Under the federal CZM Act of 1972, federal
activities must be brought into compliance with these policies as
well. This plan allows the state to have expanded influence over fed-
eral activities in the state's coastal zone. A summary of the poli-
cies and implementation measures for each section of Chapter II con-
cludes the unit.

Chapter III of the plan is on Management, and includes an in-
depth analysis of Coastal Zone Management under existing institu-
tional and administrative structures. This Chapter deals with the
central issue of how to implement broad coastal policies in moving
from planning to action.

The policies in Chapter II are broad, and not applied to speci-
fic geographic areas. Overall coastal policies will be applied spe-
cifically to ten regions of the coast in Chapter IV. The regions
include: Cape Ann-Ipswich Bay; Lower North Shore; Greater Boston
Harbor; South Shore; Plymouth-Kingston-Duxbury; Buzzards Bay; Mt.
Hope Bay; Cape Cod; Martha's Vineyard; and Nantucket. This part of
the plan will be site specific in the application of policies, and
will represent the combined efforts of Citizen Advisory Committee
members. CAC's will lead the task of completing respective regional
sections of Chapter IV. The CAC's have already done a substantial
amount of work in establishing use and activity priorities for their
communities.

Leaving much of the substance of the regional chapters incom-
plete places a special responsibility on you, the reader. As you
read the chapter on state policies and concerns, think about how the
policies might apply to your area. Then, join with your CAC to make
sure that the final CZM plan meets the overall needs of your community.
A list of CAC contacts is located on the reverse side of the map.

1-21

CITIZEN

A,
ADVISORY
UPPER
NORTH
COMMITTEE
SHORE
REGIONS

LOWER
NORTH SHORE

M A S S A C H L'S E T T S

8 A i

BOSTON HARBOR
xk1c .1
-cl

SOUTH
61i11.1-
SHORE

@41

PLYMOUTH

IA I-

@WAREHAM

MOUNT
HOPE
@3. BAY

T.
CAPE COD
BUZZARDS

BAY

01
-FFS NAN7UCKET sou.-
Sl TIS.11Y

MARTHAS
VINEYARD

NANTUCKET
T

IAI

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

1-22

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Upper North Shore Karen O'Donnell
Coastal Zone Management
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
(617) 727-2808

Lower North Shore Karen O'Donnell

Boston Harbor Marc Kaufman
Coastal Zone Management
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
(617) 727-2808

South Shore Margaret Reynolds
Coastal Zone Management
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
(617) 727-2808

Plymouth Margaret Reynolds
or
Michael Medeiros
Southeastern Regional Planning and
Economic Development District
7 Barnabas Road
Marion, MA 02738
(617) 748-2100

Cape Cod Wendy Franklin
Cape Cod Planning and Economic
Development Commission
Court House
Barnstable, MA 02630
(617) 362-2511

Buzzards Bay Michael Medeiros

Mount Hope Bay Michael Medeiros

Martha's Vineyard Michael Wild
Martha's Vineyard Commission
P. 0. Box 1477
Oak Bluffs, MA 02557
(617) 693-3453

Nantucket William Klein
Nantucket Planning and Economic
Development Commission
Broad Street
Nantucket, MA 02554
(617) 228-9625

1-23

(ZA=ll
I

COASTAL POLICIES

INTRODUCTION

This Chapter is divided into seven separate sections. The first
describes the coastal zone boundary. The other six present the pro-
posed long-term coastal policies relating to the marine environment,
coastal hazards, the visual environment, ports and harbors, recrea-
tion, and energy. These policies are to apply to the area within
the Massachusetts coastal zone boundary.

Each of the policy sections opens with a concise summary of
findings and coastal zone management concerns. These are followed
by a discussion of problems, needs, and opportunities, which are
then reflected in a listing of CZM objectives for each program
element. Each section concludes with a set of proposed policies
and recommendations and a description of the means by which these
policies are to be implemented.

MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY

A basic first step in the development of any management plan
is the identification of the boundaries of the land and water areas
that a) must be studied to develop effective management policies
and b) will be affected by implementation of the plan. In most
cases, these two types of areas will coincide, thus defining the
overall boundary of the land and water resource study area.

Definition of the coastal zone boundary with which this manage-
ment plan is concerned requires consideration of the complex inter-
relationships between natural components of the coastal zone sys-
tem and between these components and the human activities which use
and affect them. For example, waves and currents sculpt the bar-
rier beaches, bluffs, embayments, and rocky shores that character-
ize our coast, linking them together through the transport of sedi-
ment material offshore. The tides support development of salt
marshes, and distribute decomposed salt marsh grasses, called de-
tritus, to coastal waters which in turn supports the primary spe-
cies of the complex marine food chain upon which species harvested
by man depend. Fresh water flows over the land into estuaries and
salt ponds creating brackish habitats for the many fish and water-
fowl harvested by sportsmen. Many of these same coastal embay-
ments serve as vital transfer nodes between land and sea transpor-
tation systems, facilitatingthe import of energy supplies and raw
material for Massachusetts industries outside the coastal zone.
Other embayments serve as commercial fishing ports or as quiet
harbors for recreational boaters. Beaches provide coastal zone
residents with unmatched recreation opportunities and provide the
stimulus for bringing in tourists from other parts of the Common-
wealth.

2-A/l

In developing a definition of the boundary or boundaries
within which these relationships can be adequately studied, CZM
has drawn heavily on existing federal and state legal interpre-
tations. The Coastal Zone Management Act defines the coastal
zone as "the coastal waters (including the lands therein and there-
under) and the adjacent shorelands (including the waters therein
and thereunder) (that are) strongly influenced by each other ... and
includes transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands,
and beaches. The zone extends..seaward to the outer limits of the
United States territorial sea. The zone extends inland from the
shorelines only to the extent necessary to control shorelands, the
uses of which have a direct and significant impact on coastal
waters." With this definition as a starting point, CZM is using a
two tier approach to define the coastal zone with which it is con-
cerned. The first tier of the coastal zone delineates all land
extending from the three mile territorial sea boundary to the
landward side of coastal wetlands. These coastal wetlands are
defined by the Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act (Massachusetts G.L.
Chapter 130, Section 105) as any "bank, marsh, swamp, meadow, flat,
or other low land subject to tidal action or coastal storm flowage."

The second tier is less easily identified. The Coastal Zone
Management Act -stiplates that management should cover areas inland
from the shoreline that are "necessary to control shorelands, the
uses of which have a direct and significant impact on coastal
waters." Existing Massachusetts law acknowledges the importance of
some of these inland areas. The Wetlands Protection Act (Massachu-
setts G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40) includes within its jurisdic-
tion "any bank.... wetland, beach, dune, flat, marsh, bordering on
the ocean..." Regulations issued by the Commissioner of Environ-
mental Quality Engineering under this Act define "bordering" as
including the land 100 feet horizontally landward from the water
elevation of the 100 year storm, or, if greater, 100 feet horizon-
tally landward from the bank of any beach, dune, flat, marsh, mea-
dow, or swamp. The Wetlands Restriction Act (MGLA, Chapter 130,
Section 105) includes within its jurisdiction "such contiguous land
as the Commissioner reasonably deems necessary to affect by any
such order" carrying out the purposes of the Act.

The second tier should also encompass the inland portions of
harbors. Maritime shipping and other harbor related uses can
have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters because of
the dredging, bulkheading, and land transportation development they
require and because of the run-off from paved surfaces around them.
The inland zone necessary to manage such activities effectively,
generally speaking, is the area between waterfront transportation
access routes and navigable channels. In adddition, to manage beach
recreation the second tier should include the shore roads providing
access to beaches. Finally, areas of scenic character or
coastal vistas can be marred by unsuitable development or by struc-
tures blocking views of the coast. The second tier boundary there-
fore must also include the inland limit from which views of the
coastline are possible.

2-A/2

Additionally, many citizen advisory groups participating in
the development of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program
have expressed a desire that the final coastal zone boundary be
broad enough to include areas that might be impacted by major develop-
ments. Not all citizen advisory groups have had a full chance to de-
fine for their region the inland extent of these concerns. Since the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program seeks major public in-
put to help define this aspect of the boundary, the final determi-
nation of the boundary has not yet been made. However, once decided
upon, the boundary should be clearly identifiable, and would encom-
pass wetlands, uplands contiguous to coastal wetlands, inland sites
within ports, major development areas and such other inland areas
as the participation process deems significant to include.

Within both the first and second tiers, specific areas that
contain important natural and man-made features have also been iden-
tified. These areas, which have been mentioned above, include dif-
ferent marine environments, potentially hazardous areas, recreation
sites, scenic areas, developed commercial and industrial lands, and
productive land and waters. Because of their role in the coastal
environment all of the above sites are often referred to as critical
areas. In order to clarify their significance, the CZM plan has
created three levels of critical areas: Significant Resource Areas,
Areas for Preservation and Restoration, and Special Assistance Areas.

Significant Resource Areas include the land and water areas
mentioned above and have been broken down into general types for
analysis and discussion purposes. They have been mapped and veri-
fied by the Citizen Advisory Committees and serve as the basic units
to which the policy options expressed in later sections apply.

Areas for Preservation and Restoration are areas of greatest
significance and represent only the most pristine natural Signifi-
cant Resource Areas. These will also be designated as areas of
critical environmental concern by the Secretary and will be sub-
ject to the strongest regulatory controls.

Special Assistance Areas are sites which warrant special plan-
ning and funding, primarily because of their development capabili-
ties and their value as loci of coastally dependent activities.
The purpose of identifying such areas is to ensure that public funds
and programs will be used to promote wise use of coastal resources.

Each of these categories of areas are discussed in the follow-
ing sections in terms of what makes them important and how they
can best be managed. Policy options are generated for each cate-
gory, but are not applied on a site specific basis until Chapter 4.
In that chapter (now under preparation), maps, commentary, and
specific management recommendations for areas with the regions of
the Coastal Zone will be presented.

2-A/3

CZA=t*
I
The Marine Environment

MARINE ENVIRONMENT

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The marine environment is one of the most valuable natural resources
in Massachusetts. It provides a source of protein: finfish, shellfish,
crustaceans, and algae. Unlike oil or coal, marine resources are
renewable, provided stocks are well managed and habitats are not
destroyed.

The port of New Bedford is one of the largest fresh fish ports on
the east coast. Fish landed here is shipped west to market as far as
the Mississippi. Massachusetts lobsters are air-freighted to California
and to Europe. The southern waters of the state sustain the only com-
mercial bay scallop fishery in New England.

The salt marsh complexes of our coast provide a nutrient source
upon which the entire marine food chain depends. Estuaries, salt ponds
and shallow coastal embayments also provide nutrients and energy for
marine life. These water bodies are areas of high primary productivity
the conversion by plants of solar energy to chemical energy - and are
valuable as spawning and nursery areas for finfish, shellfish, and
crustaceans.

Migratory birds, particularly waterfowl and shorebirds; also are
greatly dependent upon the salt marshes, tidal flats, and protected
waters of Massachusetts for feeding and resting areas.

The salt marshes and barrier beaches of the state act as storm
buffers for the land behind them. These same barrier beaches,along
with sandy beaches are prime recreation areas. The coastal waters of
the state are utilized not only for commercial fishing but for sport
fishing, recreational boating, and swimming as well. All of these
activities are dependent upon clean and productive waters; a degrada-
tion of water quality would restrict or lessen their availability and
attractiveness for these activities - activities upon which many coastal
communities rely for income and employment.

Manis activities can degrade or destroy the biological, buffering,
and recreational qualities of the marine environment. If the fishery
resources of the coast are to be maintained for the benefit of future
generations, the coastal systems upon which they depend must be pro-
tected. Dredging and filling of salt marshes and tidal flats must con-
tinue to be halted or appropriately conditioned.

We must also guard against other adverse impacts on marine pro-
ductivity: the chronic, sublethal effects upon marine organisms
resulting from the discharge of hazardous substances into coastal waters,
the stress of overloading semi-enclosed water bodies with nutrients from

2-B/l

municipal treatment facilities, and in estuaries in particular, the
disruption of natural cycling and energy transport patterns through
physical interference with natural water movements. Positive steps
toward conditioning these activities will also serve to preserve and
enhance the quality of our coastal waters upon which so much recreational
activity depends.

If habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds is to be preserved and if
the recreational and scenic attributes of the coast are to be kept for
future generations,restriction of activities in barrier beach systems
and other coastal environments will be necessary. If left intact, these
environments will naturally protect existing inland areas.

Positive, more active steps must be taken to enhance the production
of finfish, shellfish, crustaceans, and algae. Restoration of anadromous
fish runs, promotion of aquaculture, and improved shellfish management
can increase the benefits accrued by man from the marine environment.

COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS, THEIR VALUE AND IMPORTANCE

In the following section, the various marine environments comprising
the Massachusetts coastal zone are discussed in terms of their ecological
significance. These environments are: salt marshes, barrier beaches,
estuaries, salt ponds/coastal embayments, open coastal waters and
rocky shores.

SALT MARSHES

, The salt marsh may be divided into two major zones: the high and
low marsh. The high marsh, flooded during high tides and storms, is
dominated by salt tolerant grasses, primarily salt meadow cordgrass,
Spartina patens. Most of the organisms found in the high marsh belong
to terrestrial groups such as fiddler crabs, insects, spiders, small
mammals, and many birds which use it for nesting sites.

The high marsh acts as a landward buffer for the low marsh. Fresh
water drainage from uplands is slowed by the more inland vegetation and
absorbed by the sediment layers of the upland-high marsh border. This
aids in retaining the saline influence necessary to the maintenance of
the more seaward portion of the salt marsh.

The low marsh, flooded at each tide, is dominated by salt marsh
cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora, and macroalgae such as rockweed,
Fucus spp. It is the low marsh which contributes the greates t amount of
organic matter to coastal waters. In association with S. alterniflora
are the micro- and macro- scopic algae which live on the marsh bottom,
and around the stems of the plants and which contribute to marsh
productivity.

2-B/2

The organisms associated with the low marsh are primarily marine.
They include polychaete worms, the filter feeding mussel, Modiolus
demissus, an important phosphate cycler, and snails. Carnivorous fish
and crabs enter the low marsh to feed at high tide, whereas birds and
rodents are predators when the tide recedes.

The salt marsh system acts as a physical buffer. The network of
roots and rhizomes binds large amounts of sediment together forming a
hardened peat layer with successive years of growth. This peat layer is
resistant to erosion and helps to dissipate storm wave energy, that
would otherwise strike low lying developed areas. (see Coastal hazards
section)

Salt marshes play a vital role in the production of organic matter
and nutrients and their release into estuaries and coastal waters. In
terms of organic output into other ecological systems, salt marshes are
among the most productive in the world. Salt marshes produce 30-50 tons
of organic matter/hectare/year as compared to annual agricultural plants
which may produce 20-30 tons of organic matter/hectare/year.1 It is in
the role of organic exporters that salt marshes reach their greatest use-
fulness. At least 45% of salt marsh production is removed by the tides.2
Therefore, maintenance of coastal shell-and finfisheries requires the
protection of salt marshes.

The production of organic matter begins with light energy falling
on the grasses of the open marsh. This energy, through photosynthesis,
is converted to organic products. At summer's end stems and leaves of
the marsh plants begin to die and break off. Incoming tides collect
this material, called detritus, and carry it back and forth across the
marsh. Eventually, the tides carry the detritus into estuaries and
salt ponds, and subsequently into coastal waters.

Throughout this transport, microbes break down the plant material
into smaller and smaller particles. Marine organisms ingest the
particles of detritus, digest the microbes, and egest the particles.
Once back in the water, the particles are recolonized by microbes, and
ingested again in a continuing recycling process until the detrital
particles are completely decomposed. These detrital particles are food
for deposit feeding organisms, which receive their nutrition from con-
suming the top sediment layers for detritus, microalgae, and bacteria.
The deposit feeders are in turn food for bottom feeding fishes such as
winter flounder, tomcod, weakfish, and cunner.3

Many species of economic importance depend upon this type of
coastal environment during all or part of their life cycles. For
example, adult winter flounder move into coves, bays, and estuaries
from January to April for spawning. Larvae, hatched from egg clusters
deposited on the bottom, are not very mobile, and tend to stay in the
general spawning area where they are dependent on marsh related food
sources such as copepods, larval marine forms, and detritus. As the
juveniles increase in size, the range of food species increases to

2-B/3

molluscs, polychaetes, and euphausids which,like the lesser components
of the food chain are dependent on the primary productivity of the marsh.

As winter flounder get larger, they move out of the spawning and
nursery areas in the summer to nearshore waters or considerably off-
shore and return for spawning in the late fall. During this movement,
they are available to species higher up in the food chain including
man, himself.4

BARRIER BEACHES

Barrier beaches are built by longshore transport of sand from up-
current beaches. Lying between barrier beaches and the original shore-
line are coastal embayments, estuary mouths, or salt ponds, and fre-
quently associated with them are saltmarsh-tidal flat systems.

When unaltered by human activity and development, barrier beaches
are among the most dynamic of coastal environments, constantly being
reshaped by wind and wave forces and the effects of the slowly rising
sea level. Sand is brought to barrier beaches by the littoral drift
(currents parallel to the shore), washed up on the beach face, and then
transported via wind landward when dry. Beach grass traps the sand and
stabilizes dunes formed by wind transport. Dune sand can be redistri-
buted by wind or overwash (the overtopping of the dunes by sea water
during storms) and may be deposited in backshore areas or contribute to
marsh development. Inlets may also be periodically formed when storms
breach the dunes. If unaltered by human activity, inlets may eventually
be closed by sand deposited by the littoral current. Thus, the barrier
beach systems may be constantly shifting in shape and size.

@ Barrier beaches act as seaward buffers for the semi-enclosed water
bodies, marsh systems, and inland areas behind them,maintaining necessary
levels of salt-fresh water mixing and the transport and deposition of
bottom sediments. Barrier beach systems and the marsh-flat systems
usually associated with them are also extremely important as nesting
areas for terns, gulls and other species as well as migratory stopover
sites and feeding areas for many shorebirds. These shorebirds feed
along the exposed flats and among the marsh grasses protected by the
barrier beach.5

ESTUARIES

An estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal body of water which has a
free connection with the open sea and is thus strongly affected by tidal
action. Within the estuary sea water is mixed and measurably diluted
with fresh water. Estuarine systems may include other coastal environ-
ments such as salt marshes, mud flats, eelgrass beds and/or barrier
beaches. The major estuaries in Massachusetts are shown on the accom-
panying map.

2-B/4

MAJOR COASTAL

twuR, -wc
SYSTEMS
MERRIMAC
RIVER
-T
E - ESTUARY
CE - COASTAL
PARKER RILVER
EMBAYMENT
ESSEX BAY

-Tl GLOUCESTER
HARBOR
4
BEVERLY-SALEM HARBOR

LYNN-SAUGUS HARBOR
MASSACHUSETTS

B A Y
DORCHESTER BAY
HINGHAM BAY
QUINCY BAY

NORTH RIVER

IT
PROVINCETOWN HARBOR

PLYMOUTH-KINGSTON-
E-E
DUXBURY BAY
LL OEET

WELLFLEET
.1 CAPE COD
r
0, Hm,
'A HARBOR

43 ABLE HARBOR
BARNST
SANDY NECK

WEWEANTIC -T
TAUNTON RIVEE RIVER-Y
,,MOUNT HOPE BAY."!
BASS
RIVER
PLEASANT
ACU HNET" LEWIS BAY BAY
RIVER@
E UOIT BAY
WESTPORT N SOUND
'U"S'
RIVER CAPE. POGE

;E @T14 NANTUCKET
HARBOR

KATAMIA BAY

-EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIR
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

2-B/5

Because of the shallowness of the water in estuaries, light pene-
trates throughout most of the water column and water temperatures are
warmer than in deeper, more open coastal water. Land runoff from fresh
water inflow and organic matter produced by salt marshes supply carbon,
nitrogen, and phosphorous compounds essential to marine productivity.

Estuaries also provide physical environments which support a
variety of habitats for all types of marine life. In general, most
estuarine bottoms consist of discrete areas of clay-silt, clay-silt sand,
and sand-rock substrate. These bottom types in combination with the
availability of nutrients, the water velocity, and salinity regime,
determine the distribution of organisms within the estuary. For each
habitat, the organisms living there have developed strategies for
survival.

The clay-silt bottom is located where weak currents exist, which
allow for the settling of fine substrate particles and organic matter.
The upper few centimeters of this bottom are easily moved as detritus
and broken fragments of seaweeds are continuously deposited.6 This
deposition makes clay-silt bottoms high in organic content.

The clay-silt community is composed primarily of deposit feeders.
Deposit feeders ingest particles of organic matter found in or on the
sediment layers of the bottom. Since currents are low here, organic
matter settles out, providing nutrition for a large number of deposit
feeders. Some of the most common organisms of this community are the
bivalves, Nucula proxima, the polychaete worm, Nephthys incisa, and
a variety of other polychaetes and amphipods.

Eelgrass establishes itself where the water velocity is low enough
to allow its root system to take hold and is usually associated with
clay silt bottoms. Benthic vegetation such as eelgrass stabilizes sedi-
ments and reduces turbidity which would reduce light penetration. This
stabilization of sediments by eelgrass aids in enhancing nutrient
cycling within the estuary. Less turbid water allows for an oxygen-lesi3
(anaerobic) sediment layer in which microbial degradation of chemical
compounds takes place. The end products of this degradation are made
readily available for uptake by plants and other marine organisms. These
chemical reactions, since they have taken place in anaerobic sediments,
do not tax the dissolved oxygen concentration of the estuary, which at
times can be limiting to biological activities.

Beds of eelgrass provide habitat for larval and juvenile fishes as
well as. a surface for shellfish spat attachment particularly for the
bay scallop. Sessile organisms, such as, hydroids, may also attach to
eelgrass stalks and gather food from surrounding water. Eelgrass plants
die and decay each year, providing a vital source of organic matter for
consumption by deposit feeders, and for transport throughout the estuarine
system and into coastal waters.

Clay-silt bottoms when either exposed at low tide (intertidal) or
still covered with water at low tide (subtidal) comprise a mudflat.

2-B/6

The most common inhabitants of mudflats are the soft shell clam,
Mya arenaria, the clam worm, Neries spp., mud crabs and mud snails, and
seaweeds including sea lettuce, Ulva lactuca, and enteromorpha,
Enteromorpha intestinalis.

Substrates consisting predominately of clay rather than sand offer
more surface area for binding by organic matter. Therefore, clay-silt
bottoms act as chemical "sinks," concentrating nutrients or chemicals
within the sediments.7 Certain seaweeds inhabitating clay-silt sub-
strates also may act as receptors for much of the chemical, or nutrient,
load produced by salt marshes. Some scientists theorize that these sea-
weeds are stimulated to release nutrients on the incoming and outgoing
tides.8

Clay-silt-sand substrates are located in areas which are influenced
by faster moving wa 'ter currents than clay-silt areas. The clay-silt-sand
community is made up primarily of filter feeders, organisms which pump
water through their systems and remove microscopic algae and organic
matter. These organisms feed on food particles suspended in the faster
moving water, while organisms inhabiting clay-silt areas are dependent
on deposition of food particles. Some of the dominant organisms in this
community include amphipods, quahaugs and razor clams, and polychaete
worms.

The clay component of clay-silt-sand substrate is significantly less
than in the clay-silt substrate. Therefore there is less nutrient ad-
sorption; the substrate supports fewer organisms to rework the sediments
and resuspend some of the sediment-bound nutrients.

Sand-rock substrates are found in areas where there is an active
current of water, which keeps the area in a dynamic state. Sand-rock
substrate is often times located at the mouths of estuaries and most
commonly in front of a beach system. Since these areas are too unstable
for many deposit feeders, most organisms found there are mobile: crabs,
small shrimp, and conchs.

The abundance of benthic and pelagic life in shallow water bodies
attracts many fish species, that spend all or part of their life cycle
here. Fish such as sticklebacks, killifish, and silversides spend all
of their lives in an estuary and are important food fish for other fishes.
Winter flounder, weakfish, smelt, menhaden, and sand launce utilize
estuaries as spawning and nursery grounds.

Bluefish and striped bass are attracted to the mouth of estuaries
because of the abundance of menhaden. Anadromous fish species, such as
alewives, b.lu eback herring, and shad utilize estuaries in their run to
fresh water spawning grounds, and the juveniles use the estuaries as
nurseries during outmigration.

SALT PONDS

In Massachusetts, salt ponds are found generally on the southern

2-B/7

side of Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard. They were once fresh water
bodies, and are now characterized by brackish water and a barrier beach
system. Salt ponds are shallow water bodies affording light penetration
to the bottom throughout most of their area, supporting dense stands of
eelgrass and high shellfish productivity. Fishes commonly associated
with salt ponds include the hogchoker and the white perch. The American
eel and the alewife are also common to salt ponds, the former spending
a few years in the fresh water source during maturation, the latter
using salt ponds in its run to fresh water spawning areas. Salt ponds
are typically fringed by Spartina alterniflora, but rarely bordered by
a more developed marsh system.

COASTAL EMBAYMENTS

Coastal embayments are characterized by a restricted opening to the
ocean and often a barrier beach system. They are shallow, and some
support healthy stands of eelgrass and populations of shellfish. Most
coastal embayments have well developed salt marsh systems, and may or
may not be associated with an estuary. (See preceding map.)

Productivity, nutrient cycling, and benthic communities of salt
ponds and coastal embayments are similar enough to estuaries that the
reader is referred to that discussion for further detail.

OPEN COASTAL WATERS

There are two major surface water circulation patterns which effect
the coast of Massachusetts. The general and seasonal variation of water
movement along the coast is influenced by a combination of factors:
1) amount of river run-off, and its modification of horizontal salinity
gradients 2) horizontal temperature gradient; 3) frictional drag of the
wind;'and 4) effect of Coriolis force on tidal motion in restricted waters.

Figure Numbers refer to accompanying map.

FIG. 1 - The first pattern is a counter clockwise water current
(gyre) in the Gulf of Maine. In the winter this gyre flows
southerly, along the eastern side of Cape Cod and into Great South
Channel, which lies between Nantucket Shoals and Goerges Bank.
FIG. 2 - In the spring, this gyre encompasses all of the Gulf of
Maine and circulates water from the Scotian Shelf and Brown's Bank.
FIG. 3 - During the summer, it flows northerly into the Bay of
Fundy or westward from southern Maine, into Massachusetts Bay,
and diverts either into Cape Cod Bay or easterly to Georges Bank.
FIG. 4 - By autumn the southern side of the gyre breaks into a
drift across Georges Bank.
The second major surface water circulation pattern is a
clockwise gyre originating on Georges Bank.
FIG. 5 - In the winter, this water current has a westerly flow
across Great South Channel circulating water around Nantucket,
the south side of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and into Buzzards
Bay.
2-B/8

FIGURE:

1 2 ..........

Ao f

.............. ..............

Ire.
9 10
......... ...... . ..... ...........

-----------------

2B/9

FIG. 6 - By spring, the northerly side of this gyre converges with
the Gulf of Maine gyre and flows south. In the summer, the
eastern side veers southerly off shore.
FIG. 7 - By autumn the western side breaks down into a westerly
and southerly drift. A bottom water circulation pattern tends to
bring water back towards the shore, and may carry some sediments
with it.
FIG. 8 - In the Gulf of Maine gyre, affecting Cape Ann-Ipswich Bay,
Massachusetts Bay, and Cape Cod Bay, the bottom drift next to the
coast tends to flow directly to shore. Further offshore, in
deeper water (greater than 100 meters), the bottom drift tends to
parallel the shore.
FIG. 9 - The eastern side of Cape Cod is influenced by the clockwise
bottom drift of Georges Bank. There is a net drift to the west and
across Great South Channel.
FIG. 10 - From Great South Channel to southern Rhode Island, there
is a net bottom drift in a northwesterly direction. This influences
Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, the south side of Cape Cod, and
Buzzards Bay.9

Water circulation patterns, temperature and salinity gradients, and
bottom types help to determine the marine organisms living off the coast.
Cape Ann-Ipswich Bay is typified by a mud bottom with scattered areas of
sand. Certain areas within the Bay are spawning locations for haddock
and red and white hake. Massachusetts Bay is characterized by a sand and
sand"gravel bottom, and certain bottom areas are being considered for
sand and gravel mining. Atlantic herring spawn in the Bay, and Stellwagen
Bank is an important in-shore spawning site for haddock.

Cape Cod Bay has a center of mud, with sand along the Cape Cod rim,
beyond the 60 foot curve. There are a few rocky areas and a large shoal
on the eastern side, Billingsgate. Nantucket and Vineyard Sounds have
sand bottoms and some shoal areas along the northeastern side of
Martha's Vineyard and between Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.
Buzzard's Bay has a central strip of mud and sand, with rock along the
northwestern and southeastern sides. Studies seem to indicate that
Buzzard's Bay is an important area for lobster spawning and may con-
tribute a large portion of larvae.to Cape Cod Bay via the Canal; Fish
such as weakfish, scup, and butterfish are caught in these waters.

The bottom along the eastern side of Cape Cod is sand and gravel,
while the bottom south of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard is sand with
areas of mud. Extensive beds of ocean quahaugs and sea clams are
common to this part of the Massachusetts coastline.-- There is a large
shoal area between the two islands, as well as shoals off the south-
eastern end of Nantucket.

South of Cape Cod, Massachusetts waters are influenced by the warm
water of the Gulf Stream; surface water temperatures reach 20C in summer
months. North of the Cape is influenced by a cold water current, the
Laborador. Surface water temperatures rarely reach 20C in the summer.

2-B/10

This difference in water temperature influences the distribution of
marine species north and south of the Cape. This difference also
influences the distribution of terrestrial flora and fauna.

ROCKY SHORES

The rocky shore of Massachusetts extends from Rockport to Scituate.
In the geologic past the north shore was composed of granite hills which
have been worn down, while the more southern rocky coast is glacial
in origin.

The rocky shore is the most dynamic of coastal environments, and
some plants and animals are uniquely adapted to survive there. The
rocky shore affords no protection to its inhabitants, as does for instance,
a mudflat.

Rocky shore life is distinctly zonated, from the splash zone of the
rocks to the subtidal zone. The splash zone is that area which is not
inundated by water, but sprayed. Blue-green algae and lichens make up
the splash zone and give a black appearance to the rocks. The next zone
is the balanus, comprised primarily of filter feeding arthropods
(barnacles).

Below the balanus zone is the brown zone, dominated by rockweed,
and knotted wrack. This zone is partially exposed at low tide. Here
also are found blue mussels, dog whelks, and periwinkles.

Below the brown zone is the red zone, the beginning of the subtidal
zone. Here are found the red seaweeds Irish moss, sea laver, and
encrusting red algae. Below the red zone in the deeper subtidal area
are the kelps. These large brown algae comprise the last zone, the
laminarian. Here also are found sea squirts, species of starfish, and
the sea urchins. Epiphytic organisms like the bryozoans and hydroids
live attached to the fronds of the kelps and to rocks.

The organisms living here have adapted to most rigorous conditions,
because they are continually subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and
wave impacts. All the organisms in the black, balanus, and brown zone
are exposed to the sun and dry air for hours each day. This exposure,
although short, causes water loss and reduction or cessation of
photosynthesis.

The plants of the rocky shore are fairly resistant to mechanical
damage, though abrasion from sand in the water can be responsible for
keeping algae from the rocks near sandy beaches. The algae of a rocky
shore are sensitive to reduced light intensities and will soon die if
subjected to high turbidity levels.10

2-B/11

MAJOR ACTIVITIES IMPACTING COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS

This section discusses certain activities and their effects upon
the coastal marine environment:

Physical Alteration
Sewage Treatment Facilities
Power Plant Siting
Hazardous Substances
PCB's
Heavy Metals
Chlorine
Oil in the Marine Environment
Hazardous Chemical and Solid
Waste Disposal
Pesticides
Septic Systems/Cesspools
Recreational Boating
Dredging/Dredge Disposal
Offshore Sand and Gravel Mining

PHYSICAL ALTERATION

"The most productive zone in many estuaries ip the zone of transi-
tion including the intertidal and adjacent subtidal areas. This is
especially true where there is a minimum of wave generated turbulence
and the sediments are stabilized. Such rich bands are found along the
edges of salt marshes and may consist of tidally exposed mud banks.
These intertidal banks and mudflats are more productive than most of
the world's oceans."ll

Bulkhead Construction

As discussed earlier, intertidal and adjacent subtidal areas are
usually areas of high standing crops of organisms, and provide the
initial habitat for many post-larval and juvenile fishes and crustaceans.

These shallow intertidal and subtidal fringe areas can be completely
destroyed by bulkhead construction since the purpose of such construction,
usually, is to provide deep water for boat access. Eliminating the
shallow water areas reduces the concentration of detritus, the production
of plankton, and, since the photic zone no longer extends to the bottom,
the number of benthic organisms inhabiting the area.

Construction of bulkheads may also adversely alter natural circula-
tion and create stagnant areas which can develop into "sinks" for
pollutants. Overtime, adjacent productive areas would be seriously

2-B/11A

affected. Further, any type of marine construction which may restrict
or prohibit the tidal flushing of salt marshes will cause slow death to
the marsh and a drastic reduction in species diversity and biomass in
surrounding waters.

Filling

The filling of salt marshes and intertidal areas is ecologically
damaging. As discussed in a previous section, salt marshes are
invaluable contributors to coastal productivity. Intertidal areas also
contribute to coastal productivity, since these areas collect organic
matter and support a biological community which is grazed on by juvenile
fishes of many species.

The filling of a salt marsh results in death of the marsh plants,
and cessation of organic matter export, since the tides can no longer
flush the marsh. Filling of intertidal areas results in a direct loss
of nursery areas and salt marsh behind. The benthic community is
smothered by the fill, and tidal flushing of the marsh system behind is
halted.

Ditching

The ditching of salt marshes for mosquito control is another activity
which affects the tidal flow in marshes. Ditching began in the Great
Depression days, as afederal employment program and is continued today
by county mosquito control projects. The purpose of ditching is to drain
the high marsh, dominated by Spartina patens, in order to reduce areas of
stagnant fresh water where mosquitoes breed and allow fishes which prey
on mosquito larvae, such as sticklebacks and killifish, to enter the marsh
on the tide.

Marsh ditches are usually cleaned out mechanically every three years.
The ditch material is piled to one side or the other of the ditch. This
deposition has two adverse effects: (1) the plants underneath are killed,
and (2) the spoil is colonized by plant species not found there before
since the area is no longer flooded on each tide.

If ditch spoil is improperly placed, it can create a depression
which will trap salt wate'r and create a panne. A panne is an area within
the marsh which has a salt concentration too high for Spartina alterni-
flora.or patens. These plants di'e and more salt tolerant plants, such
as glasswort,colonize the panne. Along the sides of the ditch, spoil
will slump towards the center, and S. alterniflora will colonize the
slopes of the ditch.

From an ecological standpoint, evidence neither supports the premise
that salt marsh ditching is beneficial, nor indicates it is harmful to
the salt marsh community, if properly done. Environmentally, ditching
of salt marshes for mosquito control is significantly less harmful and
dangerous than the use of pesticides for control.

2-B/12

Alteration of Fresh Water Inflow

Fresh water inflow into estuarine systems is as important as salt
water. Restriction or termination of fresh water inflow can have a
number of serious effects. Less fresh water inflow results in increased
salinity of waters within an estuary; this increase results in a loss of
the area as a nursery ground for fishes and other organisms whose toler-
ance for saline waters in early life stages is low. Also, many of the
forage organisms associated with estuarine waters cannot tolerate
increased salinity levels.

Spawning areas for anadromous fish species such as alewife, shad,
blueback herring, and the American eel, would be lost if fresh water
inflow were restricted.12 This loss of spawning area reduces the popu-
lation numbers of these fish species.

Highway construction often impedes fresh water inflow into estuarine
systems. Samll feeder streams will be filled and dammed, inhibiting
natural flow, and permanently removing upland waters as anadromous fish
spawning areas. At other times, culverts are used underneath a highway
as replacements for the natural stream bed. These culverts can increase
the water velocity enough to prevent the passage of fish upstream. Some
fish species require specific bottom types for spawning activity; culverts
replacing stream bottom may contribute to population reduction through
destruction of spawning grounds.

Materials carried into estuaries by river flow and the plankton
within the estuary, are two important food sources for fish. During the
spring and autumn there are peaks in both sources which coincide with
migratory fish movements. The construction of dams on rivers decreases
the amount of fresh water flow into estuaries, and evens out the flow
over time, eliminating the river "flooding" cycle and the food made
available during fish migration.13

An increase in fresh water inflow to estuarine systems will also
have adverse effects. A change in the salinity regime will cause a
change in species composition. Changes in species composition of resi-
dent populations will be reflected in changes in those organisms which
feed upon them.

For example, decreases in salinity of less than five parts per
thousand in some cases, can result in a loss of soft shell clams and
smaller molluscs. If salinity changes are sustained the loss of molluscs
will result in a decrease in fish such as winter flounder.

Semi-permanent and permanent increases in fresh water inflow can be
caused by an increase in highway and paved surfaces near a river and its
estuary. Run-off from these impermeable surfaces adds more fresh water
to the system, as well as transporting petroleum products and road salt.

2-B/13

SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES

A national effort to improve water quality has resulted in the con-
struction of municipal sewage treatment facilities in a number of com-
munities. In most instances plants which have been constructed in coastal
areas, or are in the final process of being constructed, use ocean out-
falls to discharge liquid effluent from the treatment process.

This liquid effluent contains phosphorous and nitrogen compounds,
which are the primary nutrient sources for marine life. Increased levels
of phosphorous and nitrogen compounds can produce more phytoplankton
resulting in higher zooplankton productivity and more food for larval
fishes and shellfish.

Unfortunately this is not always the case. The effects of adding
these two nutrient sources is dependent upon many variables: circulation
pattern and flushing rates, bottom type, dissolved oxygen concentration
of the receiving water body, to name only a few.

Phosphorous and nitrogen compounds are recycled in marine systems
through bio-deposition, excretion, and decay. High clay content sedi-
ments, as found in estuaries, help recycle these nutrients through ad-
sorption. Sediment bound nutrients in coastal waters are recycled through
upwelling generated by high wind and wave action.

At each recycling step these two elements are found in specific
chemical form, and can only be utilized by certain organisms. For example,
nitrogen may be in the form of ammonia, a product of excretion. Certain
bacteria species can oxidize ammonia to nitrates or nitrites. Nitrogen,
in the form of nitrates and nitrites, is now available to certain marine
plants for uptake. These plants are then eaten, and nitrogen again
enters the system through excretion in another form.

In marine systems, nitrogen is a limiting factor, and is utilized
as quickly as it is made available. Therefore, organisms who can
utilize it in its earliest form have the advantage.

Most of the "food" phytoplankton species require nitrogen in the
form of nitrite; while the more opportunistic, less "usable" phyto-
plankton species can use nitrogen in the form of urea,,uric acid, or
ammonia.

- Increased nitrogen loads in the marine system, in the form of
ammonia, stimulates the production of those phytoplankton species who
can readily utilize nitrogen as ammonia. Increases in both phosphorous
and nitrogen compounds can enhance the productivity of receiving water
bodies. But, over a period of time this increased enrichment, termed
eutrophication, causes oxygen depletion and subsequent adverse effects.

2-B/14

Open Coastal Waters: Some authorities claim that discharging treated
sewage wastes into open coastal waters is acceptable. The thought is
that the dynamics of these waters are such that phosphorous and nitrogen
compounds would be quickly diluted and dispersed.

The distance from shore in combination with the water currents are
critical factors in determining the best outfall location. Transport of
waste material back towards shore will cause contamination and closure
of public bathing beaches and shellfish beds.

Estuaries, Salt Ponds, Coastal Embayments: The ability of estuaries/salt
ponds/coastal embayments to retain natural supplies of nutrients contri-
butes to their high productivity. Because of their retentive ability,
a result of their restricted openings to the sea and/or the flushing
characteristics controlling fresh water inflow and tidal exchange, these
water bodies are already heavily saturated with nutrients. Therefore,
they are least desirable as receivers of sewage effluent. Increasingly
greater nutrient loads will cause a marked decrease in biological pro-
ductivity over time.

Organisms which are more tolerant of increased phosphorous and
nitrogen loads would begin to dominate within a community, decreasing
the species diversity. "In estuaries where enrichment is excessive fish
may not die but a fishery may decline because suitable food organisms
are unable to survive the unfavorable conditions which result from the
excessive addition of nutrients."14

Another constituent of sewage effluent, fecal coliform. bacteria,
is of concern when locating sewer outfalls. Coliform, bacteria, which
flourish in the intestinal tract of humans, are a necessary component
of digestion, and are excreted with unusable fiber. Coliform bacteria,
easily detected and cultured, are used as indicators of the presence of
viruses and other bacteria. These viruses and bacteria may be vectors
of harmful diseases, such as hepatitis, which can be contracted through
consumption of contaminated shellfish.

Total coliform counts are taken periodically in coastal waters, and
if above a median of 70/100 ml, shellfish beds are closed to harvest, and
bathing beaches are closed to the public.. For example, the shellfish
areas around greater Boston are closed due to coliform contamination from
the treatment facilities on Deer and Nut Islands. The lack of harvest of
shellfish beds over a period of time can and does cause massive mortali-
ties causing the destruction of shellfish beds.

As the demand for protein continues to increase, the State of Massa-
chusetts cannot afford possible decreases in the biological productivity
of its coastal waters due to poor citing of sewage treatment facility
outfalls.

2-B/15

POWER PLANT SITING

Significant increases in coastal water temperatures in Massachusetts
can result from the discharge of cooling waters used in power generation.
Most of the power plants in the state are located in the coastal zone.
Water for cooling is removed from coastal waters and discharged at
temperatures which may exceed 5.6 - 6.7C (10 - 12F) above ambient.
A temperature increase may affect an organism directly by changing
physiologic or behavioral processes, or it may affect it indirectly, by
changing some part of the environment on which the organism depends.15

The severity of thermal effects is dependent upon the time required
for complete mixing of thermal discharges in ambient water. In general,
the more sudden and prolonged the organism's exposure to elevated tem-
peratures, the more serious the effect. In shallow water bodies with a
restricted flow, the mixing time can be quite long, compared to an open
coast location.

Location of thermal discharges in estuarine waters poses serious
problems to fish movements. Many fish enter the upper estuaries to
spawn, and the young use these waters as a nursery until the late summer
when the juveniles begin to move into the cooler, oceanic waters. Thermal
discharges can create a temperature barrier of a few degrees or less
which will effectively block out this migration of juveniles.

Prolonged periods at either extreme of the range can cause physio-
logical changes which can be harmful to the species. Low temperatures
may permit maintenance of life but inhibit spawning. Elevated tempera-
tures may allow for spawning but can be high enough to kill the eggs.

Temperature increases may in fact increase productivity and enhance
growth during times of the year when ambient temperatures are cool,
predominately during the fall, winter, and early spring. As ambient
temperatures increase, the added temperature increase from thermal dis-
charges can cause water temperatures to reach the maximum tolerable
limits for some marine organisms, particularly in shallow water bodies
with a restricted flow. Further a plant shutdown may produce fish kills
due to sudden temperature changes.

Entrainment of marine organisms at the plant's intake may also have
deleterious effects. Large fish and invertebrates are entrapped on wire
mesh screens placed in front of the intake, but egg, larval, and juvenile
stages of many organisms, as well as the adult forms of smaller organisms,
are taken into the plant and passed out in the discharge. Few organisms
can move against the suction force of plant intakes, and many organisms
cannot move at all (non-motile). Entrainment is particularly serious
during spawning season, especially at plants which are located in
estuaries or at the mouths of estuaries and other water bodies where
spawning takes place.

2-B/16

On the other hand, the controlled use of thermal effluent for aqua-
culture may be beneficial. The culture of some marine organisms in
warm water increases the growth over time; the metabolic rate remains
high and the animals feed constantly. Therefore, an organism raised in
warm water will be larger and will usually weigh more than an organism
of the same species and age raised in ambient water. For certain
species of marine organisms, aquacultural techniques may be used to
replace that portion of the population which is lost due to the operation
of the power plant.

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's)

PCB's are used as insulating media in the production of transformers
and capacitors. PCB's are also found in such products as carbonless
carbon paper, paints, textiles, and hydraulic sealants.

PCB's are relatively insoluble in water and concentrate in bottom
sediments and the food chain in marine environments. Through bioaccumu-
lation PCB's are concentrated in animal tissue at levels up to 40,000
times greater than environmental background levels.16

PCB contamination causes a wide variety of problems within marine
organisms, from physiological dysfunctioning, to reproductive failure,
to death. In New York state alone, PCB contamination in the Hudson River
has closed a $1.25 million per year commercial striped bass fishery - 17
The only known disposal method is incineration at temperatures exceeding
1316C (2400F) .

Heavy Metals

Heavy metals are used extensively in metal finishing and electro-
plating industries. These metals can bind to components of living
tissues. This binding alters or prevents the functioning of tissue
components.18

This tendency of heavy metals to bind with cell components makes it
difficult for an organism to rid its system of the metal. Consequently,
the metal concentration increases in the tissues and is eventually passed
through the food chain. A heavy metal concentration may not be lethal
to adult forms, but may be lethal to larvae and juveniles.19

Over time, heavy metals in a marine system can cause a decrease in
the number of species and population numbers. Species which can tolerate
higher concentrations of a metal will begin to replace more sensitive
organisms. Forage species whose food includes these more tolerant
organisms will replace other forage species. These more tolerant
organisms are generally those which are less valued by man than the more
sensitive species.

2-B/17

Plants take up heavy metals through their root systems. Some
plants such as eelgrass are not harmed, but the metals are cycled into
the marine system when the plant breaks down into detritus. Some heavy
metals are harmful to Spartina alterniflora. Copper and methyl mercury
initially inhibit growth and eventually cause high mortality in these 20
plants. High lead concentrations will inhibit the growth of Spartina.

Sediments of high organic content, such as clay-silt bottoms, also
tend to concentrate heavy metals. These sediments provide surfaces which
adsorb heavy metals. Deposit feeders work over the sediments and con-
centrate and/or resuspend these metals, in effect recycling toxic sub-
stances through the marine food chain. Activities such as dredging which
remove and cause suspension of sediments also cause some recycling of
toxic substances.

Chlorine

There are two common uses of chlorine in coastal areas. Chlorine
is used at power plants as a defouling agent for the condensor tubes.
It is also used as a disinfectant in sewage treatment facilities as a
last step in reducing bacterial and viral concentrations.

The metabolic pathways of chlorine and chlorine compounds are not
known, but some lethal concentrations for marine organisms have been
established.21 In constant flow bioassays being conducted at the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution, initial results indicate that fish and
crustaceans have different responses to chlorine and chlorine compounds.
Fish are sensitive to very low concentrations, while crustaceans and
bivalve larvae tolerate higher concentrations. As a specific concentra-
tion, there will be a noticeable response to chlorine and chlorine com-
pounds in fish, but no apparent response in crustaceans or bivalves.
Chlorine and chlorine compounds are longer acting toxins for crustaceans
and bivalve larvae'than for fish.22

The residual concentration of chlorine and chlorine compounds differs
for power plants and sewage treatment facilities. Power plants are
allowed a maximum residual chlorine concentration at the discharge of
0.1 mg/l. On the other hand, sewage treatment facilities are required
to have a minimum residual chlorine concentration of 1.0 mg/l at the
outfall. At present, there appears to be no scientific data to support
this minimum requirement at sewer outfalls, which is ten times the maxi-
mum allowable concentration at power plant discharges.

OIL IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

Between 37.5 and 75 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum
products are introduced into the world's oceans annually. Eighteen
thousand barrels are discharged or spilled annually into New England
ocean waters.23 Catastrophic accidents account for only a small per-
centage of the oil that enters the oceans. The majority of oil is

2-B/18

introduced by routine discharge from tankers and other vessels, minor
accidents in port or on the seas, accidents in exploration and production,
pipeline breaks, incomplete combustion of fuel, and untreated sewage
effluents. Most of these events occur onshore, in port, or in coastal
waters where biological productivity is greatest.
Depending on its source, oil has varying chemical characteristics.24
Refined oil has a higher percentage of aromatics, which are the more
toxic compounds. After being spilled or discharged into the environment,
oil can undergo weathering in four ways: (1) evaporation; (2) dissolution;
(3) biological degradation, and (4) chemical degradation.

Both evaporation and dissolution selectively remove lighter, more
volatile hydrocarbons. Dissolution also removes the more soluble aroma-
tics. Microbial attack affects the simpler, straight- and branched-
chained hydrocarbons and not the cyclic and aromatic compounds. On a
weight by weight basis, oil that has weathered by microbial decay is more
toxic than the original mixture because the toxic aromatics have not
been degraded.

Chemically, oil is altered by oxidation of aromatic hydrocarbons.
This occurs to a small extent and is the least important of the
weathering processes.

There are several mechanisms by which oil and oil products can
cause environmental damage: (1) immediate lethal toxicity; (2) smothering;
(3) chronic sublethal effects on physiological and behavioral processes;
(4) incorporation into organisms and spread through food webs; and
(5) changes in habitats.

Immediate lethal toxicity affects a wide range of organisms. The
effects are more pronounced when the oil has a higher aromatic content.
The September, 1969 spill of 650,000 liters of oil with 41% aromatic
content at West Falmouth, caused an immediate, massive kill of crabs,
lobsters, and other crustaceans, molluscs, fish and polychaete worms.25
Mortality was 95%. The spread of contaminated sediments compounded the
problem causing continued, extensive mortality. By killing virtually
all of the benthic community, the oil caused destabilization of sediments
which were then mechanically transported. Seven years later, the sedi-
ments at Wild Harbor still carry oil from the spill, and local shell-
fisheries have remained closed.

The toxicity of hydrocarbons is not well understood. Those animals
to which oil is lethal include the Ampeliscidae amphipods, crabs, the
American lobster, many other crustaceans, many of the molluscs, poly-
chaete worms, and the following fish: alewife, herring, killifish,
Atlantic cod, and winter flounder. Oil is also toxic to the marsh plants
Juncus gerardi, Spartina patens and Spartina alterniflora and the brown
alga,Laminaria.

2-B/19

In addition to toxicity, animals and plants are killed by smothering
and coating. This is most evident in sea birds, particularly diving
birds. A coating of oil causes a bird's feathers to lose their insula-
tion and consequently, an oil-covered bird can freeze to death in any
season. Furthermore, oil can result in a loss of buoyancy and cause
birds to drown. Sea bird populations are, as a rule, smaller than popu-
lations of other species and are, therefore, more vulnerabie to pertur-
bation and extinction. Coating with oil also smothers sessile and other
benthic organisms. The weight of an oil coating can cause the uprooting
of marsh vegetation and macroalgae. A layer of oil significantly reduces
benthic respiration and prevents photosynthesis, transpiration and
translocation in plants.

The chronic sub-lethal effects of petroleum are perhaps the least
obvious but are nonetheless significant. Oil becomes adsorbed by
organisms and sediments and is incorporated into the lipid pool of many
animals. The presence of oil in fish and shellfish causes tainting
which affects market values. The West Falmouth spill caused a loss of
$118,000 of shellfish sales during the first year alone. The shellfish
beds at Wild Harbor have been closed ever since with a resulting loss
of thousands of dollars in revenues. Tainting can be caused by only a
small fraction of the total hydrocarbons incorporated by the organism,
and after the tainting effect is gone, other deleterious effects of
oil remain.

Some petroleum products are carcinogenic or mutagenic and their
effects are not manifest for a long period of time. Oil can also inhibit,
alter or interfere with physiological processes. For example, blue
mussels, Mytilus edulis, that survived the West Falmouth spill were
rendered sterile the following year. Oil has been demonstrated to reduce
feeding and carbon assimilation and increase respiration in Mytilus and
the ribbed mussel, Modiolus demissus. In diatoms and other phytoplank-
ton, oil causes reduced growth and photosynthesis. Oil can interfere
with behavior both by internal physiological disruption and external
blockage of olfactory processes.

Biological transport through ecosystems magnifies chronic effects
of oil pollution. Adsorbed and absorbed hydrocarbons concentrate as
they pass through food webs. The resistance of hydrocarbons to bio-
chemical breakdown increases the potential of physiological and behavioral
disruption, carcinogenicity, and mutagenicity as they move up the food
chain.

Oil causes both physical and biological changes in habitats. The
mass mortality of organisms and the transport of oil-laden sediments
cause drastic changes in community structures. For instance, if eel
.grass beds were smothered and eliminated by a spill, the affected area
would lose its capacity for supporting bay scallops and other bivalves,
crustaceans, and polychaete worms. In addition, the previously bound
sediments, now oil-laden, are transported to adjacent areas spreading
pollution.

2-B/20

Pollution of the marine environment, in addition to ecological costs,
has high socioeconomic and aesthetic costs. An oil spill in a tourist
area, during the tourist season. can have a devastating impact on the
local economy. The 1969 Santa Barbara spill cost the regional tourist
industry over $ 6 million in damages and lost income. The cost of
cleaning up an oil spill is also high --- cleanup following the Santa
Barbara spill cost almost $ 5 million. The total social cost cleanup,
lost revenues, physical damage, etc., was over $ 16 million.26

HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

A hazardous waste is defined as any waste or combination of wastes
that poses a substantial danger, now or in the future, to human, plant,
or animal life and which therefore cannot be handled or disposed of
without special precautions. A recent study indicates that 615,000 drums
per year of hazardous wastes are generated in Massachusetts with metal
sludges and plating solutions posing the most difficult disposal problem
(approximately 55,000 drums per year).

Hazardous wastes may take the form of solids, gases, liquids, or
sludges. Some wastes such as oils, pesticides, and organic sludges, can
be incinerated at a high temperature. Some munitions and gases can be
exploded as a means of disposal. Still other wastes can be chemically
neutralized or biologically degraded. But many wastes, due to content
or quantity, have no other available means of disposal other than dis-
posal in a land site or at sea.

Both of these disposal methods pose potential problems to the
coastal zone. Ocean dumping may release wastes which pose a threat to
marine life. Disposal in sanitary landfills, by deep well injection,
or by illegal dumping on land may pollute either surface streams or
groundwater, through leaching and run-off, and pollutants may even find
their way to the shoreline and the ocean environment through storm
drains and sewer outfalls.

Knowledge of proper waste disposal practices is sorely lacking and
disposal options are often not known.

PESTICIDES

The introduction of chemical pesticides into the environment has
been steadily increasing since World War II. Pesticides enter the marine
environment through direct application to coastal areas or transport by
air, water and biota from more inland areas. Accumulation of pesticides
in the marine environment, as in other environments, can cause insidious
lethal and sub-lethal effects.

In coastal areas, pesticides are applied to marshes and bays to
control mosquitoes, flies, weeds, and other pests. In Massachusetts,
more than 20 types of pesticides are employed in cranberry production.
Pesticides are also carried to the coast by rivers, washed in from
sprayed lands and blown in as aerosols.

2-B/21

A pesticide is defined as any agent that can be used to kill pests.
This definition includes insecticides, used for agricultural and public
health purposes, fungicides, used agriculturally, herbicides, used in
agriculture and public works, and rodenticides, used largely for public
health reasons.

The progenitor of many modern pesticides is DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltri-
chloroethane), a chlorinated hydrocarbon (organochloride). Other organo-
chlorides, which share many characteristics with DDT, are: aldrin,
dieldrin, methoxychlor, chlordane, lindane, heptachlor, and the herbi-
cides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. In addition to their toxicity, the organo-
chlorides are dangerous because of their persistence in the environment
and their tendency to be incorporated into fatty tissues which transports
them through food chains.

As a substitute for organochlorides, the organophosphates were
developed. These include: parathion, malathion, phosdrin, TEPP, methyl
parathion, etc. The organophosphates are less persistent than the
organochlorides but more acutely toxic to humans, pests and other
organisms. The organophosphates are neurotoxins; they function by
blocking nerve transmission.

The carbamates complement the organophosphates in that they are
effective against many pests that are resistant to organophosphates.
These substances also block nerve transmission but they are frequently
safer to handle. Some of the commonly encountered carbamates are:
carbaryl (Sevin), carbofuran, methomyl, aldicarb (Temik) and bufencarb.

The biological effects of pesticides are many. Despite many years
of research, the mechanisms of organochloride toxicity are poorly under-
stood. It is becoming increasingly apparent, however, that pesticides
affect more than target organisms.

Persistence and biological and geochemical transport are the
gravest dangers of pesticides. Discontinuing application does not
guarantee the end of the problem. In several case studies, quantities
of DDT residues in soils and biota increased for up to seven years after
DDT spraying ceased. Moreover, over time, DDT and other organochlorides
concentrate in animals at higher trophic levels. DDT, aldrin, dieldrin,
heptachlor, and chlordane are all carcinogenic. DDE, a degradation
product of DDT, causes thinning of the eggs of predatory birds which has
decimated some populations. DDT also affects temperature tolerance
in salmon; kills the mosquito fish, Gambusia' a natural mosquito pre-
dator; and inhibits photosynthesis in marine phytoplankton.

The organophosphates, whose use has been promoted as an alternative
to organochlorides, also have serious, adverse impacts. Organophosphates
are extremely hazardous to handle and cause damage to both the central
nervous system and liver in humans. Moreover, in some cases, organo-
phosphates can kill fish and other vertebrates yet not affect the target
pest. Furthermore, upon breakdown, malathion and its degradation product

2-B/22

act synergistically with increased toxicity. Chronic exposure increases
the sensitivity of some fish to malathion.

In recent years Sevin has been applied to shellfish beds along the
Atlantic coast to control oyster "pests". Sevin, however, also kills
juvenile clams, crabs of the genus Cancer, shrimp and fish. Sevin has
also been linked to birth defects in test animals.

As the hazards of chemical pesticides are elucidated and quantified,
new strategies for the control of pests must be developed. Some alter-
natives are available. To control mosquitoes in wetland areas, ditching
is used to reduce the surface area of water and reduce the space available
for mosquito eggs to develop. When properly done, the environmental
impacts of ditching are significantly fewer than the use of chemical
pesticides. And in the past several years insect hormones have been
used to control selected pests. Compounds whose structure closely re-
semble mosquito hormones (hormone mimics) can be applied to wetlands and
cause juvenile insects to prematurely metamorphose into adults which
soon die. The major benefit of hormones is that they are, in general,
species specific and do not affect vertebrates.

A recent National Academy of Sciences report on Pest Control has
suggested four approaches to pest control that would prove most effective
and least dangerous in the long run. The first is genetic manipulation.
By breeding pest resistant plants and by releasing genetically altered
individuals (sterile males), the need for chemical pesticides can be
dramatically reduced. Second, the report suggests developing biological
control methods that would be target specific and would, like genetic
methods, reduce the need for synthetic, chemical pesticides. Among these
methods are the introduction of natural predators and the introduction of
bacterial and viral parasites. Third, the use of hormone mimics is in
its infancy and can be further developed. Finally, integrated pest con-
tol, combining several methods depending on a host of physical and bio-
logical parameters, offers the most rational approach.

SEPTIC SYSTEMS/CESSPOOLS

Nutrient enrichment of coastal waters can result from the improper
siting or operation of individual domestic wastewater systems. This
enrichment is particularly acute where a high density of individual
systems is located near bodies of water which are shallow, poorly flushed,
and/or semi-enclosed.

The primary determinants of contamination from domestic waste systems
are the hydrogeologic conditions of the area: (1) nature of the soil;
(2) position of site within the groundwater system; and for some areas,
(3) amount of fracture and depth of bedrock. A further concern when near
water bodies is the slope of the land towards the water, and the distance
from the water to the individual system. The type of system must be
considered as well.

2-B/23

A good soil allows the wastewater to travel through it at such a
rate as to allow efficient filtration. A good soil type i's well aerated
to allow bacterial degradation of nutrients and offers space enough
among the particles for filtration.

Distance to groundwater is important in this filtration, as a
shallow ground water level would make soil absorption and filtration of
nutrients very difficult and would result in groundwater contamination.
A system should be sited in an area where the water table does not
fluctuate enough to cause contamination during wet periods.

The gradient of the groundwater is somewhat dependent upon the slope
of the land. The steeper the land slope, the more steep the groundwater
slope. Cesspools and septic systems located on sloped ground run the
risk of accelerating leachates into groundwater or surface water at the
bottom of the slope. In addition, leachates break to the surface, be-
coming contaminated surface runoff. Bedrock in some portions of coastal
Massachusetts is not far below the surface of the soil. The distance
between the soil surface and the bedrock must be great enough, while
considering other factors as well, to allow for good filtration.

There are two individual waste treatment systems which are most
commonly used in Massachusetts: cesspools and septic systems. A cess-
pool is a subsurface disposal system, consisting of a large performated
tank buried underground. Heavier solid materials tend to settle to the
bottom and the liquid seeps through holes in the sides into the
surrounding soil.

In a septic system, the settling out of sludge and the infiltration
of liquid into the soil takes place in different areas. Wastewater
flows first into a watertight septic tank where anaerobic decomposition
takes place. The liquid is directed through a pipe to a leaching field,
usually an area of prepared gravel trenches for good adsorption and
filtration of material.27

These two waste treatment systems are dependent upon efficient soil
absorption for removal of nutrients and other compounds. The removal
ability of the soil is dependent upon the forms of compounds in the
effluent, as well as on characteristics of the soil itself.

Nitrogen is found in four forms in domestic wastewater: organic,
ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite. Nitrogen in the effluent leaving a septic
system is usually organic and ammonia. Ammonia is adsorbed by soil
particles in increasing amounts as particle size decreases.

Phosphorous is generally found in septic systems as phosphate. Most
soils are capable of fixing phosphorous, through a combination of adsorp-
tion, change in the crystalline structure of the molecule, and precipita-
tion. Chlorides are also found in domestic wastewater. Chlorides and
nitrate migrate with groundwater over extended distances and undergo only

2-B/24

a moderate amount of vertical dispersion. As a consequence, these two
compounds may be found close to the soil surface in the top six feet of
soil, making nitrates readily available for plant uptake.

Groundwater contamination is dangerous since many coastal towns
depend upon wells for supplying household water. Groundwater contamina-
tion and/or poorly operating waste systems in coastal areas can result
in nutrient enrichment of coastal waters. Initially, this enrichment may
have beneficial effects, but in the long term, sewage enrichment can be
particularly damaging to shallow, poorly flushed water systems (see
Sewage Treatment Facilities).28

RECREATIONAL BOATING

Recreational boating activity in the estuaries, bays, and offshore
waters of the Massachusetts coastal zone is on the increase (see
Recreation section).

Boating activity and related facility development may impact the
marine environment in a number of ways. Physical impacts may include
erosion of shorelines by boat generated wakes, increased turbidity due
to resuspension of bottom sediments by prop wash, or the destruction or
alteration of wetlands and other important coastal habitats through
marina or launching ramp development and dredging of access channels.

The incidence of shoreline erosion will depend on the narrowness of
waterways, the stability of shoreline soils and sediments, and the speed,
magnitude, and frequency of recreational craft generating waves that will
strike the shoreline. Other factors obviously affect shoreline erosion
as well, including natural storms and waves and surface runoff. There-
fore, it is difficult to assess exactly to what extent boating may have
caused erosion of Massachusetts shorelines in the past. However, further
expansion of boating activities in the narrow estuaries, rivers, and
creeks where shoreline conditions render them susceptible to erosion
should be viewed with caution.

Since most Massachusetts harbors and boating areas have depths sub-
stantially greater than six feet, it is unlikely that recreational boat
prop wash could raise turbidity levels to harmful levels.29 Encroach-
ment of boating facilities into wetlands and other significant resource
areas, however, may become more prevalent as waterfront property becomes
more scarce. Facility development in these areas --- marshes, tidal flats---
may constrict water circulation, destroy productive habitat, and pollute
local waters through spillage of fuels, acceleration of surface run-off,
and discharge of human wastes.

Other adverse biological impacts related to boating activity may
result from the overboard discharge of human wastes, or the emission of
engine exhausts and unburned fuels through crankcase drainage. Federal
regulations promulgated by EPA require the use of marine sanitation

2-B/25

devices which treat wastes on board and then discharge it overboard.30
The degree to which discharges of human wastes will adversely impact
water quality will be largely dependent on the intensity of boating
activity, the size of the coastal water body, depth, existing water
quality, the presence of other contributors to pollution, and the flushing
capacity of the water body. In narrow, constricted estuaries or embay-
ments where water quality may already be approaching threshold levels,
intense boating activity on peak weekends may generate enough human wastes
to produce adverse conditions such as nutrient enrichment or the intro-
duction of hazardous bacteria or viruses. The operation of recreational
boat engines discharges gases, complexed particulate lead.compounds,
hydrocarbons and organoleads present in unburned fuel, and rearranged
hydrocarbons produced in the combustion process. Recent Environmental
Protection Agency and Boating Industry Association studies show that the
average outboard engine, when in use, contributes about 2.5% of its fuel
to the water.31 As explained in the section on oil pollution and heavy
metals, some of these substances evaporate, some may adhere to bottom
sediments, and others may build up in receiving waters (particularly when
there is limited disturbance of bottom sediments to which these components
can adhere). As with waste discharge, the severity of adverse effects
will be dependent on water body size, existing water quality, other pol-
luters, depth, and flushing characteristics.

It is unlikely recreational boating activity will result in sub-
stantial adverse biological or physical impacts when compared to other
activities such as municipal sewage discharge or dredged material dis-
posal. However, in situations where intense boating activity coincides
with high sensitivity of marine resources to boating related impacts,
some ecological damage may result.

DREDGING AND DREDGE DISPOSAL

Dredging is needed to clear channels of natural sedimentation in
harbors and bays, sedimentation resulting from increased boat traffic,
and to enlarge harbor channels for vessels with deeper drafts. Much of
the dredging activity in Massachusetts is maintenance work, primarily
that of retaining the width and/or depth of existing navigation and
shipping channels.

Two dredging methods used are hydraulic and mecha'nical. Hydraulic
dredging uses a centrifugal pump which picks up a slurry of bottom
material and water, and transports it through a pipeline to either the
disposal site or a vessel to carry it to a disposal site. This method is
used primarily for onshore or near-shore disposal and is employed when
the spoil is used for beach nourishment or dune creation. Hydraulic
dredging and offshore disposal have not been used extensively in
Massachusetts.

2-B/26

method
Mechanical dredging is the most prevalent dredge/in Massachusetts
because many of the dredging projects in this state involve removal of
bottom material which is unsuitable for beach nourishment and/or dune
creation and must be ocean dumped. Mechanical dredging is similar to
earth removal, using large bucket scoops or shovels that lift the spoil
in a consolidated form and place it in a barge or scow. Material is then
transported to offshore disposal sites where it is deposited by opening
doors on the bottom of the scow.

Adverse effects of dredging activity are more severe in areas where:
(1) water circulation is limited; (2) the bottom is rich in organic
matter; (3) the sediments are polluted with heavy metals; and (4) salt
marshes are nearby. Dredging activity in biologically productive areas,
such as salt marshes and related tidal flat systems, can cause signifi-
cant reductions in productivity. For example, in estuarine environments,
dredging can cause changes that exceed the tolerance levels of the resi-
dent organisms.32

Mechanical dredging generates more suspended material at the dredge
site than does standard hydraulic dredging, and impacts an area larger
than the immediate site. As the shovel/scoop is raised to the surface,
spillage may occur. This suspended sediment can have adverse impacts.
It makes the water turbid and can cause the death of organisms by blocking
the light necessary for photosynthesis and by clogging the gills and
siphons of fish, molluscs, and other marine fauna.

Dredging removes organisms that live both on and within the sediments.
This reduction in the number of organisms' may lead to a decrease in the
diversit f species with subsequent impact on dependent marine re-
sources.Lo Dredging also removes benthic vegetation such as eelgrass
which is used by the bay scallop for attachment and growth, by young eels
and sculpin for protection from predators, and by brant as a major food
source. Benthic vegetation also is important because it is a major
cycle of nutrients through marine ecosystems and because it is a major
source of detritus for deposit feeders.

In intertidal areas it may take at least eight years after dredging
operations have occurred for the reestablishment of the original fauna
34.35. This reduction in an area's productivity will have serious effects
upon the productivity of the whole water body, since many organisms
depend upon the nutrient production and export of the salt marshes and the
richness and diversity of tidal flat populations for feeding, spawning,
and nursery activities.

The selection of a disposal site for dredge material designated as
uncontaminated by the Division of Water Pollution Control is usually
based upon the costs of available disposal methods and transportation.
In order for most projects to be viable, a nearby land site or a relative-
ly close ocean disposal site is required. Ordinarily, a land site is.

2-B/27

sought first. If the material consists primarily of clean sand or
gravel, it is usually ideal for beach replenishment, Mixed sand and
gravel or crushed bedrock makes excellent'fill. These materials usually
find ready land sites for disposal. Unfortunately, little use has been
found for the fine grained material (silt.and clay) dredged in maintenance
projects. Since filling coastal wetlands has been virtually eliminated
because their value as highly productive resources has been recognized,
this dredge material has often been disposed of at sea.

There are seven open water disposal areas along the Massachusetts
coast approved for the dumping of clean dredge spoil. One of them, the
Foul Area, is also for disposal of polluted spoils. The sites were
chosen for their accessibility and proximity to coastal areas rather than
their stability. Thus, dredge material is often disposed of at sites
where erosion and transport of dredge spoil occurs. In many cases,
coastal towns have complained that the distance to designated ocean dis-
posal sites makes dredging projects economically unfeasible. Someareas
must transport dredge material more than 15 nautical miles to the nearest
approved disposal site., 36

Massachusetts law requires that the Commissioner of the Department
of Environmental Quality Engineering make a determination that'disposal
of dredge spoil will not adversely affect the environment before an ocean
disposal site may be used (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 347, Acts
of 1976). The state's only open water disposal site for contaminated
dredge disposal is located 22 nautical miles east of the port of Boston
in Massachusetts, serving primarily the northern portion of the state.
Due to the high costs of transporting dredge material from southern
coastal communities, a second ocean disposal site in Rhode Island Sound
is presently under study.

The movement of pollutants once dumped at ocean disposal sites de-
pends upon (1) the nature and consistency of the dumped material, (2) the
dumping method, and (3) the transport processes (wave and current erosion)
affecting the dump site. Most contaminated dre 'dge spoils are primarily
fine-grained silt and clay. When dumped from a scow, some of the material
falls directly to the bottom, some is carried laterally from the site by
currents, and a portion is left near the survace to disperse. To prevent
excessive mixing it is important that the material be dumped from a sta-
tionary position. If dumping occurs when the scow is approaching or
leaving the disposal site, dispersal will be significantly increased.

Disposal of the spoil has both acute and chronic biological effects.
Many benthic and free-swimming organisms are buried or suffocated by
dumped spoil. Moreover, dredge spoil disposal causes significant per-
turbation in benthic habitats. Although recolonization of dump sites
occurs to some extent, the biological balance of the community is per-
manently altered.

Much of the material dredged from the coastal harbors of Massa-
chusetts contains concentrations of heavy metals, pesticides, and
organic and petroleum wastes.

2-B/28

A potentially greater problem than burial and habitat destruction
is the absorption, accumulation and recycling of heavy metals, pesticides
and other contaminants by marine organisms. Some of these contaminants
of dredge spoil are carcinogenic and/or mutagenic. Cycling of these
contaminants depends on such factors as cla y, organic and bacterial con-
tent, pH, and local currents.

The threat of contaminant release from open water disposal can be
mitigated by an overlay of clean sediments. A sufficient quantity of
clean sediments to adequately cover the polluted material would be re-
quired; however, such a quantity is not always readily available.

To phase out the use of ocean disposal for contaminated dredge
materials, viable alternative disposal methods must be implemented in
Massachusetts. One of the most common land disposal methods used is
retention of spoils in a diked confinement area. If the spoil is com-
pacted by mechanical dewatering and covered with humus, it could be used
as landfill. However, shortage of land close to dredging operations will
limit further dike construction. Other problems with confinement areas
include odor, mosquitoes, groundwater contamination, changes in harbor
currents, turbidity, noise during disposal activities, buildup of
hydrogen sulfide, the long settlement time before reuse, and local
opposition.

Use of spoil for landfill requires pumping or other transport inland
which may be costly. Unless pre-treated with expensive neutralizing and
stabilizing chemicals, this disposal may contaminate groundwater and
generate odor. Combination with flyash waste from nearby power plants,
however, may help solve two disposal problems while stabilizing spoil
to, the point where it can be built upon.

Inland pipeline transport of dredge spoils to reclaim strip mines,
borrow pits, or other land is technically feasible up to 100 miles.
However, substantial acreage may be necessary to make such a disposal
option economically viable. Potential groundwater contamination is
another limiting factor.

Artificial habitat creation by the construction of spoil. islands
and new marsh areas is one of the most promising alternatives, offering
the ability to utilize large volumes of spoil with poor structural
characteristics. One problem requiring further study is the potential
uptake and cycling of contaminants from polluted sediments by marsh
grasses.

Small volumes of dredge spoil might be usable as raw materials for
bricks and building materials, though this alternative is not yet econo-
mically feasible.

2-B/29

OFFSHORE SAND AND GRAVEL MINING

There is currently a moratorium on all offshore mining in waters
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In addition, four ocean sanctuaries
have been established by the Commonwealth that prohibit the removal of
any sand, gravel, or other minerals except in certain areas for public
shore protection or public beach restoration.

As a result, all sand and gravel aggregates in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts are derived from land-based deposits. The supply of
deposits is decreasing rapidly due to an annual demand increase of more
than 5% per year. In addition, land with potential mineable deposits is
being rapidly consumed for residential and commercial use, especially
near urban centers where the demand for aggregate is highest. The
dwindling supply versus the increase in demand has caused the Boston
prices for concrete sand to increase from $2.00 per ton at the plant in
1972 to $3.80 in 1976, and for gravel to increase from $3.00 per ton
in 1972 to $4.50 in 1976. To these base prices transportation costs
must be added.

Faced with these rising prices, the pressure for off-shore mining
has caused the Commonwealth to study the availability of offshore sand
and gravel deposits and the environmental harm that offshore mining might
bring. Potential sand and gravel resources of Massachusetts waters
between Cape Ann and Brant Rock (generally between the 40 and 150 foot
contours) were investigated by Raytheon Company, Oceanographic and
Environmental Services Division for the now defunct Division of Mineral
Resources. The survey consisted of acoustical reconnaissance techniques
(seismic, side scansonar and precision echo sounding), bottom coring and
sampling (Vibrocore and Shipek grab sampling) and bottom photography.
The result of this survey was the identification of 15 areas with over
110 million cubic yards of potential economic sand and gravel deposits.
Five of these areas were identified as containing appreciable quantities
of aggregate (see accompanying map). However, Raytheon pointed out that
additional data is necessary to definitely determine the economic value
of these deposits.37

Mining of offshore sand and gravel can be performed by several
different methods. Hydraulic dredging is the most efficient method
currently available. Before the sand and gravel aggregate reaches the
barge or hopper, water and silt and clay size material are removed from
the slurry and discharged into the water column. The adverse effects of
sand and gravel mining are similar to those of dredging. (See Dredging.)

Mining in areas with polluted sediments can cause a release of heavy
metals, P.C.B.'s, hydrocarbons, pesticides, etc., to the water column.
Most offshore areas in Massachusetts do not have polluted sediments;
however, near harbors and areas where contaminated dredge spoil or other
hazardous substances have been dumped, polluted sediments are present.
These areas should be avoided in offshore sand and gravel recovery.

2-B/30

OFFSHORE SAND AND
E.
T G
RAVEL DEPOSITS

PIILEY@

LYN,
3
-DEN RAMEON INVESTTGAT10N DE-
MAS
HUSETrs
B A Y FINED THESE AREAS FOR MASS.
DIVISIO14 OF MINERAL RESOURCES.
- ----- - 15.
(Alt, ONLY AREAS BETWEEN CAPE ANN
4b2
AND BRANT ROCK WERE STMIED
FROM THE 40' TO 150' CONTOUR.
T

INGST

LL !ET
TAUITON
V
CAPE COD BAY t
-47
AE@OTNL'
D-1

SAN-1

-Ml

FALM9.UTM

NANTUCKET SOUND

C11-K
:AN

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

2-B/31

Beaches depend on sand supply from both littoral currents which
move sand parallel to the beach and the onshore movement of sand that
occurs during gentle summer wave conditions. During the winter, storm
wave conditions cause net sand transport offshore. Generally the movement
of sand onshore equals the movement offshore; however, if sand is
removed from offshore areas which are part of the natural beach replenish-
ment system, then there will be a net loss of sand to the beach. Sand
movement responsible for natural beach replenishment extends to the depth
of 80 feet.38

Onshore facilities associated with offshore mining may consist of
off-loading terminals, processing plants and storage areas. Potential
environmental problems associated with these facilities are similar to
those of land based sand and gravel operations such as: noise, air
pollution, and any effects on the local flora and fauna. In addition,
offshore sand and gravel aggregate will contain salt which can cause
ground and surface water contamination. Thus siting of these facilities
must be done with the utmost of care.

2-B/32

OBJECTIVES

The preceding discussion suggests that the management.of the marirk
environment should encompass the following objectives:

1. To protect and enhance the productivity and values of
the marine environment effecting the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

2. To minimize the adverse impact of man's activities upon
the marine environment.

3. To guarantee continued production and harvest of renewable
marine protein sources.

4. To insure man's continuing use and enjoyment of the
Massachusetts coast.

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

1. AREA SPECIFIC POLICIES

The following two policies will be applied to the named marine
environment types whenever they occur along the coastline. As such,
they supersede all the activity specific policies, numbers 3 through 8.

Policy (1) Conserve ecologically significant resource areas for their
contributions to marine productivity and value as
habitats.

A. Organic matter produced by salt marshes is the basic source
of nutrition for all marine life in coastal waters. Salt marshes,
shellfish flats, dune areas, and barrier beaches provide habitat for
marine organisms upon which higher level species depend for food and
provide nesting and feeding areas for migratory waterfowl and shore
birds. The value of these resource areas can be destroyed by physical
alterations, and Coastal Zone Management will work to ensure that
activities proposed for salt marshes, dune areas, sandy beaches,
barrier beaches, and shellfis'-1 flats (all ecologically significant
resource areas as defined in Chapter III) abide by the following set
of permitted and prohibited uses:

Permitted Uses:

a. the.construction and maintenance of cat walks, observation
decks, wharves, boathouses, boat shelters, fences, duckblinds,

2-B/33

wildlife management shelters, providing these structures are
constructed on pilings to permit the reasonably unobstructed
flow of the tide and preserve the natural contour of the
area,

b. the cultivation and harvesting of shellfish.and worms for
bait, and the excavation and construction of areas for the
cultivation of shellfish and other marine foods,

c. commercial and non-commercial outdoor recreation activities
including hiking, boating, trapping, hunting, fishing, horse-
back riding, skeet and trap shooting, and shooting preserves,
provided lead shot shall not be used,

d. salt marsh haying, dune and marsh grass planting,

e. the installation of floats,

f. the construction and maintenance of a minimum legal and
practical width driveway providing an alternative means of
access from a public way without building upon ecologically
significant resource areas is unavailable. Such driveway
shall be constructed in a manner which allows for the flow
of the tide and shall be constructed of permeable material,
and shall not be treated with any petroleum product or salt,

g. the enlargement to minimum legal and practical width and the
maintenance of existing raised roadways, provided salt shall
not be used at ahy time for snow removal purposes,

h. the installation and maintenance of underground utilities
provided the surface vegetation is restored substantially
to its original condition,

i. dredging, excavations, filling, and other construction for
boat channels of a size limited to single family use; wild-
life management improvements; the construction, expansion,
and maintenance of beaches (i) for single family use, or
(ii) other beaches except on salt marshes and shellfish beds;
the construction and maintenance of boat launching ramps;
ship channels in port areas (see Ports and Harbors section);
and bank stabilization and shoreline protection works which
meet the policy criteria set forth in the Coastal Hazards
section.

Prohibited Uses: (other than above)

a. the filling, placing, or dumping of any soil, loam, peat,
sand, gravel, rock or other mineral substance, refuse, trash,
rubbish, or debris,

2-B/34

b . the draining, excavating, dredging, or removal of loam, peat,
sand, gravel, soil, or other mineral substance,

C. the performance of any activity, action, project, act, or use
etc., which would destroy the existing natural vegetation
through physical alteration, pollution, or blockage of sun-
light; alter existing patterns of tidal flow; contravene any
other policy in this chapter; or have any impact upon the
attributes making these categories of areas significant
resources.

B. Salt ponds,because of their shallow bottoms, high light pene-
tration, and low flushing rates, are particularly productive for
shellfish, are geologically fragile and highly susceptible to eutro-
phication. For these reasons, Coastal Zone Management will work to
ensure that additional protection is afforded to salt ponds. In
addition to the activities permitted or prohibited in Policy (1)A, the
following activities in salt ponds are prohibited:

a. the discharge of hazardous substances,

b. the disposal of dredge spoil,

c. the construction of solid fill piers, or extension or
widening of existing solid fill piers,

d. the discharge from a municipal sewage treatment facility,

e. the discharge of thermal effluent, and

f. dredging for a purpose other than enhancement of shellfish
and other marine food productivity.

Policy (2) Protect complexes of marine resource systems of uniqu
productivity; ensure that activities in or adjacent to
such complexes are designed and carried out to minimize
adverse effects on marine productivity, habitat value,
storm buffering and water quality of the entire complex.

Along the coast of Massachusetts are found complexes made up of a
number of coastal environments. which are unique for their contribu-
tion to marine productivity. A coastal complex shall be considered foi
.special protection and restoration if it:

a. is high in natural productivity or potentially high in pro-
ductivity, including but not limited to:

1) known spawning grounds for fish species,
2) shellfish beds,

2-B/35

3) anadromous fish runs, or
4) feeding and breeding areas for waterfowl or birds depen-
dent upon coastal resources.

b. functions as a major natural protective buffer, and

c. meets or can meet the highest water quality standards.

Coastal complexes meeting these criteria shall be designated as
Areas for Preservation or Restoration under the procedures and authori-
ties described in Chapter III. An applicant for projects within such
coastal complexes must file an Environmental Assessment Form. No EOEA
agency shall permit or carry out any activity anywhere within the com-
plex which would have an adverse effect on the values which make the
complex an Area for Preservation or Restoration. In addition, the
following activities will be categorically prohibited within the
designated complex:

1. discharge of thermal effluent,
2. discharge from a municipal sewage
treatment facility,
3. discharge of hazardous substances,
4. dredging and disposal of dredge spoil,
5. energy facilities.

Furthermore, if these activities are proposed for an area which
is abutting, near, or related by natural processes (littoral currents,
tides, etc.) to the complex, applicants shall be required to.demon-
strate that the proposed activity will not adversely affect values
in (a), (b), and (c) which caused the area to be protected.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES (for Policy 1 and Policy 2)

When any agency within Environmental Affairs receives an applica-
tion for any activity or if it proposes to conduct an activity within
a Significant Resource Area or an Area for Preservation or Restoration,
they will apply the preceding policies. The most relevant programs
and authorities include those discussed below and others discussed
after other marine environment policies.*

*NOTE: Other Environmental Affairs programs and authorities may also
apply. For further information on the authorities mentioned
in this and all other Implementation Measure sections,
refer to Appendix A. For further information on the net-
working system, the definitions of areas, etc., refer
to Chapter III on Management.

2-B/36
_.J

--Coastal Wetlands Restriction Program (MGLA Ch. 130, s. 105)
authorizes the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Manage-
ment (DEM), after a public hearing, to restrict coastal wetland areas
to protect public safety, health and welfare, public and private pro-
perty, and wildlife and marine fisheries. Since its inception in 1968,
this program and the one following have restricted over 30,000 acres of
land in 27 towns, most of which are in coastal areas. Following a
Memorandum of Understanding between DEM and CZM, the program will
accelerate its activities in Significant Resource Areas and Areas for
Preservation or Restoration, with highest priority given to restricting
the latter. DEM will also promulgate regulations which will incor-
porate CZM's definition of areas and lists of permitted and prohibited
uses (which is substantially similar to the one in current use).
CZM will also provide staff support for the program.

--Inland Wetlands Restriction Program (MGLA Ch. 131, s. 40A) is
similar to the above program only it applies to freshwater wetlands.
The two programs are now being administered concurrently and all wet-
lands within a town are being restricted in the same process. Since
freshwater ponds are also Significant Resource Areas, CZM will work
with DEM to insure that adequate protection is provided to those ponds
which lie in the coastal zone.

--Wetlands Program (MGLA Ch. 131, s. 40) gives local Conservation
Commissions the authority to review proposals for projects in
wetlands. All dredging, filling or other alteration of a wetland is
unlawful without filing a Notice of Intent, both with the local
Conservation Commission and with the Commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE). As this program is of key
concern to CZM, it will work with the program in the following ways.
CZM will provide significant assistance to Conservation Commissions
to insure that they have the technical capacity to protect these areas
and implement CZM policy through their initial reviews. It will also
assist the Commissioner of DEQE in amending the state promulgated
regulations and guidelines to the local Conservation Commissions to
incorporate CZM policies for these areas. Also, Notices of Intent
for all activities proposed for Areas for Preservation or Restoration
will also go to CZM directly. The Commissioner will also issue a
superseding order in all cases where the Order of Conditions is incon-
sistent with CZM policies.

--Waterways Program (MGLA Ch. 91, s. 1-59) the Waterways Program
within DEQE2 has authority over tidelands, harbors, and certain rivers
below the high water mark. Among the activities covered by Chapter 91
are filling, construction of any structure, dredging,or removal of
'sand and vegetation. Approvals are in the form of a license, not
permits, because the activity is taking place on public land and thus
DEQE is acting as a trustee and not an ordinary regulatory agency.
Under the law, all licenses expire after five years.

2-B/37

The agency has mainly been concerned with activities which result
in physical alterations of waterways or obstructions to navigation.
However, the authority is broader and requires that no license may be
granted if there is an interference with the reserved public rights
for fishing and fowling; this includes both the public right to
traverse the area below the high water mark in order.to fish or fowl
and the assurance that an activity will not interfere with the wild-
life resource habitat which could effectively limit the availability
of fish or fowl.

CZM will continue its working relationship with the Waterways
Program in several ways. Regulations will be prepared which will
incorporate CZM criteria for license decisions in critical areas; all
applications for activities in areas for preservation or restoration
will cycle through CZM, and CZM will provide staff assistance to
Waterways.

The Waterways Program also carries out projects with state funds
such as.dredging or shoreline protection works. CZM has already been
working with this program to develop a ranking system for such re-
quested projects. This system will also include the areas and activi-
ties covered by the Marine Environment section. Following a Memoran-
dum of Understanding with Waterways, projects which are consistent
with these policies will receive a higher priority for state funding.
Projects inconsistent with these policies will not be performed.

--Ocean Sanctuaries (MGLA Ch. 132A, s. 13-17) have been created
to protect all state waters except those from Swampscott to Marshfield
and those in Mt. Hope Bay. While the terms of the five sanctuaries
vary, in general such activities as removal of any sand, gravel or
minerals, any dumping, or any waste discharge are prohibited, and
shore protection, water navigation aids or fish harvesting are per-
mitted. CZM is working with the Department of Environmental Manage-
ment to prepare regulations and an interpretation of these acts, and
with the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering to ensure
that Ocean Sanctuaries provisions are entered through DEQE's permit
procedures.

--Division of Marine Fisheries is responsible under Chapter 130
and'related laws for the management and development of marine fish-
eries. Their jurisdiction covers all waters from the rise and fall of
the tide to the seaward boundary of the Commonwealth. While certain
statutes require other agencies to consult DMF before taking an action
affecting fisheries, in order to insure that fisheries and related
concerns are adequately protected in Significant Resource Areas and
Areas for Preservation or Restoration, a joint Memorandum of Under-
standing with DEQE, DEM, and CZM will be prepared which will detail
the ways DMF viewpoints will be incorporated into DEQE procedures.
A Memorandum of Understanding between CZM and DMF will record the in-
corporation of CZM policies-into DMF's authority over local fish

2-B/38

management programs, fish and shellfish permits, aquaculture grants
and how the retained public rights of fishing will be incorporated
into their procedures.

--Division of Marine and Recreational Vehicles (MGLA Ch. 90B)
licenses such recreational vehicles as motorboats and dune buggies.
Section 26 forbids operation of any snow or recreational vehicle in
areas which could endanger property, planted areas or wildlife.
A Memorandum of Understanding with the Division will incorporate CZM's
concerns for the protection of critical areas with the Division's
authority to regulate the use of such vehicles.

--Water Pollution Control and other water quality programs. See
Implementation Measures following Policy (4).

--Hazardous Waste Program (MGLA, Ch. 21, s. 57-58) within DEQE
licenses the disposal of chemical, explosive, reactive, and toxic
substances which may constitute a danger to public health, safety or
welfare or to the environment. CZM and the Division of Water Polluti
Control will prepare a Memorandum of Understanding which will incor-
porate CZM concerns about the disposal of hazardous wastes into the
marine environment in general and specifically into areas of critical
environmental concern.

When any expenditure of state or federal funds or permit issued
by a federal or state agency not within Environmental Affairs is
involved in Significant Resource Areas or Areas for Preservation or
Restoration, CZM will review and comment upon the type, location,
design and impact of the proposed activity as a part of the A-95, MEPA
and NEPA processes. Memoranda of Understanding will be signed for
particular programs and when appropriate, CZM will deny federal con-
sistency certification. Such state and federal programs include:

--Permits for Filling in Navigable Waters - Under Section 404 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (U.S.C. 1344), the
Corps of Engineers authorizes filling of navigable waters. Since the
scope of jurisdiction over navigable waters is very broad, the Corps
is implementing this program in three phases. It is, at present,
exercising jurisdiction over coastal waters and coastal wetlands and
freshwater wetlands contiguous or adjacent to coastal or inland navi-
gable waters. in later phases, its jurisdiction will include tribu-
taries, other inland waters adjacent to tributaries, and other navi-
gable waters. Under the Corps regulations and the Federal Consistency
regulations, the Corps may not issue a filling permit without a CZM
certification of consistency. Since state and federal permit pro-
cessing usually proceeds simultaneously, CZM will also have a direct
Memorandum of Understanding with the Corps which will require incor-
poration of CZM policies and permitted uses early in the Corps
procedures.

2-B/39

--Permits for Obstructions or Alterations in Navigable Waters of
the United States - Are granted by the Corps of Engineers under
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This permit covers
such projects as sinking pilings, attaching moorings, placing outfall
pipes, or digging tunnels. While the scope of jurisdiction under this
permit is not as broad as for Section 404 permits, it does cover
waters susceptible for use in interstate commerce up to their high
water line. This includes all marine waters plus many inland waters.
CZM's consistency certificate for projects proposed in Significant
Resource Areas or Areas for Preservation or Restoration will be issued
in the same way as for Section 404 permits.

--Energy Facilities Siting Council (MLGA Ch. 164) - The Council
has jurisdiction over the siting of electric generat ,ing, gas and oil
facilities and ancillary structures. The Council has override powers
over permits issued by state and local agencies. As detailed in the
Energy section, CZM and EFSC will continue their close working rela-.
tionship to insure a uniform energy and environmental policy for the
Commonwealth.

--Department of Public Works (DPW) - CZM will work with this
agency and regional transportation planning agencies funded by DPW to
influence the design, placement, construction, and maintenance of
publicly funded roadways, culverts, bridges, etc. CZM will develop a
Memorandum of Understanding with the transportation agencies detailing
how CZM's marine environment policies affecting these transportation
projects are to be carried out. This Memorandum of Understanding will
also cover marine environment policy conditions to be incorporated in
DPW's permitting authority (MGLA Ch. 81, s. 21) for "curb cuts" into
state highways for private driveways as well as municipal roads.

11. ACTIVITY SPECIFIC POLICIES

Policy (3) Ensure that existing water quality standards for all point
source discharge activities are stringently enforced and
that the standards are continually upgraded to achieve the
highest possible conformance with federally promulgated
water quality criteria.

CZM shall undertake the following basic steps to implement this
policy as it relates to thermal discharge from power plants and muni-
cipal and industrial waste discharge, including the discharge of
hazardous substances:

2-B/40

1. work with the relevant federal and state agencies to
evaluate and improve:

a. discharge standards and locational criteria,
b. treatment standards and methods,
c. applicant and agency impact evaluation methods.

2. work with the relevant federal and state agencies and private
industrial and scientific concerns to identify needed improve-
ments in data required of applicants applying for state
permits. Recommended improvements will be based on the
findings of #1 above.

3. assist in integrating the findings of 1 and 2 into on-going
governmental planning programs, e.g., 208 Areawide Waste WateT.
Management Planning, relating to point source pollution and
in informing private industry and development interests of
revised procedures and data requirements.

CZM specifically recommends:

1. chlorine discharge at sewage treatment plant outfalls: The
Division of Water Pollution Control should earmark a suffi-
cient sum of money from its EPA demonstration funds for
fiscal 1977-78 for research to determine the maximum residual
chlorine concentration at a sewage treatment plant outfall.

2. sewage treatmentplant outfalls: The Department of Environ-
mental Quality Engineering should require applicants to
furnish the following data:

a. definition of the tidal excursion for the proposed
outfall location,

b. definition of the dilution of the sewage effluent which
can be expected as a result of volumes of water passing
the outfall under critical conditions,

c. calculation of the maximum pollution parameter levels
expected at the proposed outfall location, particularly
total and fecal coliform bacteria, total nitrogen and
total phosphorous.

If DEQE finds that location of the outfall will produce
adverse effects on marine productivity or public health, the
applicant should be required to provide an alternative site.

It is expected that further recommendations will be made
on.other aspects of point source discharge as the CZM program
evolves.

2-B/41

The same basic process as outlined in Policy (3) above will be
undertaken to implement this policy, with the exception that greater
emphasis will be placed on evaluating and formulating siting or loca-
tional criteria rather than evaluating discharge standards. Major
activities to be evaluated include cesspools and septic systems, and
discharges from recreational boating activities.

CZM specifically recommends that:

1. Cesspools and Septic Systems: Site specific guidelines for
locating individual treatment systems adjacent to estuaries,
salt ponds, and coastal embayments should be developed.

2. Recreational boating:

a. Conformance with EPA requirements for marine sanitation
devices should be enforced. All new boating facilities
should be required to provide pump-out facilities to
encourage use of holding tanks. Houseboats and other
vessels berthed or moored for stationary use at dockside
or within harbor zones should be required to be either
equipped with holding tanks for use with pump-out
facilities or with direct hookups to municipal or private
sewage systems.

b. Research should be conducted to evaluate the effects of
recreational boat wake and prop wash on shoreline erosion
and turbidity in Massachusetts coastal areas. If adverse
effects can be conclusively attributed to recreational
boating, criteria for identifying susceptible areas and
appropriate activity regulations (e.g.,speed limits)
should be implemented.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

--Division of Water Pollution Control (WPC) (MGLA Ch. 21), a unit
of DEQE, administers the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)
in Massachusetts and has authority over water quality as an integral
,part of the law of the Commonwealth. Its jurisdiction covers all
waters within the Commonwealth--fresh water, salt water, and ground
water. Under the FWPCA, Section 402 and 404, WPC issues discharge
permits for both point and non-point source discharges and regulates
such activities or facilities as sewage treatment plants, sewer

2-B/42

hook-ups, watercraft discharges, hazardous wastes, oil and certain
industrial coolants and thermal effluents. CZM and WPC, in a Memoran-
dum of Understanding, will mutually undertake the steps required to
implement Policies (3) and (4) in order to improve the current methods
of permit and project evaluations. Applications for projects or
permits which are received in the interim will incorporate as much of
these concerns as possible including any new recommendations developed
as the CZM program evolves. Specific attention and careful scrutiny
will be addressed by WPC to the effects of their permits on the areas
discussed in Policies (1) and (2).

--Community Sanitation Progr (MGLA Ch. 111; State Environmental
Code, Title 5, Regulation 2) requires permits for all sub-surface dis-
charges from septic tanks. Standards for percolation rates, distance
from a water bodyj capacity of system, etc., are set by the Code.
Local Boards of Health implement State Environmental Code for small-
scale systems; the state retains authority for large systems. CZM and
DEQE are currently working on an appendix to the Code to deal with the
higher sensitivities of critical areas.

--Water Resources Commission (MGLA Ch. 21, s. 8-9) is an inter-
departmental body made up of the Commissioners of each of the five
.Departments in Environmental Affairs and the Department of Commerce and
Development. It functions as a water policy agency and coordinates the
water conservation and flood prevention programs of the Commonwealth
and implements the Federal Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act.

--Water Pollution Control, Marina Licenses (MGLA, Ch. 91, s. 59B)
the Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) has specific authority
to license marinas; no license is to be.issued unless adequate facili-
ties for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage exist.
Following a Memorandum of Understanding with DWPC, this program will
be actively implemented.

--Marine Sanitation Device Standards (P.L. 92-500) have been
promulg ated by EPA as a part of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. The standards allow the discharge of treated wastes from re-
creational vessels into coastal waters. By January 31, 1980, all
recreational vessels must be equipped with Marine Sanitation Devices
that will discharge effluent with a fecal coliform bacteria count not
greater than 200/100 ml. and suspended solids not greater than
150 mg./l. Through application to the EPA Administrator, a state may
also request that discharge be completely prohibited in certain waters,
e.g.,shellfish beds, fish spawning areas.

--.Pesticide Board (MGLA, Ch. 94B, s. 11) - licenses people who
apply pesticides to the lands of others. The licensing procedure
involves testing applicants for their knowledge of various pesticides.

2-B/43

The Pesticide Board.is also empowered to adopt rules and regulations
relating to the use, sale or transportation of specific pesticides in
order to protect public health, waters, wetlands, wildlife, etc. CZM
will prepare a Memorandum of Understanding wi,th the Board to insure
that the use of pesticides in or near the coastal zone conform-with
sound marine biological principles. CZM will also assist the Board in
its efforts to encourage users to apply alternative measures1to
pesticides.

Policy (5) Condition construction in water bodies to minimize inter-
ference with water circulation and sediment'transport and
to preserve water quality and marine productivity.

Estuaries and coastal embayments are particularly productive areas
and prime habitat for a variety of marine species. -Frdsh water river
discharge into estuaries helps to create favorable salinity regimes for
certain marine species. Interference with natural river discharge,
tidal flushing, and water circulation patterns can deny marine organ-
isms water borne food, alter sediment transport, and create arIeas of
stagnant, polluted water.

.Thus construction of solid fill piers, bulkheads, or other per-'
manent marine structures (see Coastal Hazards section for erosion
control structures) shall be examined on a-case*by case basis and 'shall
be permitted if:

a. in estuaries and coastal embaymen'ts, flushing rates and
capacity are not reduced,

b. water quality and marine productivity are not affected,

C. alteration of wave generated littoral currents will not
exacerbate or induce shoreline erosion or adversely alter
depositional patterns.

Highway and road works, bridge construction and dams and impound-
ments will be required to ensure that they do not:

a. adversely affect the quantity of fresh water entering coastal
receiving waters,

b. adversely affect water quality in the fresh water inflow and
coastal receiving water, and

C. increase shoreline and adjacent upland erosion, induce or
accelerate runoff of contaminants, or increase the turbidity
of fresh water inflow and coastal receiving water.

2-B/44

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

The authorities in the state Wetlands, Waterways, and Ocean
Sanctuaries programs, the Federal Corps of Engineer permits, and the
MEPA, NEPA and A-95 review processes (discussed after Policies (1) and
(2)) will all be applied to implement this policy.

Department of Public Works both permits "curb cuts" into state
highways for private driveways as well as municipal roads (MGLA,
Ch. 81, s. 15-21) and constructs such transportation works as roads,
bridges, culverts. CZM will prepare a Memorandum of Understanding
with DPW to ensure that CZM concerns are incorporated in the permit-
ting of "curb cuts" and the siting and design of transportation works.

--Division of Water Supply (MGLA Ch. 40) has permit authority
over all proposed withdrawals from surfaces or groundwater sources in
order to assure the availability of a safe and adequate source of
water supply for public use. CZM and DWS will work together on appro-
priate occasions when an alteration in the supply of fresh water would
affect the salinity of an area and its ability to function as a pro-
ductive environment.

Policy (6) Ensure that dredging and disposal of dredged material
minimize adverse effects on marine productivity.

In addition to the recommendations relating to dredging enumerate
above in Policies (1) and (2), dredging shall be prohibited anywhere
in the coastal zone during finfish and shellfish spawning seasons as
specified by the Division of Marine Fisheries.

CZM will cooperate with communities and provide assistance to
identify environmentally responsible dredge spoil sites for both clean
and contaminated spoil. CZM will work with concerned state and
federal agencies to ensure that the elutriate test is not used to
distinguish between clean and contaminated spoil and that a test based
on biological impacts is used.

By providing technical assistance and funding for feasibility
studies, CZM will help to identify opportunities for in-harbor and
land disposal, especially where beneficial re-use is possible. In the
event that on land or in-harbor disposal capacity is limited, CZM will
ensure that priority is given for use of this capacity for disposal of
contaminated spoil. When land disposal of dredge material is proposed,
CZM will work to ensure that hydraulic rather than mechanical dredge
methods are employed.

CZM will also fund feasibility studies for identifying ocean
disposal'sites suitable for serving regional clean dredge disposal
needs. Criteria for identification of such sites include:

2-B/45

a. ability to remain hydrodynamically stable after dredge
disposal, and

b. the absence of significant fishery resources.

CZM is committed to the protection of the marine environment as a pro-
ductive resource. CZM does not, therefore, favor the use of ocean
sites for the disposal of contaminated dredge material. If, however,
all alternatives, including limiting the extent of dredging, not
dredging at all, or on land and in-harbor disposal are not feasible,
CZM recommends the continued use of the Boston foul site for disposal
of contaminated dredge spoils.

If a new regional ocean disposal site should be designated, CZM
shall take an active role in coordinating the concerns of all involved
state agencies and shall ensure that such a site:

a. be affected by currents of low enough velocity that
appreciable erosion will not occur,

b. be at a depth sufficient to avoid wave base erosion,

c. be of insignificant importance to the fisheries resources
of the Commonwealth, and

d. be limited only to priority projects meeting the benefit
criteria set forth in Ports and Harbors Policy (20).

In addition, CZM shall continue to 1) seek alternative methods of
disposal and 2) ensure that bio-uptake and concentration of contami-
nants through food chains will not represent a serious problem with
ocean disposal.

For such a new regional site, CZM recommends that the Corps of
Engineers periodically monitor bottom conditions. This should consist
of periodic bathymetric and side scan sonar surveys over the disposal
area to assess any changes in the configuration of the spoil mound.
Monitoring of bottom water current velocity and underwater photography
at the spoil area should be conducted periodically to determine if any
dredge material is being eroded. In addition, submersible dives shoul@
be made to visually survey both the geological and biological changes.
Several biological stations should also be maintained on and over the
site to monitor bio-uptake of pollutants and recolonization by phyto-
plankton, zooplankton, indicator polychaete species (e.g., Capitella),
molluscs, and other fauna.

2-B/46

In any dredge disposal operations to occur at an ocean site, the
following conditions shall be applied to the disposal permit:

1. use of bucket dredges and hopper dredge scows using sudden,
high volume release shall be required;

2. scows shall not be overloaded; measures shall be taken to
ensure spoil is disposed of in areas below wave base depth.
Scows must be dead in the water when the dump is made; and

3. fishermen must be notified of the time and route of dumping
operations and be given LORAN bearings of the dump site so
that interference with trawling activity can be avoided.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

The regulatory and licensing authority in the Waterways, Wetlands,
Ocean Sanctuaries and Corps of Engineers program can all be applied to
prevent dredging. The key problem is sound disposal of contaminated
spoil. Therefore, CZM will carry out the following actions to insure
that its concerns are addressed by permissible dredging projects:

--Memoranda of Understanding with the forenamed agencies to
incorporate CZM policies into their permit procedures and to according-
ly condition or deny permits.

CZM Funding (Section 306) to conduct dredge spoil disposal
investigations. See the Program Incentives section of the Management
chapter for further detaiJ17S_._

--Continue the work of the Dredge Spoil Task Force (consisting of
members from state agencies, the Corps, and chaired by CZM) to ensure
coordinated policies. Encourage continued technical assistance on the
part of participating agencies (the Corps has promised $25,000 worth
of technical assistance).

--Actively promote all efforts to insure an economically and
environmentally reasonable alternative to ocean disposal including
championing such proposals before federal. agencies and Congress in
order to receive the necessary funds for land acquisition, engineering
and construction costs, whether to be granted to state of federal
agencies.

Policy (7) Accommodate off-shore sand and gravel mining needs in areas
and in ways that will not adversely effect marine re-
sources and navigation.

CZM recommends that the following locational guidelines be incor-
porated into regulations for offshore sand and gravel mining and ocean

2-B/47

sanctuary regulations where applicable:

1. raining should be prohibited in marine areas that serve as
sources of sediment supply for coastal beaches or in areas
where alteration of bottom contours would adversely modify
wave and current patterns affecting shoreline areas. General-
ly these areas will be landward of the 80' contour.

2. mining should be prohibited in areas where contaminated dredge
material has been deposited or other hazardous substances have
been dumped.

3. mining should be prohibited within a specified distance of
submarine cables and pipelines.

4. mining should be prohibited in navigation channels or
anchorages unless shipping concerns can be safely accom-
modated.

5. mining should be prohibited in shellfish, finfish spawning
and nursery areas or in other areas of productive sport or
commercial fisheries.

CZM recommends the following operational guidelines also be in-
corporated in regulations:

1. all dredging vessels should be adequately lit and equipped
with fog horns to prevent accidental collisions.

2. information on dredge's location, duration of mining and
navigation lights should be included in Coast Guard's
notices to mariners.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

--Division of Mineral Resources (MGLA Ch. 21, s. 54) licenses
exploration and extraction of mineral resources in the coastal waters
of the state. Mineral resources include oil, gas, metals, ores,
minerals, rock, soil, and sand and gravel, etc. Removal of materials
for beach replenishment, navigation works, etc., are exempt from the
law. CZM will work with this program to insure that the CZM recom-
mendations will be enforced.

--Ocean Sanctuaries Acts, Waterways, Corps of Engineers programs
will be coordinated via Memoranda of Understanding to insure that the
preceding recommendations are incorporated into the regulations and
operating procedures of these programs.

2-B/48

--MEPA, NEPA, and A-95 reviews will be continually conducted by
CZM to monitor the activities of other state and federal agencies, and
CZM will review proposals for offshore sand and gravel mining to
ensure consistency with this policy.

Policy (8) Encourage and assist the development of aquaculture,
commercial fisheries research and development, fish
restoration, and anadromous fish enhancement.

The CZM program will actively participate with federal, state and
private institutions to direct research, technology, and project deve-
lopment programs to solving fisheries problems and enhancing fisheries
productivity. CZM will take an active role in supporting and coordina-
ting the efforts of commercial fishery organizations seeking economic
development and planning assistance from federal funding agencies. The
CZM program will continue to work with the Lt. Governor's 200 Mile Work
Group to identify and implement measures needed by the fishing
industry.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

A variety of federal programs provide research and project funds
that are germane to this policy. The more important of these
programs are:

--National Marine Fisheries Service administers federal fisheries
management programs and studies the biological productivity of coastal
and offshore waters. The Service also funds anadromous fish restora-
tion programs and commercial fisheries research and development
studies. Grants are extended to states for the development, imple-
mentation, administration, monitoring, and evaluation of fisheries
management plans, for research on shellfish species which have or may
have commercial value, and for research on shellfish pathological pro-
blems and mortality. The Service also administers loan programs to
commercial fishermen. CZM will work with the Service and its state
counterpart, the Division of Marine Fisheries, to ensure that these
programs are adequately funded and directed toward meeting the needs
of the Massachusetts fishing industry and.toward enhancing fisheries
productivity.

--Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife provides anadromous fish
conservation grants to states and other entities to conserve, develop,
and enhance anadromous fish resources. The Bureau also extends grants
to state fish and game agencies to support projects to restore and
maintain sport fish populations. CZM will work with the Bureau, the
Massachusetts Fisheries and Wildlife Division and the Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries to promote restoration of anadromous fish
runs in the coastal zone and will advocate adequate funding for such
projects during A-95 and other reviews.

2-B/49

--Office of Sea Grant extends financial support to Sea Grant
institutions. In Massachusetts these'include the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution..
CZM will work with the two institutions to ensure that their Sea Grant
programs adequately reflect the research and extension needs of the
commercial and sports fishing industry. Desirable Sea Grant programs
for Massachusetts may include:

1. support for biological research on species that have
commercial significance, on aquaculture methods, and
on improving or devising techniques and methods used
for harvesting and processing, and

2. advisory services for fishermen and fish processors on new
techniques and methods of harvest, processing,-and sale.'

2-B/50

TECHNICAL NOTES AND SOURCES

1. Westlake, 1963. "Comparisons of Plant Productivity," Biological
Review, 38.

2. Teal, John, 1960. "Energy Flow in the Saltmarsh Ecosystem of
Georgia," Ecology, 43(4).

3. Institute for Man and the Environment, 1976, Sensitivity Analysis
and Priority Ranking for Coastal Habitats. Prepared for Massachu-
setts Coastal Zone Management Program.

4. Matthiessen, GC, 1962. "Tidemarshes: A Vanishing Resource,"
Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, Mass.

5. "Banding and foraging studies show that many individuals remain in
estuaries for over a month, and that their activities are budgeted
to accommodate maximum foraging time and consequent accumulation of
fat. These facts lead to the a priori conclusion that the coastal
estuaries are important to the physiological preparations that must
occur prior to long flight and that the numbers of locations where
this preparation can take place are limited.".
Harrington, B., S. K. Groves, and N. T. Houghton, 1974. "1973 Sea-
son Progress Report, Massachusetts Shorebird Studies." Prepared
for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

6. Sanders, H., 1958. "Benthic Studies in Buzzard's Bay, I. Animal-
Sediment Relationships." Limnology and Oceanography, 3(3).

7. "The ease with which shallow water can be stirred and mixed by the
winds increases the importance of exchange of elements between
sediments and water to such an extent that the sediments may have a
major influence on the routes and rates of movement of nutrients.
Nutrients sorbed onto sediment particles are available to the biota.
These nutrients can occur again in the water and be accumulated by
the biota by absorption or adsorption. A portion of the nutrients
bio-accumulated is returned to the environment through excretion and
through decomposition of organisms."
Duke, TW and TR Rice, 1966. "Cycling of Nutrients in Estuaries."
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.

8. Dunbar, L., 1975. "Transfer between a Salt Marsh and its Estuary:
Marsh and Mudflats a Coupled System." Paper presented at the
New England Estuarine Society Meetings in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

9. Bumpus, D., 1973, "Description of the Circulation of the Continental
Shelf," Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Contribution No. 2952.

2-B/51

10. Institute for Man and the Environment, 1976. Sensitivity Analysis
and Priority Ranking for Coastal Habitats. Prepared for Massa-
chusetts Coastal Zone Management Program.

11. Odum, W.E., 1970. "Insidious Alteration of the Estuarine Environ-
ment." Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 4.

12. Institute for Man and the Environment, 1976. Sensitivity Analysis
and Priority Ranking for Coastal Habitats. Prepared for Massa-
chusetts Coastal Zone Management Program.

13. Odum, W. E., 1970.

14. Perkins, E. J. and 0. J. Abbott, 1974. "Nutrient Enrichment and
Sand Flat Fauna." Marine Pollution Bulletin.

15. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. Water Quality Criteria,
Vol. 1.

16. Jackson, T., 1976. "PCB Time Bomb." oceans, 4.

17. Ibid.

18. Dorn, 1976. "Feeding Behavior of 'Mytilus edulis in presence of
methylmercury acetate." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology, 15(6).

19. Reish, etal, found that a 0.22 mg/l concentration of Cadmium was
lethal for 50% of the polychaete trochophores exposed for 96 hours,
while a 7.5 mg/l concentration of Cadmium was lethal for 50% of
the adults exposed for 96 hours.
Reish, D.T., J.M. Martin, F.M. Piltz, and J.Q. Wood, 1976. "The
Effect of Heavy Metals in Laboratory Populations of Two Polychaetes
with Comparisons to the Water Quality Conditions and Standards in
Southern California Marine Waters." Water Research, 10.

20. Dunstan, W.M., H.L. Windom, and G.L. McIntre, 1975. "The Role of
Spartina alterniflora in the Flow of Lead, Cadmium, and Copper
Through the Saltmarsh Ecosystem." In Mineral Cycling in South-
eastern Ecosystems, edited by Howell, Gentry, and Smith.

21. Laboratory experiments have determined that a 2.5 mg/1 concentra-
tion of chlorine will cause an 80% mortality rate in barnacles,
and a 90% mortality rate in copepods.
McLean, R.I., 1973. "Chlorine and Temperature Stress on Estuarine
Invertebrates." Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, 45(5).

22. There is some reduction in metabolic activity, suggesting that
chlorine and its compounds act as inhibitors of metabolic pro-
@cesses.
Cappozo, Judy, 1976. personal communication.

2-B/52

23. Georges Bank Petroleum Study, Offshore Oil Task Force Group, 1973.
MIT-Sea Grant Publication 73-5.

24. Blumer, M., G. Hampson, H. Sanders, F. Grassle, 1970. West
Falmouth Oil Spill, I._Chemistry. unpublished manuscript, Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution.

25. Ibid.

26. The West Falmouth oil spill of 1969 had less severe impact because
it occurred just after the end of the summer tourist season. The
cost of cleanup and lost fisheries resources was estimated at
one half million dollars. This figure does not reflect the loss
of fisheries beyond the first year.
Easton, Robert, 1972. Black Tide.

27. Southeastern Massachusetts Regional Economic, Planning, and
Development Commission, 1975. "Wastewater Treatment Facilities."

28. Studies done by Ryther in Moriches Bay, Long Island led the
investigator to conclude that decreased oyster production in the
bay was due to excessive enrichment of the waters by Long Island
duck farms. Heavy enrichment and slow exchange between the bay
and ocean produced large plankton populations; these populations
effectively eliminated the oysterts food species from
Moriches Bay.
Ryther, J. H., 1954. "The Ecology of Phytoplankton Blooms in
Moriches Bay and Great South Bay, Long Island, New York."
Biological Bulletin, 106.

29. Research on turbidity effects is limited. However, studies to date
suggest that prop wash causes resuspension of bottom material in
depths of six feet or less.
Yousef, A., 1974. "Assessing Effects on Water Quality by Boating
Activity." National Environmental Research Center, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio.

30. Federal Register, Volume 41(20), Thursday, January 29, 1976.
Title 40, Chapter 1 Subchapter D, Part 140, Marine Sanitation
Device Standard.

31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Boating Industry Associa-
tion, 1973. "Analysis of Pollution from Marine Engines and Effects
on Environment." Grant #R-801799, Program Element # 1BB038.

32. There is evidence that mass mortalities from temperature changes,
oxygen depletion, and other causes have always occurred, even in
the most pristine and unpolluted estuaries. This emphasizes the
fact that many estuarine residents are living near the limit of

2-B/53

their tolerance range; any further alteration, no matter how
slight it may seem, could exclude the organism permanently from..
.the estuary. Such alterations come in the form of increased water
temperatures, decreased oxygen concentration in the water from
dredging and mining operations, or through the introduction of
additional stress from low levels of pollutants.
Odum, W.E., 1970. "Insidious Alteration of the Estuarine Environ-
ment." Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 4.

33. Removal of a species may leave an empty niche or else a niche which
has been claimed by an ecologically less desirable species-- one
replaces a forage organism, but itself is not a suitable food.
Ibid.

34. Castenholz, R.W., 1967. "Stability and Stresses in Intertidal
Populations." In Pollution and Marine Ecology, T.H. Olsen and
F.J. Burgess, editors. John Wiley and Sons.

35. Losses in productivity have been documented in a study done on a
salt pond in New York. Investigators monitored the pond monthly
during the period from ten months prior to initiation of channel
dredging to eleven months after completion of the dredging.
A 79% reduction in the number of organisms present was observed
eleven months after the dredging. Further, faunal productivity,
.on a wet weight basis, decreased from 90 grams/ m2/year to 31
grams/m2/year, one year after channel dredging.
Kaplan, E. H., J. R. Walker, and M. G. Kraus, 1974. "Some Effects
of Dredging on Populations of Macrobenthis Organisms." Xishery
Bulletin, 72(2).

36. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has recommended disposal sites be
located every 30 miles along the shoreline.

37. The N.O.M.E.S. (New England Offshore Mining Environmental Study)
was a cooperative research effort between federal agencies and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Its purpose was to "evaluate the
direct and indirect ecological effects of offshore sand and gravel
mining... (and)to provide a scientific basis for the establishment
of realistic environmental safeguards over potential future off-
shore mining.operations." Unfortunately, the N.O.M.E.S. project
was not completed and the environmental consequences of offshore
mining have yet to be determined.

38. McMaster, Robert L., 1965. "Mineralogy as an Indicator of Beach.
Sand Movement along the Rhode Island Shore." Journal of Sedi-
mentary Petrology, 30(3).

Emery, K.O., 1965. "Some Potential Mineral Resources of the
Atlantic Continental Margin." U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 525-C.

2-B/54

(Zm
w
Coastal Hazards

COASTAL HAZARDS

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The attractiveness of the Massachusetts coastline comes largely from
the constant shaping and reworking of shoreline features by natural
processes unique to the coastal zone. These same processes, however,
periodically turn the coastal zone into a hostile environment where the
powerful forces of flooding and erosion cause widespread damage to man-
made structures and facilities. Consider, for example:

- The great hurricane of 1938 was estimated to have caused
$56.9 million worth of damage to the communities bordering
Buzzards Bay and $6.7 million in damages to the Cape Cod
region.1

- In 1954, hurricane Carol caused damages of $46.9 million to
the Buzzards Bay area and $7.0 million to the Cape Cod
region.1

- A single northeast storm in the winter of 1959 caused $2.7
million worth of damages to Boston Harbor and $445,000 in
damages to South Shore communities.2

- Northeast storms in 1961 and 1972, respectively, caused
$300,000 in damages to the North Shore region and $1.3
million in damages to the Town of Scituate alone.2

While the increasing effectiveness of storm warning services and
evacuation preparedness plans has substantially reduced the threat
to human lives posed by coastal flooding and erosion, increased
development of hazard prone areas exposes more and more structures
to direct attack by storm forces.

Unwise development of coastal flood and erosion prone areas is
commonly attributed to the public's ignorance of the potential risks
to both lives and property. The recent public opinion survey conducted
by the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program finds to the
contrary. Of the coastal residents polled, 55% felt that erosion of
coastal areas was at least somewhat of a problem, 33% felt that coastal
flooding is a threat to some areas, and 47% felt that development should
be prohibited within coastal flood and erosion hazard areas.
Additionally, as of March 31, 1976, $188 million of nationally subsi-
dized flood insurance has been purchased by owners of property within
the coastal communities, thus indicating the gravity of concern felt by
coastal residents. Federal subsidies of the cost of this insurance
currently amount to almost $3 million,3 and annual subsidies of similar
magnitude will continue for several years until the program progresses
to its second phase in participating coastal communities.

2-C/l

Obviously, then, the threat offlood and erosion damage is perceived
to be very real. However, as the value of their coastal properties
continues to escalate, many coastal residents will continue to risk
property damage in order to enjoy the economic and aesthetic amenities
offered by coastal living.

Much of the damage from flooding and erosion could be avoided if
owners of coastal property and developers would respect the value of
natural buffers along the coast. Unfortunately, only recently has the
protective role of coastal landforms and processes become more clearly
understood. For example.- beaches and marshes dissipate destructive
storm waves over their gradual slopes; beach grasses and other coastal
vegetation stabilize dune systems and prevent direct wave attack against
inland areas; erosion of one segment of beach or blu ffs provides
sediment material for accretion of another. In short, all coastal
systems function in a state of dynamic equilibrium to withstand wave and
wind forces.

Development of these-sensitive buffer areas for residential,
commercial, or recreational uses has not only left structures and
facilities exposed to destructive forces, but also seriously impa .ired
the ability of these buffers to protect inland development areas,
,important wildlife habitat areas, scenic resources, and other unique
aspects of the coastal zone.

In response to the need to protect development in hazardous areas,
massive protective structures have been built and in some instances have
.been effective. However, they are becoming increasingly recognized as,
at best, expensive short term solutions which may only exacerbate
problems elsewhere along the coast. With the implementation of the
National Flood Insurance Program and other recent federal programs, the
federal government is putting'greater emphasis on non-structural
measures. However, the CZM Program finds that still stronger programs
are needed to prevent unwise development"of hazardous areas within the
coastal zone and preserve and restore the natural protective functions
of coastal landforms and processes.

A high degree of cooperation 'among federal, state, and local'
entities will be required to facilitate optimal use of remaining
undeveloped buffer land along the coast, to restore.previously impaired
buffer areas,, to prevent development that would exacerbate existing
hazards, and to implement limited structural solutions in situations,
where the need for structural protection is unquestioned. Further,
consistent with emerging federal policy that directs the burden of risk
in hazardous areas to be shifted to owners of property within these
areas,4 the Massachusetts Coastal ZonelManagement Program aims to reduce
the magnitude of public subsidies being used to support private develop-
ment in damage prone areas, and to-shift monies used for protective
engineering works to more effective, beneficial uses.

in the following sections the buffering functions of natural land-
forms, impacts of development on flood and erosion prone areas,
existing programs to deal with the problems, and detailed CZM

2-C/2

recommendations to supplement existing programs are discussed.

NATURAL PROCESSES RELATING TO FLOODING AND EROSION OF COASTAL AREAS

Two major types of storms affect the,coastline of Massachusetts;
hurricanes and northeast storms. Because these two types of storms
attack the coast from different directions (see figure below), the
magnitude of flood and erosion damage will vary with the exposure of
coastal communities to the direction of storm approach. Thus, damage
from hurricanes occurs chiefly along the southern Massachusetts coast-
line from the Rhode'Island line into Buzzards Bay, the Elizabeth
Islands, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, and the southern Cape Cod
shoreline eastward to Chatham. The eastern stretch of the Cape Cod
coast from Chatham north to Provincetown is more vulnerable to north-
east storms. Shores along western stretches of the Cape from
Provincetown to Brewster are generally unaffected by northeast storms,
but are seriously eroding in certain areas. The remainder of the
Massachusetts shoreline northward is highly susceptible to
norleaster flooding and suffers erosion in varying amounts depending
on the severity of each storm. Of course, individual stretches of
coastline within these broad ranges may vary significantly with
respect to vulnerability to hurricanes, norleasters, and storms
striking the coast from other directions.

Maximum flooding along a particular coastline will occur when the
storm winds blow onshore at or near the time of high tide (especially
during spring tides) when water elevations reach their highest levels.
Strong winds exerting pressure on the water's surface may cause it to
11pile up" against the coast resulting in the effect called "storm
surge."

While severe coastal flooding and erosion are typically the result
of occasional tropical or nor'easters, storms, shoreline areas are also
subjected daily to normal wave and aeolian (wind) effects which cause
constant shifts in the configuration of beaches, sand dunes, barrier
beaches, and other coastal landforms. Through the transport of
sediment material in the long shore current (littorial drift) all of
these coastal formations are linked together as sources of sediment or
areas of accretion. Thus, erosion of one stretch of sand cliff or
beach may be supplying sand for replenishment of a beach situated down
coast. Therefore, any action,either natural (such as a storm) or man-
made--(such as the construction of a groin) affecting one segment of
coast can cause detrimental or beneficial effects on another stretch
of coast directly adjacent or miles down coast in the direction of the
littoral flow. Sand also moves perpendicular to the beach--onshore
during the summer when low energy waves prevail and offshore in the
winter season due to higher energy conditions associated with storms.
As with longshore movement, if the onshore-offshore dynamic process is
disturbed, negative effects may occur to the beach.

2-C/3

CRITICAL
EROSION
.. ....... and
MAJOR
STORM
WINDS

.11.4 ls.4 ('111 SE

H .4

NORTHEASTERS

.Z,

on'

i, IEST"i

NAWUCKET SOUND

00 %

71 NMOXIET
HURRICANE WINDS

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

When left to develop and evolve in an unaltered natural state,
the various types of coastal landforms will function to weaken and
buffer the high energy effects of storm forces as follows:

Sand beaches and dune systems: The gradual slope of the beach
face dissipates wave energy; sand deposited by littoral
processes is transported via wind to form dunes, and is
subsequently stabilized by vegetation. The natural buffer
created protects inland areas from wave attack.

Barrier beaches: The beach and dune systems function as above,
protecting landward estuaries, tidal flats, and salt ponds, as
well as mainland shores. Overwashing of the dunes during storms
causes deposition of sediment, redistributing substrate for sand
dune formation and marsh development, maintaining the height of
backshore areas, and causing slow landward migration. Natural
inlets may also be breached in these systems periodically,
providing increased circulation of salt ponds and lagoons and
a redistribution of sediment material.

Offshore bars: The submerged bars dissipate winter wave energy
during storms, and provide a sediment source for seasonal
rebuilding of sand beaches and landward dunes.

Sand and Clay Bluffs: Erosion of bluff slopes provides
sediment material to replenish downcoast beaches.

Wetlands: The gradual slope of the marsh beds
and binding vegetation dissipates incoming wave energy
during storm periods, causing deposition of additional
sediment material. Marshes in estuaries also act as storage
areas for flood waters.

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT OF FLOOD AND EROSION PRONE AREAS

Unfortunately, intensive development of the coastal zone for
tourism and recreation, housing, and other uses have often resulted
in serious alteration of natural protective landforms and resulted
in the implementation of futile attempts to combat nature through
construction of massive engineering works. Because of economic
incentives, ignorance, or willful disregard of the importance of
maintaining natural buffering functions, building practices have left
structures in many areas directly exposed to storm surge, wave attack,
and erosive forces, and have resulted in the deterioration of coastal
habitat, scenic attributes, and recreation resources. (See
accompanying photographs.)

Principal adverse effects of construction of residential or
commercial structures and ancillary facilities on beaches, sand dunes,
and barrier beaches may include:

2-C/5

- Cutting of dunes: regrading of dune areas for construction
of buildings and other facilities reduces the capabilities
of the dune system to dissipate wave energy.

- Disruption of natural wind flow and depositional patterns:
obstructing buildings cause scouring effects which may
result in dune "blowouts" wherein vegetation is destroyed and
the normal pattern of parallel dune ridges is adversely
disrupted. The protective dune system is then more vulnerable
to breaching by storm waves.

- Obstruction of overwash: obstruction by buildings and other
facilities or improper restoration of dune areas will impair
the "constructive" overwash of barrier beaches during storm
periods. Landward deposition of sediment which builds up the
interior and backshore areas of the beaches will be prevented.

- Acceleration of beach/dune face erosion: construction of sea
walls or the cutting and steepening of foredune slopes will
cause increased erosion of the beach face since wave energy
will be concentrated rather than dissipated over a gradual
slope.

- Acceleration of bluff erosion: building on the edges of bluff
crests removes binding vegetation, increases surface runoff,
loosens bluff material, and accelerates erosion of bluff
slopes.

- Encroachment of development in coastal wetlands, estuaries,
and tidal flats: filling of these shallow open expanses
reduces the area over which wave energy can be dissipated.
Their flood storage potential may also be reduced if located
in mouths or embayments.

Ground water withdrawal and contamination: human consumption
of the ground water supply reduces the limited quantity of
fresh water available to the dependent vegetation and
increases the likelihood of salt water intrusion. Seepage
from septic systems or storm-damaged sewer systems may
seriously pollute local ground water supplies and adjacent
marshlands and shellfish beds.

Disruption of surface runoff and sub-surface infiltration:
pavement of roads and parking lots with impermeable surfaces
will increase surface runoff and reduce the infiltration of
fresh water needed to support vegetation. Furthermore,
recreational over-use of coastal areas may also degrade the
buffering functions of natural landforms. For example, beach
grass is acutely sensitive to trampelling--therefore excessive
foot traffic in sand dune areas may cause erosion of dune
slopes, as may heavy use of off-road recreational vehicles.

2-C/6

STATE AND FEDERAL STRUCTURAL PROGRAMS

Through the combined efforts of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, the Massachusetts Division of Waterways, and the
Metropolitan District Commission, a number of structural protective
measures, such as seawalls, groins, jetties, breakwaters, and dikes
have been implemented over the years along the coast of Massachusetts
to protect development in hazard prone areas.5 Projects implemented
by these agencies have met with varying degrees of success, and in
some cases may even have accelerated erosion by depriving down drift
beaches of sand or by concentrating energy on the beach face at the
base of the structures.6 The Division of Waterways receives no
appropriation for maintenance of structures it builds. Responsibility
for maintenance is placed on local communities who are often unable
or reluctant to meet the substantial costs involved. Therefore, the
Division of Waterways periodically must completely rebuild
deteriorated structures.7

THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM AND OTHER
NON-STRUCTURAL PROGRAMS

On the federal level, the major focus of flood plain management
has been the 1968 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) amended
in 1973 and administered by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Created in the effort to shift the financial burden of
flood risk to coastal landowners and away from federally appropriated
disaster relief (for which the public at large must bear the costs),
principal features of the program include:

1. Federally subsidized insurance coverage for existing
structures in flood prone areas designated on preliminary
hazard boundary maps.

2. Federal sanctions against the allocation of federal
acquisition or construction funds unless the recipient
community is a member of the national program.

3. Implementation of minimum management regulations by
participating communities, consistent with federal
standards for structure elevations and flood proofing.

4. Delineation on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM's) of
special flood hazard areas (A zones-areas within the 100
year base flood zone) and areas of high hazard (V zones-
special f lood hazard areas subj ect to the ef f ects of storm
wave impact; E zones-areas vulnerable to the effects of
flood-related erosion).*

*NOTE: The 100 year flood means "the flood having a one percent
chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year."

2-C/7

5. Actuarial insurance coverage for new construction and
substantial improvements of existing structures located
within flood prone areas of participating communities.

As of July, 1976, all of the Massachusetts coastal towns have
joined the program, except five. Delineation of flood insurance rate
maps has been completed for 15 towns. The remainder of the towns are
using preliminary hazard boundary maps distributed by HUD, while their
detailed rate maps are being prepared.8

Implementation of the NFIP will have the following effects:

1. minimum management criteria and structural standards
established for the program may reduce loss of life
and property over the short term, and private land-
owner financial losses will be substantially
reduced.

2. the flood insurance rate mapping process being coordi-
nated by HUD will provide an excellent data base to
delineate flood and/or erosion prone areas for future
management.

3. the provisions for inexpensive insurance (there is a
maximum chargeable premium rate and costs are typically
subsidized up to 90% by the federal government) may do
little to encourage relocation or non-development of
the flood and/or erosion prone areas. Conversion of
seasonal housing to year round use as well as new
development in these areas may in fact be encouraged.9

4. alteration of natural processes or destruction of natural
buffers will not necessarily be prevented by minimum
standards aimed at improving the structural capabilities
of buildings located within flood or erosion prone areas.

Given its basic purpose, that of reducing loss of life and
property, the NFIP represents a major step in the right direction.
However, since the minimum structural standards required of
communities participating in the program may be taken to be maximum
level management controls, it is clear that additional guidance
(e.g., technical assistance from CZM in developing zoning by-laws)
may be needed to develop optimal solutions to effective hazard area
management.

With the passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, the
federal government has directed that non-structural hazard area manage-
ment measures be given equal consideration with traditional structural
measures in 'the evaluation of flood protection alternatives. Section 73
of this Act directs that:

. . . in survey, planning, or design by any federal agency
of any project involving flood protection, consideration

2-C/8

shall be given to non-structural alternatives to prevent
or reduce flood damages. These non-structural alterna-
tives would include such things as flood-proofing of
structures; flood plain acquisition for recreational
fish and wildlife, and other public purpose; and
relocation.10

While awaiting development of a national strategy to optimize flood
management benefits through combinations of the management techniques
suggested in Section 73, the Office of Management and Budget has
restricted appropriations related to this Act. However, when imple-
mentation of this Act on a larger scale becomes a reality, there may be
opportunities for widespread benefits to flood-prone communities in the
coastal zone.

Non-structural measures such as dune restoration and stabilization
are supported by Conservation District and Resource Conservation and
Development programs of the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Additionally, local conservation commissions sponsor
dune restoration projects using plant materials supplied by private
concerns. Also, the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program has
established a nursery to supply coastal plant materials for state park
restoration programs. These types of non-structural measures are
typically less expensive than structural measures, may more closely
simulate effects of natural processes, and if development and access
can be properly restricted on the project areas, the buffering functions
of dunes and beaches can be significantly restored. Techniques that
can be employed include, for example: the positioning of snow fences
to trap wind-transported sediment, or the planting of vegetation to
bind sediment and stabilize dunes. Artificial nourishment of beaches
with sand extracted elsewhere has also been used effectively in some
areas.

2-C/9

OBJECTIVES

The preceding discussion suggests that management of hazardous
areas in the-coastal zone should be designed to achieve the following
objectives:

1. to reduce current losses of property and lives and to
prevent future losses;

2. to preserve and restore coastal landforms and natural
processes which are essential to the protection of
coastal environments and landward areas; and

3. to maximize the effectiveness and economic efficiency
of public investment in hazard protection measures.

CZM POLICY AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

Acquisition of land, either in full or in part through easement
purchase, is a common means of preserving or expanding open' space. It
is also the most effective tool for preventing growth and development
that would be vulnerable to storm damage or would impair the buffering
functions of natural areas. Further, most open space uses will not
require construction of extensive facilities and therefore are
appropriate for damage prone areas.

It is unlikely that sufficient funds will be available for the
acquisition of lands on the basis of hazard protection alone or that
community attitudes would be favorable to such an approach. There-
fore, CZM recommends that sites being considered for purchase through
open space acquisition programs be given high priority if the sites
are hazard prone or serve as natural buffers. Hazard-related criteria
that would give such a site high priority include:

1. the area has been designated as a Significant Resource Area
due to its location within the 100 year flood zone (the "A"
zone, and.especially if located within "V" or "E" zones),
or, pending completion of Flood Insurance Rate Maps,* the
area has been determined to be vulnerable to tidal flooding
or erosion of the basis of historical data.

*NOTE: Flood Insurance Rate Maps are being prepared for communities
participating in the National Flood Insurance Program.

2-C/10

2. presence of natural protective buffers, or high potential
for effectively restoring lost buffering capabilities.

3. lack of local zoning laws that would prevent intensive
structural development or in the case of damaged areas,
redevelopment.

4. federal or state funds have been repeatedly allocated for
flood proofing or repair of damaged structures, utilities,
roads, bridges, and other public services not covered by
the NFIP.
Acquisition can be either at the state or local level. Furr@er,
if a developed area is substantially damaged by storm forces and there
is intense pressure for redevelopment that would again risk major
losses or degrade natural buffering functions, it is recommended that
the area be given even greater priority for acquisition. Acquisition
of these areas will reduce the need for continued public subsidy
(through either insurance or disaster relief) in high risk areas,
while at the same time afford opportunities to open up new areas along
the coast for public access.

In the acquisition of damaged areas, property owners would be
reimbursed for structural damages by the federal insurance program,
while compensation for land value and remaining structural and
contents value would be the responsibility of the Commonwealth or the
community acquiring the properties.

'IMPLEMENTATION

--Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Massachusetts
Self-Help Program:

The Land and Water Conservation Fund of the Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation provides funding for acquisition of open space lands to the
Department of Environmental Management and to towns via reimbursement
through Conservation Services. State funding is also provided through
the Massachusetts Self-Help Program (see Recreation Section).

In the case of state acquisition, losses to the community in tax
revenue could be partially compensated by the Commonwealth under MGLA
Chapter 58, Sections 13-17.

--Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments, 1976, Section 315 -
During the implementation phase of the CZM program, CZM will have
access to federal funds for the purchase of recreation lands in the
coastal zone. CZM will ensure that, in addition to assigning
priorities on the basis of potential recreation benefits, high
priority is given to areas that are hazard prone (see Recreation
Section).

--Water Resources Development Act, 1974, Section 73 - This Act
authorizes federal agencies to consider non-structural measures as well
2-C/11

as structural measures in evaluating alternative flood protection
strategies that would be implemented using federal funds. CZM will
work with the Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies responsible
for flood protection to explore the possibilities of using Section 73
to provide funding for acquisition of hazard prone areas.11

--Other Potential Funding Sources - In the event that it would be
clearly in the interest of the public's safety to acquire damage prone
areas, both the federal government (National Flood Insurance Act, 1968,
Section 1362) and the Commonwealth (Civil Defense Act, 1950) are
empowered to purchase areas substantially damaged by storms.

Policy (10) Prevent further growth and development in high hazard
areas and preserve natural buffers throu&hout the
coastal zone.

a. Restrict new development in identified V and E zones to
the permitted uses defined under Policy (1), Marine
Environment Section, and in the interim, encourage the
establishment of setback restrictions for development in
flood zone areas that are vulnerable to storm wave impact
and in areas suffering critical erosion (especially in
eroding bluff areas).

b. Consistent with Marine Environment Policy (1), restrict
new development in barrier beach, sandy beach, primary
dune, and salt marsh Significant Resources Areas to the
permitted uses defined under that policy.

c. Within Designated Areas for Preservation or Restoration,
restrict new development on lands within the 100 year
flood zone to the specific permitted uses defined under
Policy (1), Marine Environment Section, and to uses
falling within the following general categories:

open space, outdoor recreation
agriculture, forestry, aquaculture
conservation, nature education
fishing, shellfishing, hunting

CZM recognizes that many of the hazardous areas within the coastal
zone have already been extensively developed, and that it is
unrealistic to expect or demand relocation of this development out of
the flood zone or away from critically eroding areas. Furthermore,
CZM accepts the need to protect owners of coastal property in these
areas from losses due to major storms. However, for communities
participating in the National Flood Insurance Program, protection
against financial losses already exists, and the increasing effective-
ness of storm warning services has substantially reduced the potential
for loss of lives should a major storm strike the coast. Therefore,

2-C/12

CZM sees the need to concentrate on preventing new growth and develop-
ment that would be prone to damage or would impair the ability of
natural buffers to protect both existing development in hazardous zones
and development in adjacent inland areas.* The above policies and,
policy (11) are structured to meet this need.

Policies (10a) and (10b) will be implemented using state wetlands
restrictions authorities and new regulations promulgated by HUD for
administration of the NFIP. Policy (10c) will involve imposition of
state wetlands restriction authorities only in the event that local
wetlands protection measures or flood plain zoning measures are
inadequate to ensure compliance.

--National Flood Insurance Program, 1968, Amended 1973 - Regardless
of the f6rm of local or state action to control development in
hazardous areas, communities participating in the NFIP must adopt
minimum management criteria relating to floor elevations and flood
proofing of new development. Under new regulations promulgated by HUD
(Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 207, October 26, 1976), alteration of
sand dunes in V zones that would increase the potential for flood
damage will be prohibited. All new development or proposed improve-
ments in E zones will also be subject to local building permit denial
or condition if they would not be safe from damage, cause flood-related
erosion hazards, or otherwise exacerbate existing flood-related
erosion hazards. Setbacks for new development to create a safety
buffer zone will also be required.12 CZM endorses these new regu-
lations and will collaborate with the Federal Insurance Administration
to ensure consistency between administration of the NFIP and the CZM
program (CZMA, 1972, Section 307). Two means of doing this will be to
evaluate the legal and scientific basis for further revising NFIP
regulations to prevent issuance of insurance for new development in
salt marshes; barrier beach systems,* sandy beaches and primary dune
areas regardless of their zone designation, and to develop model
zoning by-laws or ordinances which reflect mutual CZM and FIA concerns
for requiring development setbacks in high hazard areas.

--Coastal Wetlands Restriction Program (MGLA Ch. 130, s. 105) -
Under this Act, "coastal wetlands" are defined as any land subject to
11coastal storm flowage" and such contiguous land deemed necessary to
affect in order to carry out the purposes of the Act. Therefore,
barrier beach systems, primary sand dunes, sandy beaches, and salt
marshes subject to storm flowage are fully covered by this Act, as will
be V and E zone areas once they are designated on community Flood
Insurance@_Rate Maps prepared for the HUD flood insurance program.
Through Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Environ-
mental Management, CZM will ensure that hazard related concerns are
given priority along with marine environment values in designating
wetlands for restriction.

*NOTE: In extreme cases where there would be widespread public
benefit, structural solutions may be appropriate to protect
existing development. See Policy (13).

2-C/13

--Wetlands Program (MGLA Ch. 131, s. 40) - Empowers local Con-
servation Commissions to issue Orders of Conditions or deny permits for
activities on "...any land subject to coastal storm flowage and
flooding" if that land is significant to flood "control" or "storm
damage prevention." In designated Areas for Preservation or Restora-
tion (Policy (100), CZM will require that either this authority, local
zoning, or voluntary conservation restrictions (see below), be used to
restrict development within the 100 year flood zone, or state wetlands
restrictions will be imposed for the contiguous land 'up to the limit of
the 100 year flood zone. CZM will provide technical assistance in the
development of model zoning by-laws or ordinances and conservation
restrictions.

--Zoning Enabling Act (MGLA Ch. 40A, s. 2) - Authorizes local
flood plain zoning and conservancy zoning whereby ordinances can be
enacted to safeguard public health and safety on lands "subject to
seasonal or periodic flooding."

--Conservation Restriction Program (MGLA Ch. 184, s. 31-33)
Authorizes voluntary conservation restrictions for flood or erosion
control. Land restricted under this authority is assessed as a
separate parcel for tax purposes (Acts of 1972, Chapter 719).

Policy (11) Use all available review authorities to ensure that all
publicly subsidized development within the 100 year
tidal flood zone and pri-@ate projects proposed for areas
below mean high water will not:

a. exacerbate existing hazards

b. be damaged by flood and erosion-related 'forces

C. promote growth and development in damage prone areas or
degrade natural buffers.

Development in salt marsh, barrier beach, primary dune, and sandy
beach Significant Resource Areas and V and E zones within the 100 year
flood zone are covered under Policy (10). `CZM will use its review
powers to ensure that development on the remainder of lands within
the 100 year flood zone is consistent with its hazard area management
ob jectives.

Since the emphasis of the new Unified National Program for Flood
Plain Management (P.L. 90-448, Section 1302(c) study)13 is on shifting
the burden of risk to coastal property owners, public subsidies to sup-
port private development in hazardous areas will be viewed with caution,
Additionally, since public facilities are not covered under the
National Flood Insurance Program, public development will be carefully

2-C/14'

scrutinized to ensure that it will be reasonably safe from flood and
erosion related forces.

IMPLEMENTATION

--A-95, NEPA, MEPA - Federal or state funded projects proposed for
construction within the 100 year flood zone will be reviewed by CZM
under these authorities.

--Federal Water Pollution Control Acts Amendments of 1972,,
Section 201 and 208 - Authorizes construction of waste treatment plants
and areawide waste treatment planning. Ideally, the installation of
permanent public utilities such as sewer and water supply systems
should be discouraged, since construction of these types of facilities
will tend to encourage new growth and development in hazardous areas
and conversion of seasonal home use to permanent home use.14 However,
in areas where water quality is being adversely affected, pollution
control may be of a higher priority. Therefore, decisions regarding
this question must be made on a case by case basis. Consistency
between the 208 and CZM planning programs will be ensured through
development of Memoranda of Understanding with the appropriate agencies.

--Federal Permits for Filling (Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972 Section 404) and for Obstructions and Alterations in Navigable
Waters of the United States @Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 10)
Authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits for
filling, sinking pilings, attached moorings, placing outfall pipes,
digging tunnels and other activities in coastal waters. Under the
Corps regulations and the Federal Consistency regulations, the Corps
may not issue these permits without a CZM certification of consistency.
CZM certification will be given only if proposed projects do not con-
flict with CZM concerns.

--Waterways Progra (MGLA, Ch. 91, s. 14) - Authorizes the
Waterways Program to license construction or extension of any
structure, the filling of any lands or flats, the dumping of dredged
or other materials in any of the tidewaters of the state. CZM will
develop Memorandum of Understanding with the Waterways Program to
ensure that review of proposed projects includes determination of
potential effects on existing flooding or erosion hazards and that
projects are appropriately conditioned or denied.

Policy (12) Provide funding and technical assistance for the restora-
tion and stabilization of foreshore and shore areas in
hazardous zones using non-structural measures.

In areas where natural sand dunes and beaches have been severely
damaged through unwise development practices or uncontrolled use,
restoration and stabilization measures such as dune rebuilding, stabi-
lization of dunes by vegetation planting, and artificial beach nourish-
ment should be considered. These measures are generally substantially

2-C/15

cheaper than structural measures, and if implemented properly can
closely simulate the effects of natural conditions.15

The costs of implementing beach nourishment programs can be high,
particularly when sand must be transported considerable distances to
the nourishment site, and when the sand supply contributed by littoral
and aeolian (wind) processes will be inadequate to prevent the need for
frequent periodic re-nourishment.

Minimum criteria for implementing any of these types of measures
through either federal, state, or local action should include:

1. the existence of adequate land use regulation or access
controls to prevent deterioration of restored or stabilized
areas;

2. the establishment of adequate design criteria to ensure
proper height, slope, width, and sand size of restored dunes
and beaches;

3. the assurance that future maintenance and replenishment
requirements have been estimated and can be provided for.

IMPLEMENTATION

--Corps of Engineers Beach Nourishment Projects - The Corps is
authorized to undertake beach nourishment projects in publicly owned
recreation areas. CZM will solicit such projects where they are deemed
economically feasible and where adequate sources of sand are available.

. --Soil Conservation Service Erosion Control Projects - SCS pro-
vides technical and financial assistance through local conservation
districts and the Pilgrim Area Resource Conservation and Development
Project (PL 87-703) for upland erosion control, vegetation planting,
and minor structural measures (less than 3 feet in height above mean
high tide). CZM will work with local conservation commission and
communities to secure assistance from SCS in implementing these types
of measures.

--Waterways Program (MGLA Ch. 91, s. 11-13) - Is empowered to
ndertake the "improvement, development, maintenance, and protection"
f foreshores and shores. While this authority has primarily been
used to fund structural engineering works, sufficient flexibility
exists to provide funding for beach and dune restoration and stabiliza-.
tion measures in Special Assistance Areas if there is clear public
benefit to be gained.

--Ocean Sanctuaries Acts (MGLA Ch. 132A, s. 13-17) - Include
various provisions for the five different sanctuaries along the coast
relating to extraction of sand for beach or dune nourishment. Within

2-C/16

the North Shore Sanctuary, sand and gravel mining is prohibited, while
in the Cape Cod Sanctuary it is restricted to use for nourishment of
public beaches within the sanctuary.

--CZM Beach Grass Nursery - CZM has established a beach grass
nursery at Myles Standish State Forest. Plants from this nursery will
be made available to the Department of Environmental Management for
the restoration of dune and beach areas managed by DEM.

b. Approve permits for private flood or erosion control
projects only when it has been determined that there
will be no adverse effects on adjacent properties or
down coast areas.

Policy (13a) should be implemented only when the following cri-
teria are met:

1. Non-structural measures, such as acquisition, relocation, land
use regulation, flood proofing, and dune/beach restoration or
stabilization have been evaluated and rejected as being cost
prohibitive, ineffective, or legally infeasible.

2. The area to be protected is of greater than local significance
and substantial public benefit in the form of protection of
existing public facilities or development of improved public
access and expanded public use opportunities can be achieved
in conjunction with construction of the proposed project.

3. Implementation of structural measures will not seriously
impair the functioning of natural processes, nor adversely
affect adjacent or down coast areas.

4. The value of the proposed project has been evaluated by means
of a system structured around categories of cost and benefit
which include economic, environmental, and social concerns.
Maintenance costs have been estimated for the project and
included in the cost/benefit evaluations. Agreements have
been reached with recipient communities concerning main-
tenance responsibilities.

Implementation of structural solutions is probably most appro-
priate to urban areas where natural buffering functions have been
irrevocably destroyed, where existing public lands are threatened,

2-C/17

where flood proofing of intensive development would be cost prohibitive
and/or ineffective, and where commercial and industrial activities are
dependent on proximity to the waterfront.

IMPLEMENTATION

--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (PL 727 as amended) - The Corps is
authorized to build structural projects for beach erosion control
through specific project approval by Congress or through continuing
authorities established by Congress, depending on the level of expendi-
tures involved. For projects meeting the criteria above, CZM will work
with the Corps of Engineers to seek necessary appropriations and ensure
consistency with CZM hazard area management goals.

--Waterways Program (MGLA Ch. 91) - Authorizes the Waterways
Program to undertake construction of erosion control projects. CZM and
the Waterways Program are developing a new project evaluation system,
consistent with the criteria specified above. This system will be
formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding between the agencies
which will enable both CZM and Waterways concerns to be accommodated
in selecting projects for implementation.

Section 14 authorizes the Waterways Program to license all
structures constructed below mean high water line along the Massachu-
setts coast. Through a Memorandum of Understanding, CZM will work with
the Waterways Program to ensure that private erosion control projects
will not adversely affect adjacent or downcoast areas by interrupting
littoral processes or impairing other natural processes.

--Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments, 1976, Section 305(b) -
Provides special funding for further study of erosion related problems.
CZM will support a major study to identify sources, characteristics,
and depositional areas of the sediment IQC;@Itransported by littoral
processes off the Massachusetts coast. Results from this study will
aid in evaluation of effects on downcoast areas and in locating sources
of sediment for replenishment of eroded lands.

2-C/18

TECHNICAL NOTES AND SOURCES

1. "Hurricane Tidal Flood Damages," United States Army Corps of
Engineers, New England Division, damage estimates inflated to 1964
price levels.

2. New England River Basins Commission,.Report of the Southeastern
New England Study, December, 1975.

3. "Cumulative State Report," March 31, 1976, N.F.I.A., Department of
Housing and Urban Development.

4. Water Resources Council, Draft Report, "A Unified National Program
for Flood Plain Management," June, 1975.

5. The authority of the Corps of Engineers is limited to construction
of protective measures only where there is clear public benefit,.
the MDC initiates erosion control projects with both the Corps and
Waterways for protection of MDC owned and operated beaches; and the
Division of Waterways funds 50% of construction costs for protec-
tive structures requested by communities. Projects costing less
than $15,000 are commonly undertaken by private landowners and
require permits from the Division of Waterways.

6. No specific scientific studies concerning the effectiveness of
engineering works constructed along the Massachusetts coast have
been conducted to date. However, in a recent report to the Congress
"National Efforts to Preserve the Nation's Beaches and Shorelines --
A Continuing Problem," June, 1977, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
pointed out that their nationwide survey revealed that "in many
cases where substantial and costly erosion control projects had been
completed, they did not prove to be permanent solutions and con-
tinuing and costly project efforts were necessary to combat erosion."
The report also concluded: although seawalls and bulkheads protect
property behind them, "they often accelerate erosion on the ocean
side" by concentrating wave energy on the bases of the structures
where they meet the beach. A 1973 report, Guidelines for Long
Island Coastal Management, by the Regional Marine Resources Council
of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board on Long Island,
New York stated that development practices and "...shore protection
structures have created a situation where the natural rate of
erosion effecting both beaches and marshes has been increased."
Adverse effects on downcoast areas caused by groin and jetty con-
struction are also documented by Gary Sourcie in a January, 1974
Audubon article, "Here Today, Gone Tomorrow," (Vol. 76, No. 1,
pp. 71-93).

7. Structures built and maintained by the Corps generally have a useful
life of 50 years, while state projects typically have a useful life
of 10-12 years.

2-C/19

8. Historical data is primarily used for delineating the 100 year flood
elevation in the coastal towns. Application of computer modeling
methods to predict flooding levels and wave run up effects in com-
plex embayments is currently being evaluated by HUD, the Corps of
Engineers, and other agencies and private firms involved in rate
mapping process.

9. Encouragement of development in hazardous areas as a result of
implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program was recently
the focus of a symposium sponsored by the New England River Basins
Commission. See The Ocean's Reach, Boston: New England River
Basins Commission, February, 1976. A recent report sponsored by the
Open Space Institute and Natural Resources Defense Council:
"The Status of the Barrier Islands of the Southeast Coast," Longden
Warner, May, 1976, also suggests that public funds are in fact
providing a stimulus to "rapid and destructive development" of the
barrier islands fringing the Southeast coast of the United States.

10. From the Committee report on P.L. 930251, House Report 93-541.

11. Acquisition of natural valley storage areas in the Charles River
basin is currently being funded under Section 1 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1974.

12. Proposed Regulations, Part 1910, "Criteria for Minimum Land Manage-
ment and Use," HUD, 1976. With regard to barrier islands, Robert
Hunter, acting administrator of the Federal Insurance Administra-
tion, has declared, "FIA strongly discourages any development on
barrier islands because of the significant dangers to life and
property from flooding that is present there."

.13@ WRC, Draft Report, A Unified National Program for Flood Plain
Management, June, 1975.-

14. Two recent EPA studies have documented this relationship: EPA,
"Secondary Impacts of Transportation and Wastewater Investments:
Review and Bibliography," January, 1975 and EPA, "Secondary Impacts
of Transportation and Wastewater Investments: Research Results,"
July, 1975.

15. Dune stabilization and beach nourishment programs have in some cases
been found to adversely affect natural buffering functions. See
Godfrey and Godfrey, "Comparison of Ecological and Geomorphic Inter-
actions Between Altered and Unaltered Barrier Island Systems in
North Carolina," and Dolan, "Barrier Islands: Natural and Con-
trolled" in Coastal Geomorphology ed. by Donald Coates, Binghamton,
New York, State University of New York, 1972.

2-C/20

cm
The Visual Environmeni

VISUAL ENVIRONMENT

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

From July 11 to July 15, 1976, 1.5 million people became aware that
Boston had a waterfront. They also experienced the inaccessibility of
the waterfront--to view the tall ships of Operation Sail, most people
were forced to cram together in a few isolated corners of abandoned
piers, vie for window spaces in high rise luxury apartment buildings,
or pay fifteen to forty dollars for a ride on a harbor cruise ship.

The point: very little access to the scenic aspects of the coastal
zone exists in the Boston Metropolitan Region, a situation paralleled
in many other areas along the Massachusetts coast where the public's
desire to enjoy the visual amenities of,the coastal zone has been
pre-empted by other values.

Of the many issues which concern Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management, protection of scenic values and opportunities is perhaps
the least tangible. This does not mean, however, that management of
visual quality should be ignored, especially since any alteration in
the coastal zone will naturally have visual impacts. Whether these
impacts are, in balance, beneficial, or adverse, depends in large
part upon deliberate planning and management to make desired impacts
actually happen. It is, tberefore, essential that a comprehensive
management program for the Massachusetts coastal zone include a
visually-oriented element.

In contrast to other management decisions affecting the coastal
zone for which quantifiable data can be used to determine levels of
acceptability, resolution of visually related issues must often rely
on qualitative values and judgements. Recent research, however,
indicates that some degree of consensus exists in terms of the land-
scape qualities that people perceive to be visually appealing. There
appears to be general agreement that visual quality is strongly linked
to the level of complexity of the viewed scene--harmony of visual
elements is desired, but there must be sufficient variety for the scene
to be interesting and not monotonous.1 The presence of water, as well
as movement (two characteristics common to coastal views), have also
been found to enhance preferences for visual quality.2 Further,
naturalistic landscapes are generally preferred over man-dominated
ones3--physical modification of natural waterfront configurations,
visual evidence of pollution or other forms of human intervention are
undesirable qualities.4

These results suggest, as one would expect, that coastal land-
scapes which offer views of the water, a cohesive variety of natural
elements, contrasting changes in topographic relief and interesting
vegetational patterns, and are relatively free from disturbance by
man's activities will be the most valued by local residents and

2-D/1

visitors alike. Identification of significant coastal scenic
resources by CZM, as well as subsequent management, will be guided
by these findings, and by values placed on scenic resources through
the citizen advisory process.

On the state level, two basic concerns of Coastal Zone Management
will be to increase visual access opportunities for the general public,
especially in the more developed and urbanized areas, and to ensure
that major facilities which require siting within the coastal viewshed
are designed to be visually compatible with natural coastal
characteristics.

Management of visual resources will require considerable input and
implementation at the local level. Uses such as housing, for example,
which are responsible for significant impairment of visual access,
can best be regulated through community zoning. Conservation of
"townscape" qualities and significant historical or cultural assets
will require application of imaginative legal solutions to prevent
visual degradation from adjacent environs.

While natural features and man-made features of historical,
architectural, or cultural significance provide the coast with its
greatest visual assets, coastal dependent activities, such as commer-
cial shipping and fishing are also important integral elements of the
visual environment of the coastal zone.5 Their facilities and
operations need not always be viewed as eyesores. If access to them
is carefully designed, they can provide interesting visual and
educational opportunities. Further, views of urban harbor areas can
be increased if physical access to the waterfront is provided around
facility perimeters.

Finally, management of visual resources may in some instances
require application on a "corridor" basis, since both natural and
man-made elements will be viewed as a continuous set of images along
major transportation and recreation networks.

THE COASTAL VIEWSHED

Views of unique scenic attributes of the coastal zone, whether
natural or man-made, are constrained by intervening topographic
features, vegetation, or man-made elements. Natural ridges, dense
stands of trees and understory shrubs, and man-made structures and
facilities will block both views to the shoreline and water and
views of the coastal landscape from the water. Typically the inland
boundary of these views will be the first major ridge line or change
in topographic relief (see diagram below).

When natural vegetation or man-made structures obstruct views
within this zone, the visual boundary, or "viewshed" limit is moved
toward the water (see diagram below). The latter condition defines

2-D/2

the existing viewshed, the former, the potential viewshed within which
vistas of the coastline could be created through, for example,
selective removal of vegetation, or the removal or modification of
obstructing buildings and facilities. It is within these boundaries
that management of coastal scenic and visual resources will be most
relevant. Also of concern to CZM are elevated positions outside of
the viewshed, such as hilltops or observation towers, since they may
provide views (visual access) to elements within the viewshed, or may
be visible from locations within the viewshed.

An approximation of the relative abundance of visual access to the
shoreline is given in the chart below. The bar graphs display the
ratio of acres of undeveloped land with existing or potential views to
each mile of shoreline in the coastal regions, excluding the Boston
urban area. As would be expected, the amount of visual access is
generally less in the more densely developed areas, e.g., the lower
North Shore and the South Shore. This type of analysis was not possible
in the Boston Metropolitan area due to the difficulty in constructing
an accurate viewshed in a heavily developed area. Obviously, however,
such a graphical depiction for Boston city proper would show a limited
amount of undeveloped land across which views of the shoreline would
be possible.

Within the coastal viewshed, natural and man-made visual elements
may be either of a point (e.g., Boston Light), areal (e.g., Barnstable
Marsh), or linear nature (e.g., the North River). In the following
sections, visual attributes of point and areal features of natural,
historical, architectural, or cultural significance are discussed,
as well as impacts of contemporary human activities. Linear elements
are then discussed in terms of their importance as visual corridors
within the coastal zone.

VISUAL ATTRIBUTES OF NATURAL COASTAL FEATURES

Within the coastal viewshed, the wide variety of natural elements
provide a great diversity of scenic attributes unique to the coastal
zone. Individual perceptions of the visual quality of these features
may vary considerably and may be greatly tempered by the psychological
disposition and cultural background of the observer (e.g., their mood,
educational background, geographical origin, etc.) as well as by other
aesthetic or preference factors (e.g., odor, smell or suitability of
the viewed area for recreational activity). For example, a salt marsh
may be viewed as a pleasing, tranquil coastal scene by an infrequent
visitor to the coastal zone, while the same marsh may be seen as an
aesthetic nuisance by a local resident because of its odor or because
a channel must be periodically dredged through it for recreational boat
access.

Generally speaking, however, the research findings discussed
earlier and the fact that a great number of Massachusetts residents

2-D/3

Brewster
to
Provincetown

Barnstable
Z
0 to
F-4
Dennis

Z Bourne

to
@-4 Mashpee @4
0
4
U)
Buzzards W
Bay

ca
Mount
0
Hope
Bay Cd
Z
E-4
Lower
South
0 PA Shore U
U) V/// - or@
E--I
Z Upper
0
0 South 0
Shore 0

>
H Lower
E--4
North Z
to
Shore H
44

Upper
North
Shore

0000000000CD
W -I C 01% 00 r- IT m C14 r-I
m @4

P-1

flock to coastal areas in the summertime would seem to indicate that
most coastal features are deemed visually appealing. Visual attributes
of specific coastal environment types which contribute to their
attractiveness are highlighted below:

Coastal Environment Scenic Attributes

Beaches and Sand Dunes * sense of infinite space, immense
scale arid rhythmic motion
* soft, rolling forms, accentuated by
the lack of tall vegetation
effects of wind and salt spray
visibly evident in natural
vegetation patterns

Bluffs and Rocky Shores high visibility of natural dynamic
forces at work, constantly changing
the face of land forms
appearance of great size and height
when undeveloped
strong visual contrast between
vertical headlands and horizontal
beach
effects of wind and salt spray
visibly evident in natural
vegetation patterns on bluff crests

Points, Spits, Bars, Islands dramatic sense of visual contrast
conveyed by narrow landforms against
open expanses of water
focal points add variety and
interest to coastal views
provide a point of reference to
boaters

Tidal Flats * visual evidence of marine life
patterns during periods of low tide

Salt Marshes and Ponds * tranquil, open expanses of views to
the water and interior areas framed
by surrounding vegetation
interesting visual contrasts along
marsh edges
visual evidence of the natural order
of marine life
uniform, muted colors

2-D/5

Coves and Embayments sense of enclosure and of protection
from natural forces (wind, waves,
etc.)
visual evidence of marine life
patterns when viewed from elevated
observer positions--changing colors,
depths, and bottom conditions
unseen elements provide sense of
tranquil mystery and serenity

Estuaries and Lower River strong visual evidence of natural
Reaches and Mouths dynamic forces--tides, fresh water
flow, etc.
strong sense of enclosure and
protection
visual evidence of changing patterns
of marine life
visual access to inland areas

Flat Lands and Coastal interspersed views of water and
Plains shoreline framed by vegetation and
natural topographic relief
dense, low, uniform vegetation
patterns visible in tiers perpen-
dicular to the coast

MAN-MADE FEATURES OF HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL,
OR CULTURAL IMPORTANCE

The Massachusetts coastal zone is dotted with a number of man-made
features of historical, architectural, or cultural significance that
are as important to the visual quality of the coastal zone as the
natural features discussed above. In an age characterized by the
visual dominance of the automobile, proliferation of nationally
standardized fast-food services, and general "plasticization" of the
landscape, the real "sense of place" offered by many of the Massachu-
setts coastal communities, e.g., Marblehead, Rockport, Provincetown,
and Nantucket, stands in vivid contrast. "Townscapes" such as these,
as well as individual historic sites, such as Boston Naval Shipyard
and Salem Maritime National Historic Site, or historic districts, such
as Newburyport's Market Square and New Bedford's Fort Tabor, are
important because of their visual continuity with the past, their
harmony with natural coastal features, the pedestrian scale of the
access they provide to the water and its activities, and because of
their distinct ethnic or cultural characteristics. With their linkage
to the past and their architectural beauty, they provide a diversity
of special neighborhoods and places off the beaten path of contemporary
society. Additionally, these types of man-made developments are
typically major focal points for tourism and catalysts for urban

2-D/6

redevelopment (e.g., Boston, Newburyport, and Salem), thus contributing
substantially to the economic viability of the coastal zone.

CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS AND VISUAL ACCESS

Coastal scenic resources are acutely vulnerable to human activities
and development. Through development of facilities and structures that
either obstruct views or are visually unrelated to the coast, the
scenic quality of the Massachusetts coastal zone has been and will
continue to be seriously degraded. Conversely, balanced development
of coastally dependent uses in selected areas along the coast would
provide a wide diversity of visual experiences, as well as opportuni-
ties for the public's interaction with such commercial activities as
fishing, maritime shipping, energy production, shipbuilding and
recreational boat building, repair and storage.

Marine Terminals and Energy Facilities: Because of operational
requirements which typically necessitate the use of flat, open,
waterfront land, shipping and energy related facilities can be
the most visually intruding facilities along the coast. Huge
loading cranes, bulkheads, warehouses, exhause stacks, cooling
towers, transmission lines, and tank farms can drastically
block visual access and alter the visual impact of natural
coastal features. Given their immense scale and industrial
nature, however, it is unrealistic to propose that the larger
facility components be screened or blended into the coastal
landscape. Another approach would be to recognize that these
facilities are integral elements of the coastal "scene"--their
appearance and design reflects their functional relationship to
the coast. Therefore, opportunities for visual access to them
should be utilized. While views of harbors and natural features
can be maintained through simple alignment of facilities
perpendicular to the coast in the traditional wharf style,
immense educational opportunities could be afforded to viewers
of the facilities themselves. Through use of guided tours on
overhead walkways or provision of observation platforms,
viewers could observe berthing, loading, shipbuilding and repair,
energy production, and pollution control operations. Naturally,
visual access will be constrained by factors limiting physical
access--safety, security, maintenance, production efficiency, and
cost. Additionally, ancillary components, such as oil storage
tanks, could be sited inland where natural land forms and
vegetation can be used for screening, or they can be designed
with imaginative exteriors (e.g., the "CORITA" gas tank in
Dorchester).

Commercial Fishing Facilities: Commercial fishing facilities for
berthing, handling, and processing operations represent another
human use of the coast that can provide a rich diversity of
visually contrasting and exciting elements. Unlike industrial
uses, commercial fishing piers are generally perceived to enhance

2-D/7

the seafaring image of coastal communities, and in some areas,
may generate considerable tourist interest. However, views of
these activities may be partially or totally obstructed by the
presence of processing plants which may or may not be waterfront
dependent (see Ports and Harbors' section). To compensate for
losses in direct visual access to the shoreline and open expanses
of water, access to interesting aspects of facility interiors
and operations could be provided, as well as to the shoreline
along facility exteriors. Non-waterfront-dependent facilities
should be located inland, where feasible.

Housing: Of the development types which constrain visual access
along the Massachusetts coast, housing is by far the dominant
activity--90% of all developed land in the Massachusetts coastal
zone is consumed by housing. Since lot sizes are generally
decreasing from one acre to 1-4 or I-, acre plots, opportunities for
visual access between structures across expanses of open space
are becoming scarcer. Additionally, because residential
activities are traditionally private, there is little of the
visual interest and stimulation associated with port and fishing
activities, except where historical or exceptional housing design
exists and is open to view. In urban areas, however, the
amenities associated with waterfront living may be essential to
housing revitalization and the survival of downtown areas. Zoning
and other land use controls can be used to maintain visual access
to the coast in residential areas. Further, selective clea ring of
vegetation to provide views of the shoreline from inland sites
within the viewshed could provide housing sites as equally
appealing as waterfront locations and would minimize obstruction
of visual access along the shoreline.

Recreation and Tourism: Extensive opportunities for visual access
to natural amenities and sites of historic, architectural, or
cultural significance are generally associated with recreation
and tourism development. Cycling and hiking trails can provide
physical access to scenic areas undisturbed by the visual
dominance of the automobile, and boaters can gain exposure to
coastal and riverine views unaccessible by other modes of travel.
Unfortunately, the visual blight of strip development typically
accompanies these uses, as do visually degrading parking and
access facilities. To the extent that these ancillary facilities
can be set back and screened with earth forms and vegetation without
diminishing their utility, adverse impacts can be alleviated.
Regulatory and zoning controls, such as sign ordinances can also
be used to prevent the visual blight associated with strip
development.

Public Service Systems: As growth inducers, transportaton net-
works and utilities significantly affect the visual environment
of the coastal zone. Subdivision patterns based on geometric
utility and road layouts rather than concern for natural site
characteristics may diminish opportunities for visual access. The

2-D/8

visual appearance of natural features is also degraded when
extensive clearing and regrading is done. Roads and rail
corridors constructed parallel to and in close proximity to the
shore restrict visual access from viewing points landward of the
facilities. Similarly, these facilities restrict views of the
coast from the water. On the other hand, properly designed roads
with alignments and scenic overlooks that allow the traveler to
sense the rhythm of the landscape, as well as view distant
elements, offer innumerable visual and sensory experiences for the
traveler.

Shoreline Protection Projects: Construction of coastal
engineering works introduces materials and geometric forms that
are sometimes inconsistent with natural shoreline configurations
and elements. Obviously, protection of life and property will
outweigh concern for visual quality in areas where these types
of facilities can be justified. However, these structures should
be designed to reflect natural forms and textures and provide as
much visual access as possible. For example, use of rip-rap
rather than poured concrete and steel, terracing of dikes and sea-
walls, and the use of salt tolerant vegetation plantings can help
to minimize their impact.

Agriculture: Among all the human activities that take place in
the coastal zone, agriculture typically provides the most oppor-
tunities for visual access; e.g., across cranberry bogs and salt
marsh hayfields. Agricultural components of the rural landscape
provide considerable visual diversity when interspersed between
urban areas. Unfortunately consumption of agricultural land for
housing and other uses remains prevalent. To the extent that the
Agricultural Assessment Act and other incentives reduce pressure
for the sale of farm land to developers, the visual assets of
maintaining agricultural uses of coastal lands can be conserved.

VISUAL CORRIDORS

Each of the scenic features and contemporary activities discussed
above will have positive or negative visual impacts when seen from
specific viewing points within the viewshed or from elevated observer
positions landward of the viewshed boundary. As motorists, rail
passengers, cyclists, hikers, and boaters traverse the coastal view-
shed, they will also experience these visual impacts sequentially.
Contrasting development patterns, varying from aparsely settled agri-
cultural areas to dense urban regions, will convey visual images that
will vary with the speed of the traveler and the exposure of both
natural and man-made elements to view. The design of a road or trail
right-of-way, or the complexity of a river's course, will compliment
visual quality to the degree that the motion or rhythm of the landscape
can be felt while travelling along the corridor. Additionally, views
of the everyday or commonplace landscape will be important for the

2-D/9

contrasts they provide to more unique and dramatic scenic features.

Therefore, protecting visual quality along these visual
corridors, as well as at individual sites or point elements, will be
relevant to management of coastal zone scenic resources. Specific
corridors with outstanding visual attributes may merit designation as
special "scenic corridors." If land use and development can be
controlled within them or imaginative opportunities for visual access
can be provided, scenic quality can be preserved for the benefit of the
traveler or recreationist who enjoys the experience of "getting there"
as well as "being there."

Of additional concern to the management of visual corridors is the
control of billboards and other forms of outdoor advertising. Since
they are designed to attract the eyes of travelers, they obviously
will have significant visual impact and typically will detract from
natural scenic values. Outright prohibition of billboard advertising,
whether on-site or off-site, is unrealistic--the information provided
to travelers concerning services is for the most part necessary.
However, in areas where natural scenic quality might be seriously
impaired by billboards and other forms of advertising, it may be
necessary to restrict or completely prohibit their usage.

2-D/10

OBJECTIVES

The foregoing discussion suggests that a management program for the
coast's visual environment should be designed to achieve the following
objectives:

1. to preserve, enhance, and restore the integrity of the
coastal zone as a visual unit with unique sensitivities
and opportunities

2. to increase opportunities for visual access to natural and
man-made scenic features and contemporary waterfront
activities

3. To ensure that the siting and design of major facilities
that are of regional or state concern will be compatible
with the inherent visual qualities of the coastal zone; and

4. to assist in improving compatibility between small scale
development and local visual character.

CZM POLICIES AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

Prior to the implementation of management measures dealing with
visual access and quality in the coastal zone, it will be necessary
to develop an adequate data base, whereby visually important areas can
be identified, mapped and evaluated. Factors to consider for inclusion
of areas in the inventory should include:

1. existence of the area within the boundaries of the coastal
viewshed (both potential and existing)

2. evaluation of visual qualities by local citizenry

3. availability of visual access, including physical,
operational, or institutional constraints

4. the size and seasonal aspects of existing and potential
viewing populations

5. for natural areas, the scenic quality of the area, as
evaluated for diversity of viewed elements, uniqueness,
amount of disturbance by human activities, presence of

2-D/11

water Views, and other factors

6. for developed areas, the historical, cultural, and/or
educational value of the architectural elements or
contemporary coastal activities.

IMPLEKENTATION

Using primary data sources, such as the Massachusetts Landscape and
Natural Areas Survey, the National Registry of Historic Landmarks, and
the Massachusetts Historical Commission, CZM has initiated this
inventory process. Maps identifying visually important sites have been
reviewed and updated by the CZM citizen advisory groups and have been
supplemented with information provided by field verification and
various knowledgeable experts. Evaluation of these point, areal, and
linear sites provides the basis for assigning general priorities to
areas in need of management at the state and local levels and for
targeting specific areas to be included in CZM special assistance
programs.

Policy (15) -Incorporate visual concerns into the early stages of the
planning and design of facilities proposed for siting in
the coastal zone. Establish a design review process for
development that is of regional, state, or national
concern.

Because of their intangibility and supposed insignificance relative
to other economic and environmental concerns, visual impact consider-
ations are often overlooked or left to the last in the planning and
design of both private and public development. In order to facilitate
incorporation of design measures for minimizing adverse effects on
visual access and existing scenic attributes at an early stage in the
planning and design of proposed facilities, CZM will develop and
distribute a conceptual guideline handbook. Basic concerns to be
addressed in this handbook will include, for example:

1. recommendations on facility siting and design for
specific coastal visual environment types

2. measures to minimize impairment of visual access or to
enhance visual access through physical access provisions

3. measures to blend facilities with existing topography,
vegetation, and other scenic qualities

4. legal and institutional measures available to
communities to maintain visual access and quality

5. methods for evaluating potential visual impacts and
identifying affected viewing populations.

2-D/12

As a prelude to development of such a handbook, general guidelines
are presented below for the coastal environment types most likely to be
subjected to intensive development:

Sand Dunes*: Structures should be limited in height and setback
behind primary dune ridges to avoid interruption
of the visual forms of rolling dune ridges or
impairment of views to the water. Residential
units should be clustered in vegetated areas, and
road construction should minimize cutting and
filling of natural topography. Only indigenous
vegetation should be planted.

Points, Spits, Structures should be limited in height to avoid
Islands: disruption of the silhouettes of natural
promentories (except for lighthouses and other
navigation aids). Construction materials should
blend with indigenous colors, textures, and forms.

Coastal Plains Development should be clustered in vegetated areas,
and Flat Lands: setback from the shoreline, and mixed with open
expanses of agricultural or undeveloped land.
Topographic features should be used to screen
development and ancillary facilities such as roads
and parking lots. Development densities should
vary, with occasional changes in building heights
and mass to provide interest.

Developed Harbors Boating facility and marine terminal development
and Embayments: should conform to existing shoreline configurations
to the maximum extent possible, and building
heights should be limited to maintain views of the
harbor. Pedestrian physical access should be
provided around facility perimeters. "Seafaring"
qualities should be maintained and enhanced.

In general, views of natural features and man-made features of
historical and'cultural importance should not be obstructed or
degraded. Where coastally dependent facilities must be sited along the
waterfront, views to interegting agpectg of facility operations or
physical access around facility perimeters to provide views to the
water should be provided to compensate for negative visual effects. To
the extent possible, construction materials should blend with
indigenous colors and textures, or should enhance the visual quality of
areas that have been degraded through previous development activity.
Cutting and filling of natural topographic features should be
minimized, and vegetation planting and complimentary earth forming
techniques should be employed to screen unsightly facility components.

*NOTE: These recommendations relate only to visual concerns and as
such do not reflect ecological considerations for facility
siting and design.

2-D/13

Alignment of roads and other transportation corridors should conform
to existing topography and avoid obstruction of coastal views from
interior areas, while maximizing visual opportunities for the traveler.
Utilities systems should be placed underground.

Based on the above considerations design review of proposed state
and federally financed facilities will focus on the following concerns:

Facility Visibility: Using the coastal viewshed delineation or by
constructing a "local" viewshed around pro-
posed facility sites the magnitude of affected
viewing populations will be determined (e.g.
approximate numbers of viewers can be estimated
from aerial photos and census tract data, numbers
of transient viewers can be estimated from
average daily traffic volume data and identifi-
cation of recreational boating patterns)

Visual Access: Effects on visual access will be analyzed
through identification of key viewing points
within and outside of the local viewshed. op-
portunities for enhancing physical access in
conjunction with proposed development will be
identified, as well as opportunities for pro-
viding views to facility interiors and opera-
tions.

Proximity to CZM's inventory of significant visual elements
Visually Important will be used to assess potential affects on
SRA's adjacent sites of cultural, historic, or educa-
tional importance.

Compatibility with Structural heights and masses will be assessed
Existing Visual in relation to surrounding topographic relief,
Character vegetation, and existing structures. Construc-
tion materials will be evaluated for compati-
bility with indigenous colors and textures.

Other Visual Exhaust emissions and other impacting factors
Impacts will be assessed for their effects on visual
quality.

IMPLEMENTATION

--A-95, NEPA, MEPA Review - Distribution of the guideline hand-
book and CZM's maps of visually important SRA's and coastal viewsheds
will facilitate incorporation of visually-related concerns into the
siting and design of facilities financed with federal or state funds.
CZM will network with the relevant agencies to ensure compliance to
the maximum extent feasible and will use A-95, NEPA, and MEPA review
processes to raise objections where visual access or quality would be
significantly impaired. For major facilities, depending on their
magnitude and location, CZM staff will elicit the assistance of a
design review board composed of experts in the fields of environ-
mental design, architecture, and landscape architecture.
2-D/14

Policy (16) Provide funding or technical assistance to communities
and local conservation commissions in the development of
local zoning and land use controls which can be utilized
to improve visual access and the compatibility of pro-
posed development with existing community character.

Among the legal tools that are applicable to achieving visual
and aesthetic goals, the following are most relevant:

Cluster Zoning: Exceptions are granted to developers to aggre-
PUD Zoning gate housing units in exchange for providing
open space. Overall density of development is
maintained, but views to the coast can be pro-
vided across open space areas, and siting and
design of clustered units can optimize integra-
tion of manmade elements with natural topo-
graphic and vegetation features.

Transfer Develop- Development rights on one parcel are removed
ment Rights: and transferred to a second parcel where more
intensive development can take place. Develop-
ment is limited on the first parcel. Can be
used to regulate building heights and densities,
providing for a stepped progression from low,
sparse development along the shore to denser,
higher development inland.

Density Bonus: More intensive development rights are granted
to developers in return for open space or
other public amenity provisions. Visual or
physical access to the shore can be provided
across open space, or on-site recreation bene-
fits can be gained.

Easements: Development rights are purchased or tax in-
centives are granted the developer by the town
to limit development and provide open space.
Visual or physical access to the shoreline can
be gained across open space areas.

Performance Zoning: Stipulations are made as to allowable impacts
of particular activities or as to design
specifications to which proposed development
must conform. Visual character of existing
structures and community can be maintained over
titne.

Historic District Design of exteriors within public view are
Zoning: subject to local planning board or design review
board approval. Negative intrusions on visual
character of structures of historical signifi-
cance can be prevented.

2-D/15

MPLEMENTATION

--Zoning Enabling Act (Acts of 1975, Chapter 808) - Authorities
to implement these measures are provided in this act. The Massachu-
setts courts have upheld that aesthetics alone may justify the
exercise of the police power within the broad concept of protecting
11general welfare." Depending on local needs and desires, CZM will
provide either funding or technical assistance to communities within
Special Assistance Areas to develop model zoning codes and other
forms of visually related controls (see Program Incentives section,
Management chapter).

Policy (17) Expand visual access in urban areas and provide views of
coastally dependent activities with significant educa-
tional or interest value.

Outright acquisition of waterfront land in urban areas or ac-
quisition of easements should be utilized in conjunction with recre-
ation and open space programs to expand visual access. These measures
can be used to develop new waterfront parks in Special Assistance
Areas and to provide pedestrian or bicycle access around facility
perimeters to views of harbors and other coastal activities and
natural features. Additionally, it may be feasible to procure phy-
sical access to afford views of marine terminal, ship building and
repair, and commercial fishing operations.

Factors to be considered for determining target areas and fa-
cilities should include:

1. viewing population served

2. extent and quality of harbor views that would be offered by
improved physical access.

3. potential educational value of viewing waterfront facility
.operations and components

4. maintenance, security, and safety problems that would result
from expanded public access

5. cost feasibility

IMPLEMENTATION

--State Programs - Potential state level funding sources to
improve visual access in urban areas in conjunction with new open
space and recreation opportunities include the Self-Helf Program and
capital outlay programs of the Department of Environmental Management
the Metropolitan District Commission and the Public Access Board.
(see Recreation section) CZM will also work with Massport, local

2-D/16

port authorities and private interests to investigate opportunities
to provide visual access to contemporary coastal dependent facilities.

--Federal Programs - Potential sources include the disposition
of surp lus properties by the General Services Administration, the
Land and Water Conservation Fund of the BOR, HUD's Community Develop-
ment Block Grants Program, and Coastal Zone Management Act, Section
315 funds. (see Recreation section).

b. Petition the Board of Outdoor Advertising to desig-
nate sign free areas and corridors in the coastal
zone, support the development and implementation
of a system of roadside information service direc-
tories, and provide technical assistance to communi-
ties in the development of local advertising and
signage ordinances.

IMPLEMENTATION

Scenic Rivers

The Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act, M.G.L., Chapter 21,
Section 17A provides for the designation and restriction of rivers
of the Commonwealth for scenic and recreational purposes. As legis-
lated, the authorities of this act include regulating the alteration
or pollution of designated rivers and contiguous land within 100
yards of their banks. CZM recommends that segments of certain rivers
within the coastal zone be included in this system and that restric-
tive orders be developed which will protect their irreplaceable
scenic and recreational values. Designation and subsequent management
should be strongly responsive to local interests and could vary from
river to river. As a prerequisite to designation, community groups
requesting designation should prepare preliminary management plans
demonstrating how the concerns expressed in the act as well as local
concerns would be incorporated into a program for managing future
development and activities in the river corridor. Alternative con-
trols that could be implemented include, for example:

1. require, as a minimum level of control, building setbacks
which would allow for the preservation of a vegetated
buffer strip to screen development along river banks. Adop-
tion of minimum lot sizes, maximum heights, cluster zoning
and exterior appearance performance standards should be
encouraged as more effective means of control. Where these
controls would be insufficient for preservation of

2-D/17

irreplaceable scenic qualities, land use zoning should be
adopted that would permit only those uses consistent with
existing visual character.

2. restrict construction of major dams or impoundment of water,
except for fishery management and other uses which would not
adversely affect scenic quality.

3. restrict development of major roads and river crossings, and
suggest scenic road designations.

4. prohibit development in sensitive natural areas along the
river course, e.g., floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes,
exposed bedrock, unstable soils.

5. encouraae access and shoreline recreational uses con-
0
sistent with-the aesthetic character of the river

6. encourage water activities consistent with the aesthe-
tic character of the river, and where necessary impose
speed limits, water surface zoning, or other restrictions.
0
CZM will develop a Memo of Understanding with the Department
of Environmental Management concerning regulations and guidelines
for implementation of the program in the coastal zone. Criteria
to be considered in the selection of rivers for designation include:

1. local interest in scenic river designation.

2. accessibility of the river to existing and potential viewing
populations and recreationists; availability of existing and
potential access points.

3. the diversity of nat ural features and intactness of bank
vegetation and other natural features - the degree of in-
trusion of adverse human development.

4. the degree of modification of the free flowing nature of
the river.

5. suitability of water quality for recreation-activities and
ecological sensitivity to recreation-related impacts.

Furthermore, rivers and estuarine complexes located in designated
Areas for Preservation and Restoration should be given highest
priority in the Scenic River designation process.

Scenic Highways

Efforts to protect the statels scenic roads and highways have
been limited to date, with the exception of the Scenic Roads Act.
(MGLA, Chapter 40, Section 15C). Under this act, local planning
boards are empowered to restrict the removal of vegetation or stone
walls on designated local roads, exclusive of numbered routes or
state highways. To the extent that these powers ate complimented by
local zoning, scenic qualities along local roads can be adequately
protected.

2-D/18

On the state level, a scenic highway assessment process has been
initiated by the Department of Public Works. In a preliminary
study,7 scenic qualities of primary roads throughout the state have
been assessed to develop a preliminary ranking of roads meriting
designation as Scenic Highways. Three major groups of criteria were
used in this process:

1. Context: Scenic qualities were evaluated in terms of the
number of landscape types encountered (diversity) and the
degree to which landscape types differ (contrast).

2. Viewshed: Highway segments within bounded, open, unified
viewsheds were evaluated quantitatively as to length, and
qualitatively for openness of the highway corridor and the
number of significant landscape features which can be seen
by the traveler.

3. Corridor: Highway segments were evaluated for their align-
ment characteristics and the sequential arrangement of
roadside landscape elements (e.g., vegetation, development,
terrain, water).

These criteria have enabled a macro scale evaluation of potential
scenic highways. As suggested in the study, further assessments at
the micro scale are needed to make a final determination. CZM will
assist further evaluation of coastal zone highway segments on the
basis of criteria recommended in the study:

1. Resource linkage: CZM will use its maps of Significant
Resource Areas, Special Assistance Areas, and Areas for
Preservation and Restoration to identify the relationships
of particular highway segments to significant coastal zone
resources.

2. Field verification: CZM will use its mapped data and citizen
value information to identify and evaluate visual "misfits"
or eyesores, small scale focal points, character and quality
of local development, traffic flow problems and safety
hazards, and the quality and condition of road design.

3. Scenic potential: CZM, on the basis of its viewshed
analysis and from its inventory of scenic elements and
citizen evaluations, will recommend optimal locations for
scenic overlooks, rest stops, and other roadside facilities,
and will identify areas with potential for improving visual
access through easement purchase and/or selective clearing
of vegetation.

Alternative means for protecting visual quality in areas
adjacent to designated scenic highways are currently being evaluated
by the Department of Public Works. Basic existing authorities
include powers of eminent domain or purchase in fee or lesser

2-D/19

interest in land within or adjacent to Federal-Aid Highways for the
purpose of scenic enhancement. Whatever the management system
adopted, CZM strongly recommends that designated scenic highways be
exempted from statewide highway design standards which would neces-
sitate the widening, straightening or flattening of road right of
ways and alignments. The compatibility of scenic highways to the
landscape - the fact that they "fit" with natural topographic and
vegetation features - is basic to their scenic value.

Outdoor Advertising

Billboards, signs, and other advertising devices are currently
regulated in Massachusetts through permit procedures administered by
the Outdoor Advertising Board. Rules and regulations promulgated
by this board prohibit the use of off-premise billboards and other
forms of advertising along primary roads in areas that are not zoned
commercial/industrial or are not of a predominant business character.
The board also has the power to designate areas of historical,
scenic, or environmental significance as Sign Free Areas or Sign
Free Corridors, wherein no permits for advertising will be granted or
renewed.

In order to reduce the adverse visual impacts of outdoor adver-
tising in the coastal zone, MCZM will:

1. Petition the Board of Outdoor Advertising to designate
specific sign free areas and corridors.

2. Support the development and implementation of a system of
roadside information service directories in areas where out-
door advertising is prohibited.

3. Provide technical assistance to local communities in the
development of advertising and signage ordinances which can
improve the effectiveness of current state level controls.

2-D/20

TECHNICAL NOTES AND SOURCES

1. For a more detailed discussion see: Craik, Kenneth H., "Environ-
mental Psychology." New Directions in Psychology, 4. New York:
Holt, 1970.

Kaplan, Rachel. "Predictors of Environmental Preference: Designers
and Clients." Environmental Design Research, Vol. I. Ed. by
W.F.E. Preiser. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross,
Inc., 1973, pp. 265-274.

Rapoport, Amos and Kantor, Robert. "Complexity and Ambiguity in
Environmental Design," Journal of the American Institute of
Architects, No. 33 (July, 1967), pp. 210-221.

Sanoff, Henry. "Measuring Attributes of the Visual Environment."
Designing for Human Behavior: Architecture and the Behavioral
Sciences. Ed. by John Lang, et al. Stroudsburg,Penn.: Dowden,
Hutchinson,and Ross, Inc., 1974.

2. Fines, K.D. "Landscape Evaluation: A Research Project in East
Sussex,"_Regional Studies, vol. 2 (1968) pp. 41-55.

Litton, R. Burton. Water and Landscape: An Aesthetic Overview of
the Role of Water in the Landscape. Port Washington, New York:
Water Information Center, Inc., 1974.

Zube, Ervin H. Scenic Resources and the Landscape Continuum:
Identification and Measurement. Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate
Ichool of Geography, Clark University, 1973.

3. Kaplan Stephen, Kaplan, Rachel, and Wendt, John S. "Rated Preference
and Complexity for Natural and Urban Visual Material," Perception
and Psychophysics, vol. 1.2, no. 4 (1972).

Lowenthal, David. "Not Every Prospect Pleases--What is our
Criterion for Scenic Beauty?" Landscape, vol. 12, no. 2 (Winter,
1962-3), pp. 19.

Zube, Op. cit.

4. Litton, Op. cit.

5. Results of the recent CZM public opinion survey indicated that 81%
of the Massachusetts residents polled felt that views of the water
and its activities were important.

6. In John Donnelly & Sons, Inc., vs. Outdoor Advertising Board (339
N.E. 2nd 709, 1875 Mass. Adv. Sh. 3450), the Court found that cities
and towns may enact reasonable billboard regulations designed to
preserve and improve their physical environment, thus establishing
a precedent for zoning based on aesthetic or visual concerns.

2-D/21

7. DPW/U. MASS. Joint Transportation Program. A Scenic Highway
Assessment Process for Massachusetts Highways. May 1975.

2-D/22

(ZAO
4A@

Ports and Harbors

PORTS AND HARBORS

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Protected bays and river mouths have special value to Massachu-
setts. Such coastal features have traditionall provided stable
waterfront for piers, wharves, warehouses, and other facilities.
Hence, these areas have developed into our major ports of water re-
lated industry and trade.

The contribution of ports to the Massachusetts economy is not
merely a phenomenon of times past. Various water related indus-
tries now operating in the major ports directly employ approximately
50,000 persona. Some waterfront uses are predicted to decline or
remain static; these include general cargo not shipped by container
and dry bulk cargoo. Others, including container shipping, ferry
services, marine industry and recreational boating, exhibit a poten-
tial for development and a growing need foor harbrfront space. With
the enactment of the 200-mile limit legislation, Massachusetts looks
toward a significant revival in its fishing industry. And, if sub-
stantial quantities of oil and natural gas are discovered on the
Georges Bank, we except to accommodate this trade in our ports also.

Yet the traditional water related industries of our ports are
not homogenous. Fishing, maritime shipping of goods and people,
other marine industry and services such as ships an boat yards and
recreational boating are all vital port activities. All accrue
economic benefits to the citizens of the state. Yet in some in-
stances, these activities may compete for waterfront space and, at
times, one use is not compatible with another.

The severest competition for harborfront space occurs in ports
having navigable channels of 20 foot depth or more and a developed
transportation infrastructure. These ports are most suitable for
maritime shipping and marine industry. However, many of these areas
are major fishing industry ports, and, as urba centers, face pres-
sure for neighborhoood and urban waterfront renewal. In addition,
while the lack of deeper channels makes the siting of a maritime ter-
minial impossible in shallow harbors, no such constraint exsits for
recreational boating traffic or other uses requiring shallow drafts
in deeper waters. Hence such ports face competition from the whole
range of waterfront uses which may or may not have other siting op-
tions.

The cost of establishing other deepwater channels, with ade-
quate infrastructure, and available sites abutting the channels is
prohibitively high. Exsisting deepwater channels are ideally suited
for accommodating uses which are of state or national importance

2-E/1

because they provide protein (fisheries), are key parts of the trans-
portation network (maritime shipping) or support maritime shipping
(tugboat services, ship repair yards) and energy exploration, develop-
ment, and delivery (OCS support bases, etc.). Hence the navigable
channels of 20 foot depth or more together with their abutting lands
and inland transportation access routes should be treated as impor-
tant state resources.

In port areas and smaller harbors lacking both@t4e channel
depth and the transportation and utility.infrastructure to support
major:maritime shipping, marine industry, and the f 'ishing industry,
assistance is needed to help develop facilities for recreational
boating, ferry services, and small-scale fishery operations. The
mixture of recreational craft, fishing vessels, and.ferry services
.lends an image of bustling harbor activity which makes views-of the
harbor highly attractive. Thus these kinds of waterfront dependent
activities can enhance the character of waterfronts and can comple-
ment urban waterfront renewal.

Lastly, as discussed under the Marine Environment section, the
dredging of relatively pristine coastal areas can have long lasting
and severe adverse effects on marine productivity. By ensuring.maxi-
mum use of existing ports and harbors and their facilities, benefits
from'public expenditures will be maximized, future public costs mini-
mized, and the marine environment conserved. The creation of new
ports and harbors should thus be discouraged unless the use to be
accommodated cannot be met in existing port and harbor areas. First.
priority should be placed on maintaining existing channel depths and
mooring and turnaround basins. Deepening of channels And expansion
of mooring and turnaround basins should proceed only when essential
to waterfront dependent uses of particular economic.importance to
the state or nation - fisheries, maritime shipping, and marine in-
dustry., In addition, both maintenance and deepening operations will
necessitate provision of environmentally acceptable disposal solu-
tions.

DEMAND PRESSURES AND DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

This section presents the space needs of the-iishing industry,
maritime.'shipping, ferry and cruise services, other maritime indus-
try and services, and recreation boating. All require waterfront
locations; many have expansion possibilities. Also discussed are
the opportunities for waterfront renewal --.a use of harborfront
lands which competes with waterfront dependent uses.

THE FISHING INDUSTRY

The fishing industry requires harbor space for mooring and
berthing fishing vessels, for unloading catch and taking on-sup-
plies, and storing and processing fresh fish.
2-E/2

The proximity of major fishing grounds to the Massachusetts coast
makes unnecessary the complex factoryship technology employed by for-
eign fishing fleets. Massachusetts fishermen prefer to take and sell
fresh fish, which, when sold as fresh tablefare, commands a higher
price than frozen fish. Fishing vessels return to home port after,
at most, a seven to eight day trip to off-shore fishing grounds.
Longer stays would result in spoilage of fish stored in the hold. The
vessels used in this fishery seldom exceed 100 feet in length and can
draw up to fourteen feet of water. The day-tripping inshore fishermen
and lobstermen employ boatsand vessels of far smaller draft, usually
drawing six to ten feet of water. Thus the ports and harbors of in-
terest to fishermen are those with navigable channels ranging from
roughly seven to twenty feet.

A single pier or wharf with road access and parking for trucks is
sufficient for the simple and low volume processing and marketing op-
erations where fresh fish is unloaded, perhaps eviscerated, and packed
and iced for quick truck transport to market. For the more complex
and high volume filleting operations, space for filleting houses or
stalls is required, as is cold storage space and better truck access
and parking. Single unloading points make possible more modern mech-
anized unloading techniques, and when large volumes of fish are un-
loaded and processed, concentration of processing facilities on one
wharf or in one area minimizes transfer and spoilage costs.

Over the long-term, the amount of harbor space required depends
on the size of anticipated Massachusetts landings and markets for
fresh fish. Prospective landings and market outlook determine the
number of vessels in the industry and the size and number of fish
storage and processing plants.

Since foreign fleets began fishing off the coast of Massachu-
setts in the early 1960's, the catch brought ashore in Massachusetts
has declined from 480 million pounds in 1960 to 258 million pounds in
1975, the number of Massachusetts fishing vessels has decreased from
512 to 410 over the same time and the number of fish wholesalers and
processors has declined from 236 in 1960 to 209 in 1974.

The extension in 1976 of U.S. jurisdiction over fishery re-
sources to 200 miles offshore, however, promises to spur a revitali-
zation of the domestic fresh fishing industry. Depleted stocks will
be allowed to recover. The off-shore catch by all nations will be
limited so that reproduction can generate sufficient replenishment
to sustain an equal volume of catch each year. Foreign fleets will
only be permitted to harvest that amount of the total allowable
catch for which the domestic fleet has insufficient capacity.
Analysts contend that the domestic fish catch could double or triyle
over current levels and the fishing fleet could increase by 100%.
others are less optimistic, but the fishing industry generally agrees
that the 200-mile limit should at least return the fishing industry
to its 1960 standing.

2-E/3

Since 1960, the traditional, major Massachusetts fishing ports
Gloucester, Boston, and New Bedford - have, however, either com-
pleted substantial port improvements for the fishing industry (as in
the case of New Bedford) or are planning to expand facilities for
the fishing industry (as in the case of Gloucester and MASSPORT for
the Boston Fish Pier). Thus the capacities of these traditional
fishing ports are substantially improved over conditions in 1960.

As wholesaling, cold storage, and processing facilities are
concentrated in Gloucester, Boston, and New Bedford, these ports are
likely to absorb most of the projected increases in vessels and land-
ings.

Other ports may need improvements to accommodate growth. Off-
shore vessels are also based at such harbors as Provincetown,
Chatham, Wood's Hole, Nantucket, Plymouth and Scituate. With the
extension of the 200-mile limit, some of the facilities serving
these vessels may require expansion and improvement to accommodate
increased landings and newer vessels. These same harbors, as well
as those of Martha's Vineyard, Cohasset, Rockport, Westport, Man-
chester, and others also serve as centers for inshore fisheries,
lobstering, bay scalloping, and claaming. If Massachusetts is to
retain and promote a healthy fishing industry, dockside improve-
ments for many of these smaller ports and harbors will be necessary.

MARITIME SHIPPING

The maritime shipping industry requires deepwater channels and
harbor space for short-term anchorage and mooring of vessels; berths
for loading cargoes; storage areas, warehouses, tanks, or silos for
cargo storage; and rail and road connectors to move goods efficiently
from inland points to ports and vice-versa.

As merchant fleets of older "tramp" steamers and "T-2" tankers,
and smaller bulk carriers are retired from service because of age
and obsolescence, increasing proportions of merchant fleets will be
comprised of larger tankers and bulk carriers and large specialized
cargo ships like containerships. This new generation of ships gen-
erally requires deeper channels -- forty to sixty feet in depth. At
the same time, barge and tugboat technology has advanced consider-
ably over the past twenty years, and barges of nearly 40,000 DWT are
now being constructed. The smaller investment costs for tugs and
barges, compared to ships, their smaller manning needs, reduced la-
bor costs, and lower drafts for equivalent tonnage makes barges
ideally suited for short hauls and smaller harbors. Such barge
traffic generally requires channels of twenty foot depth or more.

Under ideal conditions, maritime terminals should be located as
close as possible to open water so as to minimize in-harbor man-
euvering, the costs incurred for pilotage and tugboat services, and
time in transit. In addition, turnaround basins should be large
enough to eliminate time-consuming maneuvering to and from berthing

2-E/4

facilities. Normally, marginal wharves rather than finger piers are
preferred, as bringing a ship to or from a berth can be accomplished
with fewer maneuvers. Older, narrower finger piers do not provide
the extensive depth of space required for today's mechanized cargo
handling operations.

Ideally, the land area between the marginal pier and seaport
road and rail connectors should be large enough to include all the
operations required to transfer seaborne cargo to land transporta-
tion modes and vice-versa. These operations include storage of in-
and out-bound cargo, freight consolidation, truck and rail car stor-
age, handling equipment movement, and security and administrative
services. For example, a single modern containerport berth requires
800 to 1000 feet of marginal pier and 20 to 25 acres of land storage
area. Rail and road connectors to such terminals should provide di-
rect linkage to major trunk lines and arterial road networks. Such
connectors should be capable of bearing high traffic volumes without
causing congestion, safety hazards, and delays.

The volume of shipping in any given port, and hence the indus-
try's need for port space, is determined by prevailing economic con-
ditions, by the costs of maritime shipping compared to other trans-
portation modes and by the comparative shipping costs of one port
versus another. Given the complexity of these variables, the future
volume of maritime shipping cannot be easily predicted. However,
many port facilities in Massachusetts could accommodate larger ship-
ping volumes simply because existing capacity is under-utilized.

Petroleum products carried by tanker or barge and destined either
for general distribution or power plants comprise the major volume of
Massachusetts freight traffic. Through the existing network of
petroleum product marine terminals, Massachusetts receives some 75%
of its average daily consumption of 600,000 barrels of petroleum
products. Berthing capacity for barges and normal sized tankers
at the major Massachusetts petroleum terminals is sufficient to
serve the increases in tanker traffic required to meet Massachusetts,
future petroleum product needs.2 However, as consumption of petro-
leum products grows with population increases, more tank farms will
be necessary to maintain reasonable reserve stocks of petroleum prod-
ucts on hand. Given the area occupied by tank farms (17-20 acres for
a one million barrel tank farm), however, many Massachusetts ports
may be3physically unable to accommodate substantial increases in tank
farms. Tank farms storing products for general uses, such as gasoline
and home heating oil, need not be located on the waterfront; they
could be moved inland with petroleum products fed to them by pipeline
from marine terminals (see Energy below). Moreover, the use of avail-
able harborfront space for tank farms could prejudice meeting the fu-
ture needs of waterfront dependent uses whose return in terms of em-
ployment, income generation, and local taxes are higher.

2-E/5

Liquid and dry bulk cargoes, other than petroleum products, do
not figure largely in Massachusetts' maritime shipments or receipts.
New York and the mid-Atlantic will remain the primary ports for large
dry bulk cargoes. The probability that Massachusetts will become a
major distribution center for such trade is slight. Indeed, existing
berthing capacity in Massachusetts for bulk cargoes is much under-
utilized; any increase in chemical, other liquid or dry bulk cargoes
could be accommodated at existing terminals by installing more modern
cargo handling facilities and expanding storage space.4

In the past twenty-five years, general cargo shipment has been
revolutionized. General cargo ships and tramp steamers are now
relics of the past, and shipments by container or other unitized
cargo methods are forecast to reach a level 5of 70-80% of all dry,
general cargo in the U.S. east coast trade. Boston is the only
Massachusetts port equipped to handle containerships. In 1973, one-
third of the total amount of non-fuel cargo moving through Boston
could be shipped by container; 60% actually was.

Demand projections prepared for MASSPORT forecast that by 1990
container traffic in the port of Boston could justify facilities
with an annual capacity ranging between a low of 98,200 containers
to a high of 360,000 containers. A more recent study suggests that
by 1990 a tacility capable of handling 241,000 containers will be
necessary. The increased reliance on container services in foreign
as well as coastal trade suggests that the usage of general cargo
terminals, such as the state piers in New Bedford and Fall River and
MASSPORT's East Boston facilities, will continue to decline thereby
offering opportunities for reuse of waterfront land.

Success in containerport operations is dependent upon attract-
ing a high volume of freight traffic through the port to justify fre-
quent containership calls; frequent calls by containerships also at-
tract a greater volume of freight traffic into the port. Container-
ships are far costlier to build and operate than the older generation
of "tramp steamers." If their owners are to turn a profit, ship
turnaround time must be faster and the pay-off from each port of call
higher than was true for older general cargo ships. Thus container-
ships are made to operate at few ports of call and only those where
freight volumes are sufficient to make such calls worthwhile. Boston
has already established itself as a containerport, and the duplica-
tion of container facilities in other New England ports would undercut
attempts to revitalize Boston as a seaport. Moreover, any new con-
tainer facilities would have to compete for the same business with
established services at Boston, thereby running a high risk of under-
utilization or failure.

FERRY AND CRUISE SERVICES

In Massachusetts, passenger movement by ship is confined to
transoceanic liners calling at Boston's Commonwealth Pier and to
local cruise and,ferry services connecting the mainland with various
2-E/6

islands, along with commuter and recreational destinations. Regular
service from Woods Hole to Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket is supple-
mented, during the busy summer months, by additional sailings and by
ferry services operating from Hyannis and Falmouth Harbor. Goods and
passengers are moved to Cuttyhunk by -ferry from New Bedford. Hull and
Provincetown are connected by ferry service from Boston; and commuter
boat service between downtown Boston and Hingham is under experiment.
Cruise services around Boston Harbor are increasingly popular. Char-
ter and party boats for sportsfishermen operate out of such harbors as
Newburyport, Lynn, Plymouth, and Hyannis.

Ferry and party boats seldom require channels deeper than eigh-
teen feet. Proximity to public transit and parking lots and garages
can make these services more accessible and minimize the need for ex-
tensive new parking areas.

By and large, existing passenger, ferry, cruise, and party boat
terminals could accommodate substantially increased sailings. The
growing ridership on the Boston Harbor cruises and heightened in-
terest in commuter boat services suggest a latent demand for such
travel. In particular, promotion of cruise, ferry, and party boat
services to recreational destinations, or as a recreational pursuit
themselves, could help to relieve coastal traffic congestion during
the busy tourist summer season, open up coastal recreation to fami-
lies without automobiles, and bolster tourist economies. If this
potential is tapped, some redevelopment and relocation of berthing
terminals and other facilities will be required.

OTHER MARINE INDUSTRY AND SERVICES

Industries relying on maritime shipping to transport bulk raw ma-
terial or processed goods seek port locations in order to minimize
transfer costs. These industries include the frozen fish industry
which processes imported frozen fish blocks for distribution to the
U.S. market, two Boston sugar refineries which refine raw sugar
transported by ship, U.S. Gypsum which relies on maritime shipping
to deliver gypsum and limestone to its Mystic River plant, and
Proctor and Gamble which uses maritime shipping to deliver caustic
soda to its Quincy plant.

Shipbuilding, ship and boat repairya*rds, marine service firms
(tugboat services, marine construction firms) and offshore mining
support services also require land along deepwater channels to carry
out their activities. The Massachusetts shipbuilding and repair in-
dustry embraces 81 establishments and includes General Dynamics in
Quincy (one of the largest shipyards on the East Coast); Bethlehem
Steel, Bromfield Corporation, General Ship and Engine Works all in
East Boston; Munro Drydock in Chelsea; Fairhaven Marine and D.N.
Kelley both based in Fairhaven; Gladding-Hearn in Somerset; and
smaller firms concentrating on boat building and repair, located in
a large number of harbors including Gloucester, Dartmouth, Marion,
Mattapoisett and Marblehead.

2-E/7

Marine industry covers a wide spectrum of activities, some of
which, like boatbuilding, require only shallow channels of at most
10 to 12 feet in depth, while others, such as commercial shipbuild-
ing, require water depthj; of 30 to 40 feet. For those marine indus-
tries that rely on maritime shipping, channel drafts must be as deep
as those required for maritime shipping. Generally speaking, the
harborfront space requirements and road and rail access needs are
similar to those for maritime shipping, although space for the actual
manufacturing activity must also be provided. In addition, proxi-
mity to public transit for the industry's work force is desirable.
Like any other major industrial development, water and sewer services
must be available.

The future harborfront space requirements of these varied in-
dustries differ. While the frozen fish industry has tended to con-
centrate in traditional fishing ports, a number of processing
facilities are now located inland, relying on road or rail to trans-
port frozen fish blocks from Canada or from Massachusetts ports of
entry, such as Gloucester, Boston, or New Bedford. Thus the future
requirements of this industry need not be met in port or harbor
areas. The needs of other marine industries, reliant on maritime
transportation, depend on individual locational decisions by firms
and cannot be predicted.

Sufficient demand for a major, new (as opposed to an expanded)
shipyard is unlikely. The eleven major U.S. shipyards (Quincy
Dynamics among them) are likely to be able to meet whatever ship-
building demand materializes for the entire nation.7 With continued
increases in recreational boating and the revitalization of the fish-
ing fleet, Massachusetts should expect some increase in the size and
number of small boatyards and repair facilities.

The future demands by offshore mining support services for port
and harborfront space cannot yet be accurately foreseen. Exploring
for oil and gas on Georges Bank and the development of whatever re-
sources are discovered could lead to the location of extensive supply
bases for offshore operations and platform rig construction and pipe
coating yards in Massachusetts. During exploration stages, each off-
shore drilling rig is typically served by two to three supply vessels,
relaying crew, drilling mud, water, cement, and piping offshore. In
addition to berthing space for such supply vessels, storage areas for
supplies are required. Assuming, for example, that in the early years
of OCS exploration on Georges Bank a maximum of six to ten drilling
rigs are located offshore, 1,000-3,000 feet of berth space and some
50 acres of storage area may be needed.

Should development of off-shore oil or gas occur, permanent ser-
vice bases would be established and additional service-oriented firms
would set up depots. These include cement companies, specialized
drilling tool and equipment suppliers, well casing, well-head equip-
ment, and wireline service companies. All of these also require

2-E/8

land in a port with some dock space, and they tend to locate in the
same ports as service bases.

In the event of a major find on Georges Bank, oil or gas company
demand for production platforms (from which production wells are
drilled) may exceed the supply capacity of existing platform con-
struction yards, and a platform construction yard may be sited in New
England. Such a facility requires 100-300 acres of land, 500 feet of
shoreline on a waterway with a minimum of 30 feet of draft with un-
obstructed access to the ocean so the platform can be easily trans-
ported to the OCS site.

Should an oil find on Georges Bank prove large, that is, an
average flow rate of at least 150,000 to 200,000 barrels per day over
a ten to fifteen year period, or should substantial gas reserves be
discovered, a pipeline would probably be laid from the production
platforms to shore. In this event, a pipe coating yard may be es-
tablished. Such a facility, at which the pipe is coated to prevent
corrosion and a layer of cement added to help the pipe sink to the
ocean floor, typically requires 90 to 100 acres of waterfront land,
95% of which is used for pipe storage. The yard must have a minimum
of 1000 linear feet of waterfront land that can be used for dock space
with a minimum draf@ of up to ten feet at which pipelaying barges can
onload coated pipe.

In addition to offshore oil and gas development, other forms of
offshore mining - for sand, gravel, manganese modules, other miner-
als - may materialize off Massachusetts. These, too, might create a
demand to accommodate shipping and processing facilities along the
Massachusetts coast.

RECREATIONAL BOATING

Most recreational boats seldom exceed ten feet in draft; thus
harbor areas having navigable water depths between six and ten feet
are ideally suited for such craft. Recreational boats either require
mooring space in which to anchor boats while not in use, marinas at
which boats are berthed in slips, or access ramps from which boats
are trailered to and from the water. Necessary support services for
recreational boating include fueling services, boat supply and repair
yards, and pump-out stations for sewage. In addition, parking,for
those using marinas or access ramps is necessary.

Given the harshness of the winter climate in Massachusetts, rec-
reational boating largely takes place in the late spring, summer, and
early fall months. Boat storage needs during the winter months are
met by on-land storage at marinas or boatyards or by trailering boats
for storage at home.

Recreational boating demand has increased substantially over
the past several decades, and recreational planners have projected

2-E/9

an unmet need for facilities roughly equivalent to present capacity.
This demand can be met either by expanding mooring basins, encourag-
ing marina development, or construction and expansion of access ramps
(see further discussion under Recreation section).

URBAN WATERFRONT RENEWAL

Harborfronts provide vistas of the sea and views of harbor ac-
tivities. These settings can attract a wide variety of uses and
structures which do not depend on waterfront locations for their
functioning. These include housing, parks, and urban recreational
facilities, institutions, and a wide variety of commercial uses in-
cluding restaurants, hotels, office buildings, and shops. The mix-
ture of these uses,in port and harbor areas can provide opportuni-
ties to the general public for visual and physical access to water-
fronts. (See 'Visual Environment section.) In addition, by taking
advantage of the visual assets of waterfront areas, communities can
spur major redevelopment in otherwise deteriorating downtown areas.
Some coastal communities, including Boston, Newburyport, and Nan-
tucket, after years of neglecting their waterfronts and effectively
turning their backs to the sea, are attempting to open up their
neighborhoods and downtown areas to the sea, thereby creating new
and revitalized urban environments. Similar opportunities for such
redevelopment might occur in other port and harbor areas, but this
development potential remains untapped.

The successful revitalization of waterfront neighborhoods and
downtown areas depends on how well harbor views are made an integral
part of redevelopment. If harborfront vistas are re served for a few
private developments and access to these viewpoints is restricted,
the gains from redevelopment will not spread to,surrounding neigh-
borhoods and abutting downtown areas. The key to successful water-
front rehabilitation is to make the harborfront an inviting and sig-
nificant attraction to residents and'visitors alike. Small water-
front parks, open space abutting bulkheads, or piers accessible to
the public, and walkways'and pedestrian overpasses and ramps provid-
ing views of major harbor activities, can help to provide the acces-,
sibility to the waterfront that makes it attractive.

Those attracted to the waterfront as well as local residents
provide a natural market for restaurants, cafes, hotels and stores.
Such commercial establishments which serve the public also can help
to provide additional visual and physical access to the waterfront
and heighten vitality of the area. Public transit and public park-
ing facilities are required if the renewal area is to drawlarge
numbers of visitors, Ease of pedestrian access, inviting walkways
linking shopping, restaurant areas with both the waterfront and resi-
dential neighborhoods and downtown areas also are prerequisites for
successful waterfront redevelopment.

2-E/10

SUPPLY CONSIDERATIONS, SITE SUITABILITY,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Massachusetts Division of
Waterways, the Massachusetts Port Authority, the U.S. Coast Guard,
municipalities, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Economic Development Adminis-
tration, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have al-
ready expended nearly $400 million in public funds on port and harbor
improvements in Massachusetts.9 Many navigable channels, mooring ba-
sins, and facilities created by these investments are not fully uti-
lized.

A number of ports contain vacant or under-utilized lands and
docks adjoining channels of 20-foot depth or more. Examples include
the South Boston Naval Shipyard, the Charlestown Navy Yard, the
MASSPORT piers in East Boston, the Cordage Park in Plymouth, the
North Terminal in New Bedford, and the lands abutting the state pier
in Fall River. In other ports, developable land for waterfront de-
pendent uses is no longer available or extremely limited. Such is
the case in Salem, the Mystic River, Chelsea Creek, and Gloucester
Inner Harbor.

In other harbors, where channel depths are not sufficient to
accommodate ocean-going vessels, development potential for recrea-
tional boating, fisheries, and ferry and cruise services remains
under-utilized. Beverly Harbor, Lynn, Plymouth, Hull, and the Mt.
Hope Bay communities, for example, present such opportunities.

In yet other cases, port and harbor facilities could support
heavier utilization through redevelopment, modernization, and em-
ployment of space saving techniques. Conversion of state piers for.
fishery operations, rehabilitating the Boston Fish Pier, or extension
of town docks for fishermen could, for example, help to stimulate
higher economic returns from these original investments.

Clearly the most efficient uses of these underutilized resources
would be to promote usage of those sites from those waterfront de-
pendent uses for which they are best suited. Simply put, extensive
vacant lands (50-300 acres) adjoining large turnaround basins of up
to 40 feet in depth with quick access to the open ocean and good
road and rail connectors are ideally suited for the siting of a con-
tainerport or platform construction yard. In Massachusetts such
sites are extremely rare. Smaller tracts adjoining channels of
20-40 feet in depth and with good road and rail access are suited
for other forms of maritime shipping and marine industry. Many of'the
port areas with these characteristics, however, have also been de-
veloped as major fishing ports, thereby compounding the competition
for space. Very small tracts adjoining shallow draft harbors (6-10
feet in depth) are suited for recreational boating development and

2-E/11

small-scale fishery operations. Approximately one hundred harbors
possess these characteristics; and, since recreational boating can
also be accommodated in deeper harbors, site requirement constraints
for these activities are not as severe.

Determinations of site suitability for the varying waterfront
uses must take into account the character of neighborhoods surround-
ing port and harbor areas. Siting a containerport, pipecoating
yard, or an oil terminal, for example, in areas abutting residential
neighborhoods might well affect the visual character of the area and
cause severe truck traffic problems. On the other hand, some water-
front activities actually enhance neighborhood and harbor character.
To many the presence of fishing fleets in sheltered harbors presents
a desirable seafaring image and enhances the interest and character
of the harbor. Recreational boating facilities - marinas,boatyards,
marine supply stores - can lend vitality to commercial districts in
harbor towns. Ferry services and the tourists and visitors they at-
tract bolster the economy of commercial business activities in har-
bor areas.

Accommodating a variety of waterfront uses in one harbor can
lead to conflicts. Recreational boating in a busy commercial harbor
can clog shipping lanes, causing safety hazards and delays to ship-
ping. Fishermen whose boats or vessels are their primary capital
asset cannot afford to construct their own piers. Their efficiency
is enhanced by the use of one pier for both unloading and taking on
stores. They rely on fish processors, the state or community to'pro-
vide such space. Yet, for the private developer or the community
greater profit may accrue by converting such space to recreational
boating or other use, forcing the fishing industry to move to other
ports or harbors.

Market forces lead to these kinds of competition, and in plan-
ning for port and harbor usage, some notion of the overall signifi-
cance of the various uses requiring waterfront space must be employed.
From a national and state perspective, three waterfront uses - the
fishing industry, maritime shipping, and support services for maritime
shipping - stand out as meriting special preference in the allocation
of port and harbor space.

The fishing industry capitalizes on the fisheries resources off
the coast, which represent one of the few natural economic endowments
Massachusetts enjoys. As a permanent indigenous industry, a signifi-
cant supplier of the nation's protein, and a source of full and part-
time employment for 15,000 people, the fishing industry deserves pref-
erence over most other uses competing for port and harbor space.

Transportation costs are kept at a competitive level by the
availability of maritime shipping services which provide*an alterna-
tive to other modes of transport - air, rail, and truck. The ship-
ping industry also serves as a vital lifeline, providing the

2-E/12

Massachusetts economy with energy supplies and raw materials. in-
directly, the shipping industry induces substantial numbers of jobs
and income: MASSPORT estimates that the port of Boston generates
$250-$450 million annually in income and serves some 4000 firms.
Boston's shipping services also provide the infrastructure for the
export of manufactured goods; Massachusetts ranks eleventh in the
nation in the export of such goods, the production of which ac-
counts for an estimated 32,100 jobs. These attributes dictate that
marine terminal development, when justified by demand, be given a
preference along with the fishing industry over other competing uses
for port space.

Some marine industry, such as tugboat services and ship and
boatyards, provide needed support services for the fishing industry
and maritime shipping and thus deserve preference in the allocation
of port and harbor space. Support services for OCS exploration and
development, while important to exploiting needed energy supplies,
are short-lived, lasting only as long as the life of exploration or
the life of discovered finds. Their temporary nature dictates that
the preference afforded them in allocating port or harbor space should
be carefully weighed against possible detrimental effects on more
permanent uses such as maritime shipping and the fishing industry.
Lastly,industry dependent on maritime shipping for receiving raw ma-
terial or exporting products constitutesan important source of em-
ployment in Massachusetts, accounting for some 3,000 jobs. Such in-
dustry should be promoted in the ports of Massachusetts when accom-
modating such uses would not be prejudicial to the expansion of the
fishing industry or maritime shipping.

Other waterfront uses - ferry services, recreational boating, and
urban waterfront redevelopment - provide important benefits to tourism,
the revitalization of downtown commercial centers, and neighborhood
rehabilitation. However, these uses can be accommodated in conjunction
with each other and in a variety of locations. Moreover, as mentioned
previously, their site requirements, compatibility with general com-
mercial and residential use, and need for developed transportation
infrastructure is distinctly different from the heavier, more inten-
sive waterfront dependent uses. Thus, these uses are best promoted
in waterfront areas which do not have the potential to serve large-
scale fishing industry operations, maritime shipping, and marine in-
dustry.

Maximizing the use of existing navigable channels minimizes the
need for extensive new dredging and consequent impacts on the marine
environment. Furthermore, the return from past public expenditures
will be maximized. The cost of new public improvements will also be
minimized because the costs of maintaining or deepening old channels
are generally cheaper than the costs of creating new ones.10 The
marine environment will also be conserved, for existing ports and
harbors already represent departures from natural conditions, and new
disruptions to relatively untouched areas of the marine environment
will be kept to a minimum.

2-E/13

In certain isolated instances, however, legitimate environmental
concerns should constrain the expansion of port and harbor activities.
As discussed in Marine Environment, the continuance or increased levels
of waterfront dependent use can threaten the productivity of coastal
reaches. Port and harbor activities are sometimes sited in those
areas most sensitive to environmental damage, such as estuaries and
coastal embayments containing salt marsh systems, eel grass beds,
shellfish flats, fish spawning grounds, anadromous fish runs, shallow
bottoms, and exhibiting poor circulation and flushing characteristics.
These are identified in the regional chapters as significant marine
ecosystem resource areas and areas for preservation or restoration.

2-E/14

OBJECTIVES

The preceding discussion suggests that the ports and harbors of
Massachusetts should be managed so as to achieve the following objec-
tives:

1. to allow for expansion of economically important water
dependent activities, including fishing, shipping, and
other marine industries;

2. to facilitate harbor improvements needed by fishermen,
cruise and ferry services, and the general boating
public;

3. to encourage revitalization and rehabilitation of de-
veloped harbor areas and promote physical and visual
access to waterfront for the general public;

4. to protect the marine environment and conserve sig-
nificant ecological resources; and

5. to maximize the economic return and public benefit
from publicly supported port and harbor works.

MASSACHUSETTS CZM POLICIES AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

Policy (19) Encourage water-dependent industrial development
in port areas. Deter preemptions of present and
proposed water-dependent industrial uses by favor-
ing the use which is the more limited in its phys-
ical or economic options. Permit non water-
dependent industrial uses when such use would not
represent an irreversible commitment of sites and
would not preempt foreseeable water-dependent in-
dustrial uses.

The existing port areas of Massachusetts represent a valuable eco-
nomic resource ideally suited for large-scale maritime shipping, marine
industry, and the fisheries industry. Many of the under-utilized lands
abutting these deepwater channels are either in the hands of public
agencies or have been or will be improved using public funds. The ap-
propriateness of the uses of these lands is thus of legitimate public
concern.

Water and land areas which exhibit the following characteristics
are defined to be port areas:

2-E/15

1. navigable channels of 20 foot depth or more,

2. lands abutting such channels which are zoned for marine
dependent or industrial use,

3. well-developed road and rail links to por It areas lead-
ing to major trunk and arterial routes,

4. water and sewer services capable of accommodating major
industrial needs, and

5. land that is separated or remote from residential neigh-
borhoods and commercial business districts.

Water-dependent industrial development will include large-scale
fishing operations, maritime shipping and other marine industries.
These uses will be preferred because they require the space, facilities
and infra-structure existing in such port areas. Furthermore, these
industries are of economic importance to the state and the nation. All
proposals for water-dependent industrial developments in port areas
will be encouraged by CZM and will be facilitated as much as possible
by EOEA agencies, unless the proposed use will seriously conflict with
or preempt, either economically or physically, other existing water-
dependent industrial uses in that port or other ports. Conflicts will
be resolved by favoring the water-dependent industrial use which is
more limited in its spatial, locational, or economic options.

Proposals for development in port areas which are not water-
dependent industrial uses will also be facilitated unless:

1. public Agencies and/or fishing, maritime shipping
or marine industry spokesmen have expressed in-
terest in the site for waterfront dependent uses
of particular state or.-national economic import-
ance; or

2. the proposed use would irreversibly commit the
site to a use other than..that for which it is
ideally suited based on site size, availability
of road and rail access, or other attributes.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

When state or federal funds or state permits are involved, CZM
will review and comment on the type, location, and design of proposed
uses for such lands as part of A-95, MEPA, and NEPA review processes.

,In addition, CZM will influence the use of port areas by net-
working with the permitting agencies within the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs and by issuing consistency certificates for
federal permits. Among those permit and license authorities which
are most likely to apply to port and harbor projects are:

2-E/16

-- --Waterways Program (MGLA Ch. 91) - Gives the Waterway Program
authority over tidelands, harbors, and certain rivers below the high
water mark. Activities covered by such licenses include filling, wharf
construction, bridges, pipelines, etc. This power is based on the re-
served public property rights of navigation and fishery. DEQE as trus-
tee over these lands thus issues licenses, and not permits, for the
permission to interfere with these public lands. Under the law, all
licenses are to expire after five years or upon non-use.

Under a Memorandum of Understanding with Waterways, the preceding
CZM policy will be implemented as follows. If, to secure financing,
the developer needs to obtain an irrevocable license from the Legisla-
ture, CZM will actively support such legislation. Should the project
be a non-water dependent development, it will still be licensed, pro-
vided the criteria relating to non-water dependent uses are met.

-- --Wetlands Program (MGLA Ch. 131, s. 40) Gives local conservation
commissions power to permit dredging and filling of wetlands, flood-
plains, beaches, etc., following guidelines established by the Commis-
sioner of DEQE. Following a Memorandum of Understanding between the
Commissioner and CZM, the CZM plan will be incorporated as a part of
those guidelines and the Commissioner shall issue a superceding order
when necessary to implement CZM policy.

--Marine Oil Terminal License (MGLA Ch. 21, s. 50) - Issued by the
Division of Water Pollution Control in order to protect the public
safety and to prevent oil spills. Following a Memorandum of Understand-
ing, DWPC will license such facilities in port areas and deny or appro-
priately condition such facilities in identified sensitive environmental
areas.

-- --Energy Facilities Siting Council (MGLA Ch. 164, s. 69f-69r) - Has
jurisdiction over all siting and facility plans of major oil, gas and
electric developments. A Memorandum of Understanding will be signed
between CZM and EFSC which will detail the ways that the two agencies
will coordinate and accept the policies of one another and will speci-
fically relate to how the Council will exercise its over-ride over
state and local permits and eminent domain powers where necessary to
facilitate the siting of water-dependent energy facilities in port
areas. The Council will encourage the inland siting of non-water de-
pendent energy facilities.

-- --Permits for Filling in Navigable Waters - Under Section 404 of
the eral Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33U.S.C. 1344), the
Corps of Engineers authorizes filling of navigable waters. Since the
scope of jurisdiction over navigable waters is very broad, the Corps is
implementing this program in three phases. It is, at present, exer-
cising jurisdiction over coastal waters and coastal wetlands and fresh-
water wetlands contiguous or adjacent to coastal or inland navigable
aters. In later phases its jurisdiction will include tributaries,
other inland waters adjacent to tributaries, and other navigable waters

2-E/17

Under the Corps regulations and the Federal Consistency regulations,
the Corps may not issue a filling permit without a CZM certification of
consistency. CZM will assign high priority for water-dependent indus-
trial developments in port areas. It will more closely scrutinize and
appropriately condition non-water-dependent industrial developments in
port areas.

-- --Permits for Obstructions or Alterations in Navigable Waters of
the United States - Are granted by the Corps of Engineers under Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This permit covers such proj-
ects as sinking pilings, attaching moorings, placing outfall pipes, or
digging tunnels. While the scope of jurisdiction under this permit is
ot broad as for Section 404 permits, it does cover waters susceptible
for use in interstate commerce, up to their high water line; this in-
cludes all marine waters plus many inland waters. CZM's consistency
certificate for developments in port areas will be issued on the same
criteria as for Section 404 permits.

--CZM will also encourage water-dependent industrial uses in port
areas through a number of technical and financial assistance programs
discussed under policies (20) and (21).

Policy (20) Promote the widest possible public benefit from
port and harbor and channel dredging and ensure
such proposals are consistent with marine en-
vironment policies.

Adequate channel depths are a prerequisite for any kind of water-
front dependent activity. Given that public funding for dredge proj-
ects is limited, public agencies must, of necessity, allocate these
funds to projects which provide the greatest public benefit and demon-
strate the most pressing need. At the same time, dredging and disposal
especially of contaminated dredge material, can cause severe and last-
ing adverse impacts on the marine environment.

In order to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of dredg-
ing and dredge disposal, CZM will, as discussed further in the Marine
Environment Policy section, network with state and federal agencies
to:

1. work actively to explore and develop environmentally
sound disposal practices and sites for contaminated
dredge spoil;

2. restrict the dredging of significant resource areas
(salt marshes, dunes, barrier beaches, shellfish
flats, aquaculture areas and areas of finfish concen-
tration); and

2-E/18

3. prohibit dredging and disposal in designated areas
for preservation or restoration and salt ponds.

First priority for state or federal funding for dredge projects
ill presumptively be given to maintenance dredge proposals in port
areas defined under Policy (19) and developed harbors. Developed har-
bors are defined as those:

1. providing public mooring space, berths, ships,
ramps, and docks which serve a region-wide boating
public;

2. hosting harbor facilities used by commercial fish-
ermen;

3. serving cruise boat, ferries, and other marine in-
dustry; and/or

4. presenting unique development opportunities for the
fishing industry or for waterfront renewal and re-
vitalization.

Publicly funded maintenance dredging will be scheduled so that
projects demonstrating the most pressing need, widest public benefit,
and least environmental damage are carried out first.

Proposals in port areas or developed harbors for dredge projects
involving deepening or expansion of channels, mooring basins, or
turn-around basins beyond authorized or existing depth or size will be
approved for state or federal funding if the project:

1. provides for recreational boating,broad public bene-
fits which would not otherwise be possible,which are
spread over a region, and which redound to the gen-
eral public or identifiable groups to which entrance
is open (e.g., the general boating public vs. yacht
club members) and is necessary to resolve harbor con-
flicts between fishermen and recreational boaters;

2. enhances benefits to the commercial fishing industry;

3. produces economic returns to the maritime shipping
and other marine industries by reducing turn-around
times and in-harbor transit delays, and permits us-
age of more efficient sized vessels; and/or

4. reduces navigational safety risks.

In both port areas and development harbors, CZM will provide tech-
nical assistance, fund feasibility studies, and work actively with con-
cerned agencies to arrive at environmentally responsible dredge and
dredge disposal solutions.

2-E/19

Proposals for public funding of new channels, mooring basins, or
Dther navigational improvements in other than port areas or developed
harbors will only be deemed consistent with the Massachusetts CZM Pro-
gram if:

1. the need to be met by the project is of.,national or
statewide importance and cannot be accomplished in
port areas or developed harbors or the project demon-
strates that damage to the environment would be less
than that caused by accommodating the need in port
areas and developed harbors; and

2. the project demonstrates widespread public benefit
to a region and/or to a wide class of potential
users; and

3. the project does not conflict with other policies in
the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program
(see Marine Environment section) and water quality
standards.

Lastly, permits for privately funded dredge projects will be scru-
tinized to ensure conformance with CZM's marine environment policies.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Grants permits for dredging under
Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and
under Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act of 1899 and funds and
carries out channel and navigational works. CZM will only issue cer-
tifications of consistency for such permit applications and projects
which meet the criteria described above. CZM will also work actively
with communities, port authorities, and the Corps t8' ensure that dredge
projects within ports and developed harbors meeting the benefit cri-
teria described above, are authorized, funds appropriated, and work
begun expeditiously.

-- --Waterways Program (MGLA Ch. 91) - Grants licenses for dredging and
funds dredging projects. Through networking procedures and the evalu-
ation system developed with the Division, CZM will ensure that such
license applications and project funding meet the criteria described
above.

-- --Ocean Sanctuaries Acts (MGLA Ch. 132A, S. 13-17) - Have been
created to protect all state waters except those from Swampscott to
Marshfield and those in Mt. Hope Bay. While the terms of the five
sanctuaries vary, in general such activities as removal of any sand,
gravel or minerals, any dumping, or any waste discharge are prohibited,
and shore protection, water navigation aids or fish harvesting are
permitted. A significant clause permits improvements approved by
appropriate federal and state agencies; CZM networking and federal con-
sistency mechanisms will insure that with the flexibility created by

2-E/20

this clause, the CZM policies will be carried out. CZM will also work
with DEM to prepare regulations for administering the program.

-- --Coastal Zone Management Act, 1972, Section 306 - Once the Secretary
of Commerce has approved the Massachusetts CZM Program, CZM may dis-
burse a portion of its funding to support feasibility and project de-
velopment studies aimed at arriving at environmentally sound dredge
disposal practices and sites.

Policy (21) Encourage, through technical and financial as-
sistance, the expansion of water-dependent uses
in port areas and developed harbors where the
risks of damage to the marine environment are
minimal.

In addition to funding dredge projects, state and federal agencies
provide planning and infrastructure development assistance that help
make possible needed expansion in facilities for maritime shipping,
the fishing industry, cruise and ferry services, other marine industry,
and recreational boating. Such assistance is extended for both overall
arbor planning and construction of piers, docks, bulkheading, ramps,
avigational aids, and other harbor works.

In order to ensure that maximum use is made of existing infrastruc-
ture and that possible damage to the marine environment is kept to a
inimum, CZM will actively promote extension of such assistance to:

1. port areas defined under Policy (19); and

2. developed harbors defined under Policy (20).

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

Many technical and financial assistance programs operated by
state and federal agencies can be made supportive of water dependent
development. CZM will network with these programs to ensure that they
consistently encourage and facilitate water-dependent development.
The more significant of these programs include:

-- --Waterways Program (MGLA Ch. 91, S. 10-11) - Projects are carried
out to improve wharves, fund public piers, construct jetties, bulk-
heads, and shore protection works, dredge channels and remove wrecks.
CZM has worked with the Waterways Program to develop a system for
avaluating project requests from communities. Under this system, fund-
ing will be granted to projects that provide widespread public benefits
and which rank high with respect to fishing, shipping, recreational,
and environmental values. In addition, the Waterways Program under
AGLA Chapter 91, Section 9A, may develop harbor plans through acquiring
mproving and developing needed pier and terminal facilities. Such
2-E/21

facilities may then be leased for private sector operations. Upon
request by a community, CZM will provide planning, legal, and technical
help to acquire necessary rights and easements and to prepare such a
harbor plan. CZM will also use its best efforts with the Legislature
and federal and state funding agencies to garner the financing for
acquisition and construction.

-- --Coastal Zone Management Act, 1972, Section 306 - Once the Secre-
tary of Commerce has approved the Massachusetts CZM Program, CZM may
disburse a portion of its funding to support preparation of port and
harbor development plans, assessing facility needs and the economic
return from such facilities; and conducting feasibility and preliminary
engineering studies for public marinas, town wharves and docks, access
ramps, and navigational improvements.

-- --Public Access Board (MGLA Ch. 21, S.17, 17A) - Is empowered to
designate, acquire, and develop sites for boat ramps and other facili-
ties providing recreational access to water. CZM will work with commu-
nities and the Board to develop boat ramps and related facilities in
developed harbors. These efforts will reflect the priorities indicated
in the Recreation section and the,Regional_Chapter.

-- --Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MGLA Ch. 21,
s.. 43) - Approves sewer hook-ups and treatment plant construction. It
also supports the engineering and construction of municipal sewage
treatment facilities with grant funds made available under Section 201
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Both the Division and
areawide waste water management planning agencies, funded by Section
208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, plan for the location,
capacity, and size of service area of municipal sewage treatment
plants. CZM will work with communities, the areawide waste water man-
agement planning agencies, and the Division to improve sewage treat-
ment infrastructure in existing port areas and developed harbors to
support higher and desired levels of economic development without com-
promising water quality standards. It will also strive to ensure that
opportunities for the construction of pump-out facilities for water-
craft wastes are not overlooked.

-- --The Federal Highway Administration within the Department of
Transportation, administers a federal aid highway program which pro-
vices financial assistance to states for highway construction in and
among urban areas. CZM will work with Massachusetts' highway plan-
ning agency, the Department of Public Works, to promote investment
of these urban systems funds in roadways which link port areas with
existing population centers.

--Department of Public Works (MGLA Ch. 90) - Is authorized to con-
struct, improve and maintain all non-federally funded roadways. In
effect these include most urban and rural roads which do not provide
direct access to a major population center or access between population
centers within metropolitan areas. Thus communities wishing to con-
struct or improve port and harbor access roads must usually seek state
2-E/22

funding or finance these public works themselves. CZM will work with
the Department of Public Works and regional transportation planning
agencies to ensure that port and harbor access road projects receive
priority consideration for state funding.

--Economic Development Administration - Provides grants to public
entities and loans to public and private entities for the construction
or expansion of public work projects which offer substantial employ-
ment potential, improve the capacity for economic growth through the
development of facilities conducive to the location of industrial and
commercial enterprises, or provide essential services to the citizens
of economically depressed areas. This program finances such projects
as industrial parks, access roads, water and sewer systems, and the
expansion of harbor and airport facilities. CZM will act as an advo-
cate before the Economic Development Administration to support funding
for water dependent development in port areas and developed harbors.

-- --In addition to the above programs, others described under Policy
(22) (Housing and Urban Development, Urban Mass Transit) can be used to
promote water-dependent development. For all these and other funding
programs, CZM will affirmatively review under A-95, MEPA, and NEPA
processes, issue federal consistency certificates, and work toward fund-
ing project developments,which meet the policies of the plan.

Policy (22) Encourage urban waterfront redevelopment and re-
newal in developed harbors in order to link
residential neighborhoods and commercial down-
town areas with physical and visual access to
the waterfront.

CZM will, through technical and financial assistance and through
?roject review, promote this CZM policy in developed harbors and in
)ther urban waterfronts. The latter includes shoreline areas which
lo not presently contain developed harbors but which are characterized
3y extremely dense, urban residential neighborhoods or commercial de-
velopment.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

Key among the many state and federal programs applicable to this
policy which fund projects through planning, acquisition and construc-
tion stages are:

of Housing and Urban Development provides, under the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, direct grants to state,
netropolitan, and regional planning agencies for land use, housing,
arban, and redevelopment planning. In addition, formulA.and discre-
tionary grants under the Community Development Block Grant Program, in-
tended to help eliminate problems of low-income persons, may be used foi

2-E/23

improving living conditions, conservation of expansion of housing and
housing opportunities; for increased public services; for improved
use of land, including recreational facilities; increased neighbor-
ood diversity; and for preservation of property with special values.
nder the A-95 review process, CZM will champion applications encom-
passing CZM's waterfront renewal policy and strive to ensure that ade-
quate funding is provided by the Department of Housing and Urban De-
velopment.

--Coastal Zone Management Act, 1972, Section 306 - Once the Secre-
tary of Commerce has approved the Massachusetts CZM Program, CZM may
disburse a portion of its funding to support preparation of harbor-
front plans aimed at improving visual and physical access to water-
fronts, identifying opportunities for waterfront parks, waterfront
pedestrian ways, ramps, and other public access improvements; conduct-
ing feasibility, cost, and preliminary engineering studies for such
waterfront improvement projects.

-- --U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation provides matching grants to
state and local communities for recreation planning, acquisition, and
facilities development under its Land and Water Conservation Fund
(P.L. 88-578) and reviews proposed federal water development proposals
to ensure full consideration of outdoor recreational needs (P.L. 89-72).
Fhe Bureau is actively committed to enhancing urban recreation and
access opportunities; CZM will act as an advocate before it for rec-
reation development proposals which enhance development harbors and
3ther urban waterfronts.

-- --Waterways Program (MGLA Ch. 91) - has authority to carry out
rojects for bulkheads, public piers, wharves, j.etties, and shore pro-
:ection works. Under a new procedure, developed in coordination with
IZM, requests for project funding are systematically evaluated with
@espect to recreational benefits, secondary economic benefits, en-
7ironmental enhancement, and consistency with state growth policy.
kctive support for waterfront renewal is given special recognition
Ln the system since one of the evaluative criteria is whether the
)roject contributes to redevelopment efforts.

-- --Urban Mass Transportation Administration provides grants and loans
o states for transit planning, development, and operation. Transit
ystems act to spur development and revitalization by facilitating
ccess between given areas. CZM will work with municipal planners,
ransit authorities, and the Department of Public Works to encourage
he provision of transit projects which serve CZM's waterfront re-
ewal policy. CZM will champion such projects before the Urban Mass
ransportation Administration.

-- --Department of Public Works administers a Federal Highway Adminis-
:ration program which provides for planning and development of bicycle
:ransportation and pedestrian walkways. Projects can be incidental

2-E/24

features of highway construction or'can be independent walkways or bike-
ways. CZM will actively promote the use of this program to provide
physical and visual access to developed harbors and other urban water-
fronts. In addition, CZM will work with the Department, regional
transportation planning agencies, and communities to ensure that oppor-
tunities to provide visual and physical access to urban waterfronts
are not overlooked when designing new or improved roadways and bridges
in developed harbors and other urban waterfronts.

--The siting of state and federally supported facilities such as
educational institutions, subsidized housing, or museums as well as
commercial shopping areas and tourist area accommodations can help to
revitalize waterfront areas by providing opportunities for visual and
physical access to the harbor. Through the information channels pro-
vided by the MEPA, NEPA and A-95 reviews, plus the networking mechanisms
and other program authorities described under Policy (20), CZM will
actively promote the use of such projects and programs in developed
harbors and other urban waterfronts to help link residential neighbor-
oods and commercial downtown areas to waterfronts and will ensure that
pportunities for providing such access are not overlooked.

2-E/25

TECHNICAL NOTES AND SOURCES

For information on and estimates of domestic fish catch under ex-
tended jurisdiction, see National Marine Fisheries Service,
Staff Report, Fisheries Management Under Extended Jurisdiction,
March, 1975, pp. 32-33, and Draft National Plan for Marine
Fisheries, June, 1975, pp. 7-8, 44-51; and Olsen and Stevenson,
Commercial Fish and Fisheries of Rhode Island, 1975, pp. 47-48.
Olsen and Stevenson contend a doubling of the fleet together
with substantial modernization will be necessary if the domes-
tic fleet is to catch the entire potential harvest in ICNAF
Area 5. This estimate is open to considerable question as,
under extended jurisdiction, Canada and the United States will
each control a portion of the area off their coasts and other
nations which have traditionally fished these areas are likely
to be given some fishing rights. In addition, securing the
investment necessary for fleet expansion and modernization will
take time. Hence, a 50%o rather than a 100% increase in domestic
fleet size is more likely to materialize.

2. See A.D. Little, Inc., Effects on New England of Petroleum-
Related Industrial Development, 1975, Vol. III, pp. 111-21,
111-31, which estimates that the current average tanker berth
occupancy rate for New England as a whole is 16% and for Boston
(excluding Exxon's Mystic River terminal) 23% and which con-
cludes that the risk of berth saturation in New England by the
year 2000 is remote.

3. Data on petroleum products consumption compiled by the U.S.
Bureau of Mines and on petroleum-bulk storage capacity compiled
by the U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Business and Intrametrics,
Petroleum Terminals in Massachusetts, 1975, for the years 1963,
1967, and 1972 suggest that Massachusetts has maintained a rela-
tively stable reserve storage capacity for petroleum products
amounting on average to some 25 days consumption. If Massachu-
setts is to continue to have a similar ratio of petroleum prod-
ucts on hand, then, by 1990, assuming historic growth rates in
fuel consumption developed by A.D. Little, Inc., Preliminary
Projections of New England's Energy Requirements, 1974, new tank
farm storage capacity of 41.3 million barrels will be required
as compared to current capacity of 30.2 million barrels. With
respect to expanding tank farms in existing ports and harbors,
A.D. Little, Inc. found, for example, that, based on oil termi-
nal land holdings, only a 20% increase in storage capacity
(roughly three million barrels) was possible in greater Boston
(see Preliminary Environmental Study of Alternative Methods of
Supplying Petroleum Products to Eastern Massachusetts, 1973, Vol.
III, p. 111-6-111). Expansion possibilities at Salem, another
deepwater port, are similarly constricted; all available space
at the Salem Terminal Wharf is now taken up by New England Power

2-E/26

rzm

Recreation

RECREATION

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Americans are participating in outdoor recreation more than ever
before. The U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation found that increases
in leisure activities, particularly water-related recreation, far
outstrips population increases. For example, from 1960-65, demand
for fishing increased by 12%, swimming by 18%, and boating by 15%,
while population grew by only 8%. Projections for the 1960-1980
period indicate that swimming will increase by 72% while the pop-
ulation is likely to increase by only 29%.1

In Massachusetts, the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan estimates that the demand for swimming is highest of all recrea-
tion demands and is likely to exceed2by four times all other needs
for recreation in the next 25 years. Because of a simultaneous
dwindling of undeveloped coastal resources, meeting recreation demands
is more difficult in coastal areas than in any other Massachusetts
region. The New England River Basins' SENE Study estimates that
approximately 130,000 additional acres are needed in coastal counties
to meet all future recreation demands.3 But the amount of coastal
town acreage developed for non-recreation uses has increased by up
to 500% over the last twenty-five years.4 Some coastal towns, pre-
viously considered rural, currently have little undeveloped coastal
land remaining.5 Urban areas, chronically deficient in coastal re-
creational facilities, have few small and expensive coastal sites
left. Thus, options for redistributing recreation opportunities
are limited.

The high cost of land is another facet of the recreation dilemma.
Traditionally, beaches have been purchased by the public sector since
private enterprise cannot make a reasonable profit on beach recreation
given the limited season, the high acquisition and operating costs
necessary, and low revenues. Recently, as the price of coastal land
continues to escalate, other recreation ventures have begun to founder.
Although marinas, boatyards, boat and motor sales have enjoyed high 6
profits compared to other marine industries during the past few years,
marina owners say that they are having greater difficulties establish-
ing and expanding their businesses; they cite lack of, or cost of,
waterfront land as a primary cause.7

The immediacy of the recreation dilemma is critical. Solutions
must be provided within the next decade or most remaining opportunities
will be lost. Coastal recreation benefits cannot be narrowly construed:
public land acquisition in the coastal zone can complement and help
implement other Coastal Zone Management policies. Acquisition can,
under proper management,conserve marine ecosystems and prevent
property losses in flood damage areas as well as provide coastal recre-
ational opportunities. Recreation sites and activities are good "gate-
way enterprises", attracting visitors who spend money on food, lodging,
and tourist facilities.8 Recreation can also spur development, and

2-F/1

impart high values to existing housing stock as well as remaining
open lands.9

The detrimental impacts of recreation should not be overlooked.
Recreation activities place high demands on transportation networks
and other municipal services. Over-utilization and conflicting uses
degrade the quality of the recreation experience as well as the sur-
rounding natural and man-made environs, and the cost of maintenance
and operation of the recreation facilities quickly approaches the cost
of acquisition.

The Massachusetts shoreline as a whole is deficient in recreation
facilities, particularly in Eastern Massachusetts (Boston Harbor
and the North and South Shores) and on Martha's Vineyard and Nan-
tucket. Eastern Massachusetts needs more opportunities for all recrea-
tion activities; Southeastern Massachusetts needs more public beaches
for swimming; Cape Cod needs more facilities for boating and camping,
but provides ample swimming opportunities, particularly on the National
Seashore; and the Islands are deficient in all recreation activities.

Unfortunately, suitable new sites for recreation are not available
in all of the regions. Opportunities in Eastern Massachusetts are
the most limited, particularly for large sites such as state beaches
and campgrounds: Acquisition of a few large military sites, however,
could alleviate some of the shortages in this region. Buzzards Bay,
Cape Code and the Islands offer a greater number of opportunities for
developing large recreation sites. However, these sites are distant
from major population centers, and serious transportation problems are
caused by excessive numbers of people driving to recreation sites.
Additional investment in sites far from population centers can further
aggravate congestion and other transportation impacts. Therefore, it
is essential that improvements in non-automobile public transportation
be considered as critical first steps in providing or expanding recrea-
tin opportunities.

Transportation improvements should foster greater use of under-
utilized or new recreational sites, should reduce the volume of the
current transportation impacts of congestion and noise, and should
be compatible with the capacity of recreational sites to accommodate
visitors. Appropriate to the scale of these sites, jitneys, boat
service, and bicycle and hiking trails should be developed and expanded.
Such low intensity transportation can provide access without causing
traffic impacts.

Acquisitions must also be sensitive to the scale of potential
recreation appropriate on the site, as well as the scale of the sur-
rounding community. For this reason, Coastal Zone Management finds
that, generally, acquisition of small dispersed sites is preferable
to acquisition of very large sites.

Similarly, small scale improvements at existing sites can mitigate
existing impacts, and add to recreational opportunities. Such improve-
ments include expansion, provisions for multiple use, and improved

2-F/2

maintenance. This strategy is particularly appropriate to Eastern
Massachusetts and other urbanized areas where there is little unde-
veloped land and use of existing facilities is intense.

Coastal Zone Management's primary concern is to increase and en-
hance public use of the Massachusetts shoreline while improving ex-
isting facilities and minimizing future conflicts, over-utilization and
environmental impacts. Our plan is to improve transportation and access;
to acquire new sites in recreation poor areas; to expand suitable ex-
isting sites through small acquisitions or encouraging multiple uses;
and to improve maintenance.

ACCESS: DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSPORTATION

Access to recreation is a function of the distribution of and
transportation to recreation sites. When recreation opportunities are
available near concentrations of people, the necessity for long trips
becomes less acute: e.g., Boston Harbor beaches are within a 15-30
minute transit ride of most metropolitan area residents. However,
where the distribution of recreation opportunities is notproportional
to the concentration of residents, the need for transportation links
is more critical.

In Massachusetts, coastal recreation sites, as well as coastal
resources, water quality, and other requisites are not evenly distri-
buted; transportation links, understandably, were not planned to
ameliorate the recreation imbalance. The uneven distribution of ex-
isting recreation sites and needs is portrayed in Table 1 and the
accompanying map.10 The table indicates that the Eastern Massachusetts
region, including the North and South Shore areas and greater Boston
Harbor, is most deficient in recreation areas. The State Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan, the Massachusetts Growth Policy and the 11
Coastal Zone Management Public Opinion Survey corroborate this finding.
Conversely, Cape Cod and Southeastern Massachusetts collectively provide
the greatest supply of major water related activities. Sixty-five
percent of Massachusetts' population is located in Eastern Massachusetts,
but only 25% of the public water-related facilities are located there.
Furthermore, the situation is even more acute than the figures indicate,
as Eastern Massachusetts residents participate more in outdoor recrea-
tion than do citizens of the rest of the state. In order to reach
areas where recreation supply is more plentiful, week-end recreation-
alists have established a "commuting" pattern, based on the auto,
which causes severe traffic jams and local congestion. This coastal
recreation commuting is serviced primarily by the following routes:
1-95 and Route 128 to the North Shore; Route 1 to the near North Shore;
Routes 3 and 3A to the South Shore and beyond to Cape Cod and Buzzards
Bay; 228 to the near South Shore; Routes 6, 6A and 28 through Cape
Cod; and 1-95, 6 and 25 through Buzzards Bay and Mount Hope Bay.

Some recent improvements in these major transportation links have
been recreation oriented. For example, a proposed extension around
Buttermilk Bay to connect with the Bourne Bridge may ease congestion;
possible double barrelling of Route 6 from Dennis to Orleans could

2-F/3

TABLE: RECREATION SUPPLY/DEMAND

Demand Needs
Currently (Demand not
1975 Supply 1975 Demand Satisfied satisfied)
*(Activity Days) (Activity Days) M (Activity Days)

BOATING
**Eastern Mass. 2,800,000 9,100,000 30% 6,300,000
SoEa. Mass. 1,100,000 850,000 130% none
Cape Cod 1,800,000 2,800,000 64% 1,000,000
Islands 90.000 1,400310 6% 1,310,000

TOTAL 5,790,000 14,150,000 41% 8,360,000

SWIMMING
Eastern Mass. 4,000,,000 30,000,000 13% 26,100,000
SoEa. Mass. 1,700,000 3,900,000 44% 2,200,000
Cape Cod 29,700,000 9,200,000 323% none
Islands 3,500,000 5,500,0 64% 2,000,000

TOTAL 38,900,000 48,700,000 80% 9,800,000

CAMPING
Eastern Mass. 300,000 900,000 33% 600,000
SoEa. Mass. 400,000 100,000 400% none
Cape Cod 500,000 1,400,000 36% 900,000
Islands 31,000 900,000 3% 869,000

TOTAL 1,231,000 3,300,000 37% 2,069,000

SALT WATER
FISHING
Eastern Mass. Impossible to 7,600,000
SoEa. Mass. estimate, but 900,000
Cape Cod presumed at 1,800,000
Islands least as high 806,000
as boating
TOTAL 11,106,000

*Activity days are defined as the use of a facility for any period of
time during a single day. Also known as user days.

Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) regions were
used for demand figures and represent broad areas; e.g., Eastern
Mass. covers metropolitan Boston, the South Shore and the North
Shore and west to about Route 495. However, for supply, Coastal
Zone Management figures, calculated for coastal towns only, were
substituted. Thus, the table shows inland and coastal demand for the
supply of coastal recreation resources.

2-F/4

COASTAL RECREATIONJ

Boating
k-
Swimming 11-/<-/',
Camping
SUPPLY DEMAND

IZE OF SECTIONS REPRESENTS
975 ACTIVITY DAYS.
BLE 1.
OR ACTUAL FIGURES SEE TA

r -.EASTERN MASS.*

Demand in eastern
Mass. includes
coastal as well as
SUPPLY DEMAND
inland towns west
to approx. Rt.I-495.

-ELL.

4@ COD
CAPE COD

OAL INS
SUPPLY DEMAND

-1PEE
k, T.

ISOUTHEA STERN C@Er

LIIIK

SUPPLY DEMAND ISLANDS
n
M A Nmn
P

SUPPLY MAND
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

ease traffic problems on the Lower Cape; and widening of 1-95 will
increase use of North Shore recreation. Improvements like these,
while increasing access to a broad area, will intensify impacts at
the end of the recreational journey, since coastal towns are by nature
geographic dead-ends and bottlenecks.12

Some non-auto alternatives complement or partly substitute for
private vehicle transportation. The Boston Metropolitan Region is
serviced by public transportation. City dwellers can take buses or
subways to nearby beaches in Revere,Lynn, South Boston, Dorchester,
and Quincy. Recently, the Southeast Region of the state has formed
a transit authority which provides bus service for New Bedford, Fall
River, Dartmouth, North Fairhaven, Mattapoisett and Somerset. Cape Cod
has frequent bus service among towns on the Cape and from the Cape
to Boston and the South Shore. Also, boat service from Boston to
Provincetown offers transportation to recreation, as well as being
a unique recreational experience itself.

Improvements like these are a necessary part of improving recreation
access. Transportation must be planned for recreation. Creative alter-
natives to the automobile can be made more attractive. Prepackaged
bus trips, well publicized weekend recreational transportation, in-
creased use of boats to Boston Harbor Islands, to other parts of the
Harbor, South and North Shores,and to Cape Cod National Seashore are
alternatives which can be instituted now and as recreation sites are
acquired or expanded.

MEETING COASTAL RECREATION NEEDS: SPACE AND SERVICES

The primary alternative to improving transportation to recreation
is to acquire, develop or facilitate recreation development in the
most deficient regions. Given unlimited funding, it might be an ideal
solution. However, since coastal recreation is dependent upon amenities
like clean water, undevloped sandy beaches, etc., finding the best
sites in the needy regions is not always possible. This section iden-
tifies the requisites of major water-related activities and interprets
from unmet "activity days" (Table 1) the land and water acreage neces-
sary to satisfy needs.

BOATING

Recreational boating requires marine facilities and services, ships
or moorings in a harbor or similarly protected embayment, or launching
ramp access. Ancillary services include Coast Guard and Harbor Master
protection and,often.security police protection. Clean water is de-
sirable but by no means necessary. Requirements for minimum water
depths and bottom types become more critical as boat sizes increase.

In Massachusetts, approximately 100 recreational harbors hold over
300 marinas whose slips and ramps provide about 20% of the total supply
of coastal boating activity days; 30 coastal public access ramps pro-

2-F/5

vide another 20%; while private, town and marina moorings provide 4003
Satisfying just the presently unmet coastal boating demand will require
doubling these "access" facilities.

This demand could be met by the construction of 1000-1500 additional
marinas,similar in size to existing marinas, at a probable private/pub-
lic investment of $0.5 - 1 billion; or the construction of 150 addi-
tional public access ramps, at a probable public investment of $15-25
million;14 or dredging for mooring space of 2500-5000 acres of harbor
bottom,at a probable public cost of $2 billion;15 or combinations of
the above.

Clearly, the least costly and most timely public means of providing
boating opportunities is through the public launching ramp. Also,
the ramp provides opportunities for middle income trailer boat owners
who are increasing relative to other boat owners.16 Marinas, which
require as much area as ramps both on land and water, are becoming
increasingly expensive to develop and operate, and thus, the private
sector is unlikely to meet demand.17 Also,dredging simply to provide
mooring space has become prohibitively expensive.

Certainly, combinations of the three alternatives can serve the
different regions in varying degrees of efficiency. For example, many
harbor masters feel that their harbors are under-utilized, particularly
in Greater Boston and Mount'Hope Bay.18 In these areas, marinas may
be needed as facilities which attract people and provide services.
Conversely, launching ramps and/or dredging may be the only feasible
alternative in critically crowded harbors. Nonetheless, construction
of public access ramps is the least expensive and most efficient way
of meeting boating demand in deficient areas.

SWIMMING AND BEACH USE

Preferred characteristics for swimming include undeveloped sandy
shoreline, safe surf and currents, and parking and service facilities.
Clean water, as defined by public health standards, is mandatory.

By far, swimming has higher participation rates than all other
recreation, although its recent growth in participation is not as
high as boating and fishing.19 Since beach use and swimming provide
so many people of all different income levels with inexpensive recrea-
tion, advocacy for open beaches or public ownership of beaches has been
strong. The Colonial Ordinance, which has been referred to in the
Marine Environment Section, granted shoreline owners the land between
the mean high and low water lines, but reserved for the public the
rights to navigate, fish and fowl below the high water mark. In 1973,
the Massachusetts Legislature asked the State Supreme Court foran opin-
ion on whether these retained rights include walking as a lawful public
use of the foreshore. The Court felt that such an interpretation was
a taking without compensation and was thus unconstitutional. Responding
to this decision, the Special Commission Relative to the Management,
Operation and Accessibility of Public Beaches stated in its final re-
port: "Acquisition of rights by express dedication, acquisition or other

2-F/6

such means is, in effect, the only way26n which significant expansion
of public beach resources will occur."

Table I shows that 80% of the total demand for shoreline swimming
is met but badly distributed, and limited to 250 miles of free or fee
charged beaches.21 Furthermore, the absolute numbers still seeking
opportunities for coastal swimming is still higher than for any other
activity.
In order to meet unfulfilled demand, roughl@ 50 miles or from
100-10,000 acres of additional beach is needed2 (depending on whether
"lineal" beach or major park beaches are developed). Some demand can
also be met by substituting similar facilities, i.e., inland ponds and
public pools instead of urban coastal beaches; although one survey
indicates that ponds and pools cannot substitute for coastal beaches
because of the special qualities of wind, waves and visual character
of the shoreline.23

Along the Massachusetts shoreline, about 100 miles of undeveloped
(without abutting residences) non-public sandy beach remain for possible
addition to public supply.24 Most of this beach is in small sections
with about 5-10 sites suitable for large scale recreation facilities.
Usually located away from population areas, these few large sites are
located on Marth's Vineyard and Nantucket, in the Buzzards Bay region,
and Cape Cod. The North and South Shore, and certainly Boston, have
very few undeveloped sandy beaches left.

Another alternative to meeting needs is to open "resident only"
beaches to all; however, this change would probably lead to crowded
conditions. The Special Commission concurs, stating that "although
the Commission believes that such restrictions (residents only) are
generally not lawful or appropriate, it recognizes that such remedial
action (lifting of all restrictions) would prevent or discourage resi-
dent recreation, pose difficult municipal finance problems and, more
generally, only s read traffic, parking and other such problems from
(other beaches)."@5

In short, beyond what can be gained through transportation improve-
ments, there is not much flexibility in meeting existing beach needs.
Small, well distributed sites are not only desirable because they pose
fewer traffic, social and other environmental impacts, but they also
offer the only possible long-term option for meeting beach demand in a
shoreline as developed as Massachusetts, particularly in Boston Harbor,
the North and South Shores. Similarly, expansions of existing facili-
ties can alleviate deficiencies in some regions, particularly if trans-
portation to them can be improved. Finally, large sites can be pur-
chased on an as-available basis, e.g., surplus federal properties.

SALT WATER FISHING

Salt water fishing has relatively few requirements that differ
from boating and swimming. However, fishing needs can also be met in
more flexible ways than by boat or beach use. People can fish from
most piers, bridges or jetties -- places that might not be suitable for
other forms of coastal recreation. Similarly, as mentioned before,
2-F/ 7

Massachusetts law allows beach passage between mean low and high tide
for "navigation, fishing and fowling"; thus opportunities are limited
by lack of shore access points.26

Since the supply of fishing opportunities is difficult to estimate
it is specious to argue that there are unmet needs. However, studies
indicate that salt water fishing participation has increased nationally
by 45% since 1960. The value of fish caught by salt water sportsfisher-
men in Massachusetts are estimated at nearly $20 million.27 Addition-
ally, Massachusetts has higher amounts of fishing participation than the
combined neighboring states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island;
fishermen in those states fish almost as frequently in Massachusetts as
they do in their home states.28

Massachusetts salt water fishing is an increasing coastal activity
which generates substantial income, and which makes further demands on
coastal access. Alternatives for satisfying fishing demand include
beach acquisition and construction or rehabilitation of usable piers
for use by fishermen. Even the smallest access points along the coast
are useful for fishermen. Thus highway and bridge projects, utilities,
etc., can provide fishing opportunities at minimal expense.

OTHER OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

This section explores combinations of coastal uses which together
can enhance or degrade basic recreational experiences. For example,
the tourist who is able to camp, swim and tour historic houses in the
same area experiencesmore enjoyment than supply/demand statistics for
individual activities illustrate. On the other hand, inappropriate
combinations of activities, such as swimming or surf fishing occurring
on the same beach can detract from the value of each individual activity.
Although each conflict must be decided on a site-by-site basis, location,
proximity of activities to one another, and timing and seasonalness.
of activities are important factors in planning for multiple uses.
The following examples illustrate desirable multiple uses along the
Massachusetts coast.

COMPLEMENTARY/MULTIPLE USES

Camping, Hiking and the Coastline

Campers and hikers require large areas for their trailers and tents,
water supplies and sanitary facilities, and trails to lead them from
camping areas to interesting destinations.

A system of coastal trails and campgrounds for hikers, bicyclists
and equestrians would make more coast accessible to more people; could
link population centers with recreational facilities; and would allow
people to enjoy the scenic qualities of the coastline (refer to Visual
Environment Section). Near-shore coastal campgrounds could function
as origins for recreationalists, and trails would provide links to the

2-F/8

swimming, boating and fishing on the shore.

The demand for camping is rapidly increasing: 55,000 more people
camped in state campgrounds in July 1975 than in July 1974.29 The
unmet demand for camping (Table 1) and the expense of near-shore land
make unlikely the expansion of shoreside camping areas. However,
opportunities for trail development are limitless, ranging from bike
routes currently being developed by the Massachusetts Department of
Public Works to scenic rivers to utility easements.

Tourism and the Coastline

The coastal zone attracts a large number of visitors who come to
enjoy the swimming beaches, sailing and boating opportunities, and
fishing experiences the coast offers. Rolling dunes, a craggy rock
ledge, expanses of blue water, and the sights and sounds of a busy
fishing harbor are probably some of the first things that come to
people's minds when they think of the coast. Their ability to soothe,
to humble, to excite, or just to pre-occupy makes the coast a primary
tourist attraction.

The state's tourist industry sustains an estimated 74,400 full-time,
year-round jobs. Income attributed to tourism is estimated at $1.2
billion annually.30 The coast accounts for most of the jobs and much
of the state's tourist income. For example, 56% of the state's hotels,
motels, trailer parks, and campgrounds are located along the coast
(excluding those in Boston). 31 Additionally, two of the most obviously
coastal regions, Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard, attribute 75% and 95%
of their respective Gross National Products (GNP's) to the tourist
industry.

Maintaining a healthy tourist industry, which for some regions is
the primary source of income for residents, requires a continuing effort
to provide the recreational facilities tourists demand -- swimming
beaches, fishing and boating opportunities -- and to preserve those
aspects of the coast's visual environment which serve to attract tourists.

Other Multiple Uses

Many other coastal uses can also coexist with recreation. For
example, public utility rights-of-way can be used to provide access
for shore fishing; institutions can provide access for general recrea-
tion and tourism; and port operations can serve as exciting focal points
for sightseeing. The seasonal differences in Massachusetts also offer
creative possibilities for multiple uses: parking lots at marinas can
provide winter storage for boats; beaches used by swimmers in the
summer can be used as campgrounds in the fall; tourist hotels change
to winter convention centers.

CONFLICTING USES AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Conflicting uses and environmental impacts stem from inappropriate
intensity and mixing of incompatible uses. Conflicts result from

2-F/9

physical competition for space, psychological incompatibility and
destruction of resource-related values. Conflicts, if allowed to
continue unmanaged, may result in reduced health and safety and deteri-
oration of environmental and recreational qualities. Examples of such
coastal conflicts include: boating (bacterial waste, danger) impact on
swimming; boating (speed, wake, noise) impact on fishing; beach use
wit'h car (noise, visual) impact on adjacent private properties. Al-
though there may be many possible conflicts under certain conditionsi
solutions can also be varied. Examples of types of solutions include:'

--Conflicts are between the operational aspects of each activity,
i.e., where equipment and space needs conflict or the speed or
intensity of the activities conflict. Such conflicts may be
resolved through mechanical manipulation, e.g., reduction of
speed, separation of,spac 'es, etc.,
--Conflicts are in timing, seasonality and sequencing, i.e.,
where uses'are incompatible at different times of the day 'or
season. Solutions may involve separating uses in time rather
than space.
--Conflicts may be resolved through minor management rules, e.-g.,
leashing of dogs or other administrative'and policing solutions.

Although resolution of some conflicts.are only possible through pro-
hibition of one use,.many can be resolved-by improved management.

MAINTENANCE AND PRICING

Throughout regional Coastal Zone Management public, meetings, citi-
zens cited maintenance of recreation areas and lack of facilities as
major concerns.

While federal or state funds frequently support local acquisitions,
once the community acquires an area, its maintenance is borne by or
charged to the town. This practice partly accounts for frequent
charging of fees,to out-of-town residents.

Maintenance expenditures are not small., Last year the Department
of Environmental Management spent $775,000 for the operation of its
beaches (vs. $435,000 in revenue) and $3.8 million for'parks (vs.
.$992,000 in revenue).32 Maintenance cost problems are serious enough
that the Special Legislative Commission, in recommending legislation
to prohibit non-resident discrimination,at beaches, consciously ex-
empted pricing differentials "at municipal beaches,where the municipal-
ity uses tax revenues to maintain and operate the beach facilities, and
the fee differential reflects an adjustment in charges that effectively
equalized resident and non-resident daily use payments."33

If communities are not allowed to recover tax funded maintenance
expenses through differential pricing, town residents would either be
subsidizing out-of-town users, or might not be able to maintain beaches
adequately. Adequate maintenance is important because it increases

2-F/10

the capability of resourcesto support greater use. Thus, where a
differential in access fee is necessary to cover maintenance, the
well-maintained facility warrants the higher fee.

2-F/11

OBJECTIVES

The foregoing discussion suggests that CZM's recreation program
should be designed to achieve the following objectives:

1. To improve the quantity and quality of coastal recreational
opportunities for all citizens of the Commonwealth.

2. To improve public access to coastal recreation resources.

3. To ensure that the improved quantity and quality of coastal
recreational opportunities are provided while minimizing
conflicts, over-utilization and economic environmental im-
pacts.

4. To involve citizens and user groups in the further planning,
development and management of public coastal recreational
facilities.

5. To suggest, initiate and conduct research into areas of
special needs for coastal recreation and to develop manage-
ment standards and criteria for utilization in public
recreational facilities and areas.

6. To promote tourism where appropriate through the provision,
improvement, and diversification of coastal recreational
amenities.

CZM POLICIES AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

Policy (23) Improve public access to coastal recreation facilitiesi
and alleviate auto traffic and parking prob ems, throu@;h
improvements in public transportation.

Because some existing coastal recreation sites are underutilized
and/or badly distributed, or because resistance to an increase in
recreation on the coast is often based on undesirable auto traffic
impacts on communities, CZM believes that solving transportation ac-
cess to recreation is the first step to improving coastal recreation
opportunities. Thus, CZM will work to facilitate buses, boats or
alternative public transportation from: (a) central points within
regions to nearby coastal recreation facilities, e.g., from town
centers to beaches and/or (b) direct from urban or inland areas to
remote coastal recreation facilities, e.g., from Boston to the National
Seashore. In addition, CZM will consider and facilitate bus service
from the same distribution points to inland recreation in order to re-
duce pressure on the shoreline. To encourage ridership, public trans-
portation should be designed to fit recreationists' needs, e.g., buses
which carry bicycles. The development of demonstration or operational
projects will be a priority where:

2-F/12

1. Existing transportation is inadequate, especially where there
are congestion and traffic problems or other environmental
impacts; or

2. The area is state or federally owned, since potential impacts
from increased use can be more easily managed on public land;
or

3. The area is underutilized; or

4. Benefits from public transportation to recreation might spill
over into increased town commerce, tourism; or

5. Public transportation investments can service many recreation
areas near each other.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

CZM will work with the Department of Public Works, Public Transit
Authorities, Regional Planning Agencies and community Planning Boards
to ensure that recreational-related transportation improvements are
given high priority in Annual Unified Work Programs submitted to the
Federal Highway Administration and the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration. Specifically, CZM will coordinate as follows:

--Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) provides,
under the U.S. Department of Transportation, grants and loans to
states for transit planning, development, and operation. Transit
systems can provide inexpensive access to coastal recreation as well
as reduce the traffic congestion and related impacts from automobile
access. In order to qualify for transit funding, Massachusetts must
submit an Annual Unified Work Program to UMTA which lists and sets
priorities for transit projects. CZM will work with community and
regional'planners, and transit authorities, to ensure that transit
projects which serve CZM's recreation-related transportation policy
are included in the Annual Unified Work Program.

--Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), also an agency of the
Departm ent of Transportation, is responsible for the administration
of grant programs for upgrading and construction of a national system
of highways; the FHWA also reviews each state's Unified Annual Work
Program and allocates funding accordingly. As well as sponsoring
and supporting transit projects in the work program, CZM will, through
"federal consistency" (Section 307, CZMA), coordinate with FHWA to
.ensure that coastal road construction does not overload coastal recre-
ation and intensify auto related impacts.

--Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, and the
Bureau of Transportation, Planning and Development (BTP&D) of the
Department of Public Works comprise the state arm of transportation
planning and development. Under the Executive Office, the BTP&D
implements the 3C Transportation Planning Program, established by

2-F/13

the Federal Highway Act of 1962 and Urban Mass Transportation Act of
1974. CZM will establish memoranda of understanding with the Execu-
tive Office and BTP&D to coordinate inter-agency policies on recre-
ation and transportation.

--Regional Planning_Agencies and Transit Authorities are the
primary authors of the state's Unified Work Programs. In producing
the Work Programs, the RPA's are directed by the BTP&D to integrate
transportation planning within a comprehensive framework and to show,
specifically, the inter-relationship between other RPA planning tasks
and those performed under transportation planning. In this context,
CZM will coordinate recreation, open space and public transportation
policies with RPA's by co-sponsoring project proposals to UMTA; to the
National Parks Service for "Alternative Transportation Systems
Research Program" grants, a program to fund demonstration projects for
transportation within and to National Parks; and/or use CZM recreation
planning funds to sponsor feasibility studies to evaluate public trans-
portation projects to recreation facilities, particularly within Boston
Harbor and to the National Seashore (discussed subsequently).

-_A95, NEPA, MEPA - In addition to sponsoring and/or helping fund
recreation related transportation projects, CZM will review all pro-
posed recreation projects, including town and state acquisitions, for
explicit consideration and resolution of transportation and access
alternatives, as well as traffic and circulation plans. CZM will use
A-95, MEPA and NEPA to review recreation projects and coastal trans-
portation projects to negotiate compliance with recreation-transporta-
tion policies cited above. Specifically, through "federal consistency
provisions" of the CZMA (Section 307, CZMA), and by reviewing projects
under NEPA, CZM will coordinate with the U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion (DOT) in "providing public access to recreation", a goal set
forth in a joint DOT-OCZM memo concerning national interest in the
coastal zone. CZM will work with DOT to define more precisely how
this goal can be attained.

--Additionally, CZM recommends changes in the state point evalua-
tion system for outdoor recreation projects, promulgated under U.S.
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) guidelines, to reflect higher prior-
ity for proposals which demonstrate transportation improvements pro-
posed in Policy (23). CZM will coordinate with the Division of Con-
servation Services to ensure that transportation and access alterna-
tives have been considered and that the project would not generate
significant traffic and noise problems and related environmental
impacts.

Policy (24) In addition to expanding major access, link existing
oastal recreation sites to nearby coastal inland
facilities via trails for bicyclists, hikers and
equestrians, and via rivers for boaters.

2-F/14

To relieve some transportation access problems, CZM finds that
many existing coastal recreation facilities can be linked by trails
which would both improve recreation access and enhance the overall
recreation experience. Such trails and water routes should be esta-
blished or developed when:

1. They are located on visually important rivers, roads and
other visually significant areas;

2. The numbers of recreational sites joined by a trail and the
trail itself can serve a region-wide public;

3. Historic landmarks cited for designation in the National
Register or Massachusetts Historical Commission are found
along the proposed trail;

4. The trail connects with other forms of public transportation;

5. The trail is compatible with the environmental sensitivity
of the area.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

In order to establish a trail system that links recreation sites,
CZM proposes acquisition of easements under the following programs:

--Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments, 1976, Section 315
authorize 50% grants to states for the costs of acquiring access to
public beaches and other coastal areas of environmental, recreation,
historical, esthetic, ecological or cultural value. Massachusetts CZM
will give high priority to the use of Section 315 funds for the pur-
chase of trail easements that provide access to sites which meet the
criteria of this policy. Such funds can either be expended at the
state level or disbursed to communities.

--Land and Water Conservation Fund (P.L. 88-578) provides funds
for the acquisition of lands for federally administered recreation
areas; and matching grants for state recreation planning, and state
and local land acquisition and development. The fund, which is ad-
ministered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation of the Department of
the Interior, is distributed through the Massachusetts F-17ecutive Office
of Environmental Affairs. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreacion has deve-
loped a posture on recreation in the coastal zone, basing its position
on the following objectives: (a) recreation should be equal to all
other coastal uses; (b) recreation should deserve equal consideration
in planning and development; (c) acquisition of additional shoreline
lands should be held in perpetuity for conservation, recreation, and
compatible purposes should be given top priority by all land manage-
ment agencies; and (d) the right of public access to coastal areas
should be protected. In context of the BOR desire to secure access to
coastal recreation, CZM will coordinate with the Massachusetts Division
of Conservation Services and the Department of Environmental Management
s that
tra ils

to ensure that high priority be given to acquisition of trail access
andIeasements to coastal recreation.

2-F/15
k..

--Self-Help Program, also administered with the Division of
Conservation Services, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, pro-
vides up to 50% reimbursement to communities for the acquisition of
conservation or passive recreation land. Similar to the above pro-
cedure for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, CZM will work with
Conservation Services to ensure that small scale trail access to exist-
ing conservation lands be given high priority among Self-Help projects.

--Public Access Board (MGLA Ch. 21, S-17, 17A) is empowered to
acquire access to great ponds and other waters within the Commonwealth
and develop trails and related facilities for hiking, skiing and other
uses. CZM will recommend easements for Public Access Board acquisi-
tions which provide access to coastal waters and link existing recrea-
tional sites. Additionally, a representative from the Coastal Zone
Management program should be appointed to the Public Access Board in
order to ensure implementation of this CZM policy.

--In addition to the purchase of trail easements, CZM recommends
implementation of this policy through the designation of scenic corri-
dors which can establish access routes and enhance the actual journey
to the recreational site. Programs for such designation include:

--Scenic Rivers Program (MGLA Ch. 21, S-17B), administered by the
Department of Environmental Management of the Executive Office of En-
vironmental Affairs, provides for the management of rivets for.scenic
and recreational purposes. Where such rivers exist in the coastal
zone, CZM will recommend designation and management guidelines for
ensuting continued unspoiled recreation opportunities as well as boat
access to coastal waters (refer to the Visual Environment section for
further discussion of guidelines). In addition, CZM will provide
technical assistance to communities who wish to make such designations.

--Scenic Roads Program (MGLA Ch. 40, S-15C) enables planning
boards @_orestrict the removal of vegetation and stone walls on desig-
nated local roads. CZM will recommend designation of scenic roads
which can complement other trails in a coastal trail system. In addi-
tion, CZM will provide technical assistance to communities who wish to
designate such roads in the coastal zone.

--Bikeways Program, administered by the Department of Public Works
provides funds for off-road construction of separated bike paths.
Criteria for bikeways planning include: improved safety and circula-
tion for road users, access to major trip generators, integration with
existing bikeways systems, and coordination with transportation and
land use plans of other regional and state agencies. Since these are
similar criteria to guidelines for a trail system promulgated in this
policy, CZM will work the DPW to ensure maximum construction of bike
paths along the coastal edge. Such construction will be coordinated
with future public transit destinations discussed in the first policy
of this section.

2-F/16

Policy (25) Expand existing state-or local recreation facilities
in regions with a high need.

Every region of the Massachusetts coast is deficient in various
types of recreation. As a concomitant step to transportation improve-
ments, existing sites should be expanded under the following circum-
stances:

1. Undeveloped areas abutting or near existing recreation
sites are suitable for expansion, and access will be made
possible through improved transportation;

2. Existing sites are over-utilized and there is no nearby
substitute which might shift demand for the activity
and/or;

3. Other public improvements have been made or are proposed
on/near existing recreation sites; for example, where
state or federal funding has been used to slow or prevent
erosion of beaches.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

--Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments, 1976, Section 315, as
previously discussed, provides states with funds for recreation acqui-
sition. Similar to trail easement acquisition, CZM will give high
priority to using Section 315 funding for small expansions which im-
prove existing recreational sites' capacity.

--In reviewing applications for Land and Water Conservation and
Self Help funds, through the Clearinghouse process (A-95) and through
the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, CZM will favor sites which
have potential for expansion as defined by the above criteria.

Policy (26) Increase capacLty of existing recreational areas by
facilitating the multiple use of the site and by
improving maintenance. Resolve conflicting uses
whenever possible through improved management
rather than through exclusion of uses.

Many recreational sites, if managed more efficiently, could accom-
odate more and different uses without much change.'in,physical cha'rac-
teristics. CZM intends to promote expanded use and maintenance under
the following circumstances:

1. Opportunities for physical expansion are limited; or

2. The operational aspects of activities do not conflict, e.g.,
picnicking, and sunbathing; or

3. Improved management and maintenance can control operational
conflicts between uses; or

2-F/17

4. The seasonality of the-activities facilitates multiple
use sequencing; or

5. Recreational use of non-recreational areas can be accommo-
dated on weekends, e.g., boat launches at utility companies.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

Recognizing the potential benefits of more efficient use of exist-
ing recreation sites, CZM will (a) seek and provide technical assist-
ance to help design areas for multiple use; (b) ensure necessary ex-
penditures for maintenance. CZM will seek demonstration grants to
work with other state, federal and local agencies whose programs
provide opportunities for multiple use recreation; e.g., fishing walk-
ways on bridges over estuaries, launching ramps on roads which abut
water, public walkways in urban renewal areas. Such programs include:
I
--Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments, 1976, Section 305(b)
will be extended by the federal Office of Coastal Zone Management
during 1977-78. The extended funding is intended "to give specific
emphasis and support for these (recreation) areas." CZM will use this
planning money to analyze specific recreation problems; the design of
multiple use concepts and application is a high priority for this
funding.

--Department of Housing and Urban Development provides, under the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, direct grants to state,
metropolitan, and regional planning agencies for land use, housing,
urban,.and redevelopment planning. In addition, discretionary grants
awarded to urban communities may be used for eliminating blight, con-
servation or expansion of housing and housing opportunities, increased
public services, and improved use of land. CZM will support HUD grants
to demonstrate the potential and necessity for multiple recreation uses
in waterfront renewal areas. I

--Department of Public Works (MGLA Ch. 90) is authorized to con-
struct, improve and maintain all non-federally funded roadways. In
effect these include most urban and rural roads which do not provide
direct access to a major population center or access between population
centers within metropolitan areas. CZM will work the DPW in order to
encourage the construction of small recreation oriented improvements
during normal maintenance of their roads, e.g., fishing walkways on
bridges.

In addition to such demonstration grants, CZM will use the follow-
ing funds to provide increased maintenance to support multiple use
projects or high capacity use of existing areas:

--Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments, 1976, Section 315, al-
though intended for acquisition purposes, may be able to be used for
ncreased maintenance. CZM will urge the Department of Commerce to
llow use of this fund for maintenance in areas where no other expan-
ion alternatives are possible and recreation needs are high.

2-F/18

--CZM will through A-95 and MEPA review procedures, ensure that
applications for acquisition of coastal recreation sites have appro-
priately indicated sources for maintenance funds, and that multiple
use of the proposed facility has been explored. "User-fee" revenue
for maintenance will be considered an appropriate source of maintenance
funds.

Policy (27) Facilitate expansion and improvements of private
recreational facilities and sites that provide
public coastal access.

Demand for the kinds of recreation experiences enjoyed on the
coast is high; the facilities and sites required to provide these ex-
periences are coastally dependent. Many of the facilities have adverse
impacts on the marine environment. Yet, if Massachusetts is to allow
the public to enjoy the benefits of a productive marine environment and
visually pleasing coastal zone, both public and private means of secur-
ing general public access to the shore should be encouraged.

Thus, CZM's marine environment policies specifically exempt from
restriction in salt marshes, dune areas, sandy beaches, and barrier
beaches, the construction and maintenance of boat ramps, wharves built
on timber pilings, the expansion or improvement of beaches, and hunting
fishing, horseback riding, hiking, and other recreational uses.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

CZM will offer technical assistance and fund feasibility studies
in developed harbors to promote the construction of needed recreation
boating facilities and to solve dredge and dredge spoil disposal pro-
blems. Such assistance will be provided, in particular, where it can
be demonstrated that a marina will help to revitalize a developed
harbor. In addition, CZM will prepare a design and construction prac-
tices handbook indicating how marinas, beaches, boat ramps and other
recreational facilities could be designed, constructed, and operated
to be consistent with CZM's marine environment, coastal hazards, visual
environment, and ports and harbors policies. Such measures will be
implemented through:

--Marine Environment and Port and Harbors Policies which allow
for and encourage coastal recreation facilities construction/improve-
nent.

--Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments, 1976, Section 305(b)
Using funding provided in 1977-78 by the Department of Commerce for
oastal recreation planning, CZM will prepare the design and construc-
ion practices handbook described above.

olicy (28) a. Acquire and develop new sites favoring small to
moderate size recreation facilities, in conjunction
@1@th transportation improvements, in deficient region@@
especially where there are few remaining opportunities
2-F/19 J

b. Give lower priority to acquisition of large sites
except under the following circumstances:

1. When high recreation potential, waterfront military sites
become available.

2. When special floodplain purchases become available
(refer to Coastal Hazards Section).

3. When sites with critical environmental, visual, or
other unique characteristics become available.(fefer to
Areas for Preservation or Restoration in Management).

After transportation, expansion and maintenance policies have
been implemented, small sites must still be acquired in order to
satisfy a growing demand for coastal recreation. Of the specific
recreation types analyzed, the following activities will be favored:

1. Swimming and beach use: Highest priority for small dispersed
sandy beaches and beach easements in swimming deficient
regions. In disbursing recreation funds, beaches for swim-
ming will have highest priority for acquisition since they
generate the highest recreation use.

2. Boating: Highest priority for the expenditure of state funds
on boat ramps. State funds for dredging new mooring basins
should not be used to meet recreation boating needs except
where it is the only feasible alternative for resolving con-
flicts between recreational boating and commercial fishing
Ksee Ports and Harbors, Policy (20).

3. Fishing: High priority for special easements, piers, and
landings in conjunction with other recreation acquisitions or
public improvements making full use of multiple use concepts.

4. Camping and hiking: High priority for inland sites in con7:
junction with transportation policies to provide near shore
camping. Acquire easements for hikers and bicyclists to travel
between existing/future inland sites and shoreline recreation'.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

Under special recreation planning funds during the first year of
management, CZM will develop site and activity specific criteria for
evaluating the potential sites for new acquisitions. Using these
guidelines, as well as the design handbooks previously mentioned, CZM
will work with local governments to acquire small sites under the
following programs:

--Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments, 1976, Section 315, as
reviously discussed, makes funds available for the purchase of
oastal recreation sites. Since CZM will also use this fund for ex-
anding existing sites, thereby reducing it significantly, CZM will
ev

a s
[nd hase new small sites on a very selective basis in the most defi-
urc
ient regions.

2-F-20

--Land and Water Conservation-Fund, as administered through the
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, will also be used in part to
purchase coastal sites. Although CZM favors purchase of small sites,
it is also appropriate that this fund be used to purchase the few re-
maining large sites, particularly military, as discussed above.

2-F/21

TECHNICAL NOTES AND SOURCES

1. U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Outdoor Recreation Tr6nds, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967, pp. 20-24.

2. Department of Environmental Management, Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs, State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Boston, Mass., 1976
Chapter VI.

3. New England River Basins Commission, Southeastern New England Study,
Boston, Mass., 1975, pp. 6-4.

4. MacConnell, W.P., University of Massachusetts, College of Food and
Natural Resources, Twenty Years of Change, Amherst, Mass., 1973.

5. MacConnell, Ibid. With special analyses on shoreline land for
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Office, Boston, Mass., 1975.

6. W. Robert Patterson, The New England Marine Industry; A Study of the
Marine Manufacturing and Services Companies, N.E. Marine Resources Infor-
i@a_tion Program and New England Aquarium, Boston, Mass., 1971, p. i.

7. John L. Compton and Robert B. Ditton, A Feasibility, Management and
Economic Study of Marinas on the Texas Gulf Coast, Department of Recrea-
tion and Parks, Texas A & M University, Sea Grant, Texas, 1975, p. 8.

8. Patterson, Op. Cit., pp. 3-7, 3-8. Indicates multiplier factors of
charter fishing and marinas as 3.08 and 2.76 respectively, ranging
slightly under fish processing and higher than other marine manufactur-
ing.

9. Compton and Ditton, Op. Cit.

10. Table I presents information from two sources. Demand for recreation
activities has been extrapolated from the State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan. Calculated as "activity days", (defined as use of a
facility period of time during a single day), this estimate for demand
has been determined using economic information developed in ORRCC, modi-
fied by survey information developed in SCORP. Supply figures, also
translated into activity days, have been developed from a specific CZM
recreation inventory, i.e., for sites only in/near the shoreline. Space
requirements for activity days are subsequently developed in the rest
of the text.

11. Massachusetts Office of State Planning, Towards a State Growth Policy,
Boston, Mass., 1975; and Massachusetts CZM, "Citizen Survey" Boston,
Mass., 1976.

12. Special Legislative Commission, "Report Relative to the Management,
Operation and Accessibility of Public Beaches Along the Seacoast",
Boston, Mass., 1975, p. 31; cites traffic and parking problems stated
at public hearings.

2-F/22

13. Calculations were developed from a Massachusetts CZM inventory of all
coastal harbors and access ramps. Besides the major public access
ramps, there are over 100 additional small ramps which have been in-
cluded under "marina slips and ramps;" over 60 of these small ramps are
located in marinas on Cape Cod.

X 14. Calculations were based on the need for a five-fold increase in the
amount of existing marinas or ramps in order to double total supply, as
each currently provides 20% of the total boating supply. Assumptions
for cost estimates include: $0.5 million for construction, dredging and
land acquisition of one marina; $100,000 for major ramp construction
and land acquisition for 10 parking spaces.

15. Calculations were based on assumptions that one acre of water at a
depth of five feet was necessary to safely moor 15-20 small boats and
dredging costs at approximately $8./cubic yard. Therefore, dredging
one acre to minimum depth would cost $40,000; 5,000 acres would cost
$2 billion.

16. David A. Storey, The Massachusetts Marina Boatyard Industry, Massachu-
setts Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, Mass., 1972-73.

17. According to the National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers
in an article called "Shoreline Recreation Resources of the U.S.", boats
purchased nationwide increased from 2,440,000 in 1947 to 8,025,000 in
1960, or an increase by 220%. Marina development in Massachusetts has
not similarly increased. Twenty years (MacConnell, op cit) of land use
change corroborates this finding.

18. This information is based on an informal Massachusetts CZM telephone
survey of harbormasters. Opinions were solicited regarding maintenance
problems, harbor capacity and conflicting uses. Almost 50% of the
harbormasters felt that their harbors could sustain more use.

19. SCORP, Loc. Cit., p. V-61.

20. The Special Legislative Commission Relative to the Management, Operation
and Accessibility of Public Beaches, "Third Interim Report", Chapter 40
of the Resolves of 1972, prepared by David Rice, Boston, Mass., August,
1975, p. 11.

21. The amount, ownership, and access information of Massachusetts beaches
was developed based on previous inventories including New England River
Basins Commission's SENE, the Special Legislative Commission report,
as well as field checking and Citizen Advisory Commissions' information
and mapping.

22. Recreation beaches can be developed, at a minimum, as simple lineal
access on sandy beaches, or at a maximum as major park beaches including
parking, associated facilities, upland park, picnic tables, etc. Fifty
miles of the latter type of recreation beach would require 10,000 acres,
assuming 200 acres/mile of beach.

2-F/23

23. National Park Service, "Summary of Outdoor' Recreation Activities in
Preference of the Population Living in the Region of the Delaware Basin,"
prepared from report by Audience Research Inc., Princeton, New Jersey,
January, 1958. The report documents information from a poll that indi-
cated that 48% of the respondents chose the New Jersey seashore forlthe
most preferable day outing.

24. Beach and shoreline inventory, Loc. Cit.

25. Special Legislative Commission, Loc. Cit., p. 33.
I @-

26. See Opinion of the Justices, State of Massachusetts, 313 NE 2nd 561,
1974.

27. David G. Deuel., "1970-Salt Water Angling Survey," current fish statistics
#6200, Statistics and/@arketing News Division, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Sandy Hook, New Jersey. SENE estimated $20 million value, pp.
6-11. Estimate of value of sport fish caught from: personal communica-
tion with Christopher Mantzaris, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Gloucester, Mass.

28. National Marine Fisheries Service, "Participation in Marine Recreation
Fishing, N.E. US 1973-74", Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
January, 1975, pp.4-5.

29. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Management,
Division of Forests and Parks. Based on inventory of tourism statistics.

30. Department of Hotel, Restaurant and Travel Administration, University of
Massachusetts at Amherst, Research Report, The Economic Impact of
Tourism on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, prepared for the
Massachusetts Department of Commerce and Development, December, 1974.
Part-time or seasonal jobs are adjusted to full-time, year-round equiva-
lents, e.g., two full-time 6 month jobs equal one-full time year round
job. Income attributed to tourism includes both direct, indirect and
induced expenditures.

31. Of the state's 1308 hotels, motels, trailer parks, and camps, 736 or 56%
are located in the Counties of Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Essex, Plymouth,
and Nantucket. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972 Census of Selected Service
Industries, Massachusetts.

32. Extrapolated from budget information on parks and beaches for the State
of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Management and Metropolitan
District Commission-

33. Special Legislative Commission, Loc. Cit., p. 13.

2-F/24

(M
Energy

ENERGY

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The Massachusetts coastal zone plays a major role in fulfilling the
energy requirements of the state -- 80% of the Commonwealth's energy
facilities are currently located there, and these provide 75% of the
energy needs of the state. The coast accommodates sites for electric
generating plants, gas facilities, marine terminals, and tank farms and
could, in the future, be called upon to host a refinery or off-shore oil
or gas (OCS) related facilities.

Energy facilities are located in the coastal zone for three basic
reasons: utilization of free, abundant water for cooling purposes;
proximity to fuel supply; and accessibility to market areas. Some of
these facilities are by their nature coastally dependent, that is their
successful functioning in some way requires that they be sited on the
coast. Others can be sited inland, but inland locations may entail
increased costs to the energy industry and energy consumers.

Massachusetts is and will remain dependent upon imported, product
oil. Fifty-eight percent of this imported oil comes from foreign
nations, all of which, along with the majority of domestic oil, is
brought into the state via coastal marine terminals. For the foresee-
able future, these products will continue to arrive in conventional
coastal tankers and be stored in oil tank farms. While Massachusetts
has sufficient marine terminal capacity to handle any projected increase
in tanker traffic, additional oil storage facilities will be needed.
CZM finds that, in many instances, ports which now host tank farms will
be unable to accommodate additional storage. Tank farms could, however,
be economically sited in areas outside the coastal zone.

In addition to oil, natural gas has become a widely used fuel, due
to its efficiency and clean burning characteristics. Importation of
liquified natural gas (LNG) through marine terminals has thus become
important to supplying the energy needs of the state. LNG storage
facilities, because of the economics and risk of transporting liquified
gas, must be sited close to marine terminals. Thus, base load LNG
marine terminals are more coastally dependent than many other energy
facilities.

The coast, in addition to providing sites for receiving and pro-
cessing facilities, also provides sites for 21 electric power plants.
These facilities generate 75% of the total electr4c needs of the Com-
monwealth. Beyond the construction of an addition to the nuclear power
plant at Plymouth, no new major generating facilities will be required
to be constructed in the coastal zone until after 1990. However, by
1990 there will only be a limited amount of coastal land available for
power plant siting and avoiding conflicts with other coastal uses and
activities will be difficult. As a feasible alternative to coastal
siting, many generating facilities could be sited inland, provided appro-
priate cooling technology is available and can be economically utilized.

2-G/1

Currently Massachusetts lacks any refining capability, and pro-
ponents argue that a refinery might be beneficial to the state's
economy and establish surety of energy supply. A refinery would
probably require a deepwater port, used to import, by deep draft
vessels, large quantities of crude oil for refining. Refineries
require substantial land and water which may preclude other uses if
sited in coastal areas. In addition, while deepwater ports would
reduce congestion and the frequency of tanker spills, the risk of very
large spills would be higher. Refineries can be sited inland, and such
locations are preferable.

The siting of energy facilities in the coastal zone may be
affected by the sale of roughly one million acres of petroleum drilling
rights in the North Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) by the
Department of Interior, scheduled for May 1977. If there is a find sub-
sequent to this lease sale, the Commonwealth might well experience de-
velopment pressure from OCS related activity. OCS exploration may
require development of pipeline landfalls, gas processing facilities,
tank farms and distribution facilities. Other OCS related activities
such as supply bases, pipe coating yards, and platform fabrication yards
might also be proposed for the coastal zone.

Construction and operation of each of the facilities entails num-
erous adverse environmental, social and economic impacts which the pro-
gram seeks to ameliorate or control. Primary among the environmental
impacts are those associated with air and water quality and land use
conflicts. Emissions of sulfur, particulates and hydrocarbons from
existing energy facilities have resulted in degraded air quality. Oil
spills, chronic leaking and the need to dredge and fill coastal areas
have had substantial adverse water quality impacts. The large acreage
requirements of these facilities have pre-empted other coastal uses.
In addition, these facilities can be visually obtrusive and block
access to coastal areas.

Nuclear power plants and LNG facilities, in addition to contribut-
ing to the environmental impacts outlined above, present public safety
concerns which must be addressed by appropriate agencies. The potential
for release of radioactive material into the environment from a nuclear
plant raises serious questions about the wisdom of siting such a
facility in close proximity to densely populated areas. The prospect
of a.LNG spill which could result in an explosion and fire demands that
extra scrutiny be given to the siting of such a facility as well.

All energy facilities entail adverse environmental impacts. But
CZM recognizes that Massachusetts will need increased amounts of energy
and that, in order to meet these needs, new facilities will be required.
Thus, the CZM plan strives for a rational allocation of coastal land for
the siting and accotm odation of energy needs with a minimum impact on
the environment.

2-G/2

ENERGY FACILITY NEEDS AND IMPACTS

The following sections deal with five specific energy facilities:
oil terminals, tank farms, gas facilities, electric generating plants
and refineries (see accompanying map for location of existing energy
facilities). The section does not address OCS facilities, because, in
the absence of exploration drilling, it is not yet possible to deter-
mine whether and where such facilities might be located. The
Massachusetts CZM program, under an OCS supplemental grant, and grants
extended for energy facility planning under the 1976 Amendments to the
Coastal Zone Management Act, is investigating the likelihood of these
facilities locating in Massachusetts, as well as carrying out further
studies on siting policies, legal and institutional controls, and
secondary impacts of energy facilities. The findings of these investi-
gations will subsequently be incorporated into the plan.

OIL TERMINALS

Of the roughly 600,000 barrels per day (BPD) of refined petroleum
products consumed each day in Massachusetts, 75% is off-loaded through
petroleum terminals sited in the Massachusetts coastal zone.' The
remaining petroleum requirements are met by (a) product pipelines from
East Providence to Springfield and Worcester, and from New Haven to the
Springfield area; (b) tank truck shipments from terminals in Albany to
western Massachusetts; and (c) rail tank car shipments to the
Connecticut Valley.

In the Boston demand region (see map) over 85% of the oil is off-
loaded in Boston and the principal terminals are located in Chelsea
Creek, the Mystic River, South Boston, and the Town-Fore Rivers area.
Secondary ports are Salem, Weymouth, Beverly and Gloucester. The
primary method of distribution from coastal points is by truck with a
small percentage trans-shipped by barge. A portion of the oil received
at the Mystic River is transported by pipeline to Waltham and the
Lowell-Dracut area. Oil also enters the region by a pipeline from Fall
River to Sherborn and Waltham.

The Providence demand region, which includes southeastern
Massachusetts and the Cape, is serviced through the ports of Providence,
Fall River, New Bedford, and Sandwich. Distribution within the regibn
is primarily by truck.

The primary requirements for an oil terminal are a protected
harbor, waterfront land on a deep draft channel (30-40 feet), access to
oil storage facilities, and access via a distribution network (i.e.,
pipeline, highway or rail) to users of petroleum products.

While the terminal itself and a moderate amount of storage capacity
for trans-shipment and surge storage is legitimately coastally dependent,
the bulk of the oil storage traditionally associated with terminals is
not.2 Oil storage of this nature, used primarily for seasonal storage
of heating fuel and to maintain a constant market supply, is discussed
in the section on tank farms.

2-G/3

PETROLEUM
@47
TRAFFIC
Y@. PIPELINES
ALGONQUIN GAS
(1973)
ISE TENNESSEE GAS
J@
SHELL OIL
175 100 30 15 2 71-
EXXON OIL
M
millions of barrels

ELECTRIC
-15,000
GENERATION
W FOSSIL FUELS 3,000
Dracut
1,200
NUCLEAR 200
75
X OTHER
int.comb. STORAGE CAPACITY
(thousands of barrels)
diesil
L 0 SNG manufacturing
gas turb.
r\
C@
plant
ELNG terminal
Walthami.
LLI

IS-ELI
Broc*it@@`,_,.
K
j

Y.
-1.1LEET

_IA 1.1

/SE
-1EY'

,V`

T- ET

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2-G/4

MAJOR PIPELINES AND PETROLEUM DEMAND AREAS

IN NEW ENGLAND

Dracut

80315ton..

West Everett
@F Worcester-
Springfield@\ _"@-i-Dou las
64@) , Sherb-@rn-.

Provi-
Ha r t -@Fo- r d dence Fall
Sandwic
River

'-"-_@\'\\New Haven--,

PETROLEUM DEMAND AREAS MAJOR PIPELINES

Jet Lines
New Haven
Mobil

..........
Boston Shell
J
0 -------0 Exxon
Providence 0- -0 Standard Transmission

Sou@ces: EPA, "Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan", May, 1972
A.D. Little, "Effects on N.E. of Petroleum Related Industrial

Development", 1975, p. 111 2.

2-G/5

Existing channel depths limit the size of tankers and barges
currently serving Massachusetts ports to the 25,000 to 60,000 dead
weight ton (DWT) class. Without extensive dredging or the construction
of a deepwater port (see later section on refineries), Massachusetts
will continue to import its petroleum in tankers of this size class.

The number of tankers arriving in Massachusetts ports will depend
on the magnitude of future petroleum consumption. Assuming successful
conservation efforts, petroleum consumption may grow by only 15% by
1990. If, on the other hand, historic growth rates are assumed,
petroleum consumption is projected to rise by 100% to 1.2 million
barrels daily.3 In either case, the state will see a corresponding
rise in tanker traffic.

These projected demands will not, in all likelihood, require addi-
tional berthing capacity, as currently, the average tanker berth
occupancy rate is roughly 16% for New England as a whole while Boston's
is approximately 23%. Thus even with high growth in petroleum consump-
tion, no new berthing capacity would be needed until after year 2000.4
The increase in tanker traffic may, however, cause congestion in ports
and harbors.

As the oil throughput at terminals increases, we can expect an
increase in the amount of oil spilled during the ship-shore transfer.
The detrimental impacts of oil pollution are discussed in the Marine
Environment section. While pollution control and clean-up measures can
do much to minimize oil pollution, some petroleum spillage into coastal
waters is unavoidable. By limiting petroleum delivery to the ports now
hosting marine terminals, the risks of oil pollution will at least be
confined, and high water quality in other areas can be maintained.

The air pollution effects of marine terminals are moderate and
result primarily from hydrocarbon emissions. Hydrocarbons are
released when petroleum is exposed to the air during unloading petro-
leum from ships, or filling tanks, or when it is spilled. Hydrocarbon
emissions are an important ingredient in the formation of photochemical
smog and are regulated by EPA. (For further discussion, see section on
tank farms.)

To summarize, petroleum terminals form a key element in the energy
supply network in Massachusetts. Terminals require a deep draft channel,
waterfront land and access to a distribution network. The environmental
effects on air and water are moderate and largely unavoidable. Suffi-
cient capacity exists to meet future demand without expansion but addi-
tional tanker traffic may result in some congestion in ports and harbors.

TANK FARMS

Massachusetts depends on oil for 85% of its energy needs, and,
because it has no indigenous source of supply, oil storage is a key
concern. For the past fifteen years, Massachusetts has maintained a
relatively stable reserve storage capacity of some 25 days supply.5
The bulk of this storage capacity is located in the coastal zone for
two reasons: first, because our oil arrives mainly via tankers; and

2-G/6

second, because a large part of the population is located near the
coast. Although tank farms have traditionally been sited in the
coastal zone, they are not coastally dependent.6

V In order to maintain a month's storage (about the minimum to meet
market fluctuations) and at the same time growing demands for oil pro-
ducts, additional storage capacity will be needed. Massachusetts cur-
rently has over 30 million barrels of storage capacity.7 In order to
meet 1990 forecasts for oil consumption, storage for an additional
6-30 million barrels will be required.

The Federal Energy Administration in its Strategic Petroleum
Reserve Program has announced plans to store a three months supply of
oil in New England to protect against another foreign oil embargo.8
If these plans are implemented, Massachusetts may be called upon to
maintain a strategic reserve of between 90 and 150 million barrels of
petroleum. For security and economic reasons, this oil may be stored
in underground caverns rather than in above ground steel tanks.

In order to meet the requirements of both increasing oil consump-
tion and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Massachusetts will need to
expand its oil storage facilities by three to six times the current
capacity. Based on 1973 figures, there was only sufficient land for
a 20% expansion in storage capacity in Boston.9 (See chart below.)
This is equivalent to approximately 3 million barrels of oil. A quick
review of existing terminal centers, with the exception of Town-Fore
Rivers area, indicates that the ability to construct additional storage
capacity is extremely limited.

Outside existing terminal areas in greater Boston, other sites
pose serious conflicts. East Boston has requested that the East Boston
Pier be used for community purposes such as housing, recreation and open
space; the South Boston Naval Annex is being devleoped into a marine
industrial park to provide employment opportunities for Boston residents
and may host additional containerport capacity. The Harbor Islands
are being developed primarily as a recreational resource.

Some constraints are also present at other sites which have the
capability to handle tankers (those harbors with a depth of 30' or
,more). The land adjacent to the Salem Terminal now accommodates the
New England Power Company's electric power plant and 12 storage tanks.
With the planned construction of an additional 7 tanks, with a storage
capacity of roughly 1.2 million barrels, all remaining land will be
consumed.10 Any expansion proposed for New Bedford Harbor might well
conflict with the needs of an expanding commercial fishing industry
(see Ports and Harbors section) and because of the hurricane dike
guarding the harbor., poses egress and exit problems which would inhibit
New Bedford from becoming a major bulk petroleum port. While it would
be feasible to expand at either Cape Cod Canal or Fall River, this
would require the siting of storage capacity a long distance from
principal areas of consumption - greater Boston.

Given that oil tank farms are not coastally dependent and that any
major expansion in the coastal zone would conflict with other coastally
dependent uses, inland siting of tank farms must be considered.

2-G/7

PETROLEUM TANKAGE IN BOSTON HARBOR

8000

- 275

7000
- 250 Existinq Capacity (1972)

Maximum Capacity
LJ (assuming present property holdings)
- 225
6000 Off-Site Storage (1972)

200

'o
*5 5000 C
CL
0 175
U -c
t
22
4000 150

cL - 125

3000
0
2
F_
F_ - 100

2000 <- 75

- 50

1000

- 25

0
Chelsea Creek Mystic River Reserve Channel South Shore

1. Based on 13 Turnovers per Year

Source: A.D.Little, Inc., Preliminary Economic Study of Alternative Methods of
Supplying Petroleum Products to Eastern Massachusetts, prepared for
MASSPORT, 1973, Vol. II, pp. 11-78

2-G/8

The impacts associated with tank farms are serious and are pri-
marily in the areas of land use and air and water pollution. Tank
farms storing distillate oil are a major contributor to air pollution
problems resulting from hydrocarbon emissions. Hydrocarbons are an
important factor in the formation of photochemical smog and are
released from leaks in tanks and valves and from emptying and filling
storage tanks. Hydrocarbon limits are established by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and if exceeded, can result in public health
problems. Currently hydrocarbon emissions in metropolitan areas are
high, and the EPA has requested the state to develop strategies for
their reduction. Some of the strategies for tank farms could include
strict requirements for advanced pollution control equipment on new
tanks, retrofitting existing tanks, or prohibiting tank construction
in metropolitan areas.

Although a properly designed tank farm can minimize impact on
water quality, many tank farms chronically release petroleum into
ground water. Generally this results from faulty equipment, inadequate
treatment facilities or rain water run-off. In the coastal zone, this
polluted ground water frequently ends up entering the marine environ-
ment. While containment dikes are designed to prevent major spills in
the event of a tank rupturing, failure of these dikes could result from
coastal storm flooding or earthquakes.11 The result could be a major
spill directly into coastal waters. While the likelihood of this
occurance is admittedly small, it would be less so inland and oil
would be contained by landforms rather than spread over water.

Tank farms also have a significant impact on adjacent uses.
Briefly, tank farms have a high potential for fire and explosion
resulting in public safety hazards. Because of their size (approxi-
mately 50-60 feet high and 100-150 feet across) tank farms form a
visual as well as physical barrier to the enjoyment of the coastal
zone. Tanker trucks, travelling to and from tank farms in existing
built-up port areas, frequently must use small residential streets,
resulting in noise and air pollution problems for local residents.

Inland siting can eliminate or minimize many of the above impacts.
More space is available inland for buffer zones to minimize safety
hazards; topography and vegetation may be used to limit visual impacts;
and tank farms may be sited near major highways so that truck traffic
through residential streets is avoided.

While inland siting of tank farms would reduce the environmental
impacts in most cases, it would require an initial capital expenditure
for pipeline construction and right-of-way acquisition. The construc-
tion costs for a 8"-12" pipeline (maximum size needed), based on 1976
completed pipeline costs, would be $75,000-$100,000 per mile.12

While this cost is considerable, it could be off-set by long-term
savings in transportation costs, especially if the inland storage area
is strategically located to minimize the number of tanker truck trips
between markets.13 Inland siting could also reduce air pollution and
social costs currently associated with truck traffic and visual blight
in dense, urban residential neighborhoods. It could provide opportunities

2-G/9

for visual and physical access to the coast, allow space for coastally
dependent uses, and increase the tax base of coastal communities.14

GAS FACILITIES

Massachusetts' consumption of natural gas increased from approx-
imately 24 billion cubic feet (BCF) in 1950 to 155 BCF in 1973.15
Because gas is a clean, efficient fuel it has become a desirable
energy source. However, as demand has grown, supplies of domestic
gas were reduced requiring foreign and synthetic gas to be substituted
for domestic pipeline gas. In order to import foreign gas, gas is
liquified (achieved through cooling to to -259*F) thereby reducing
its volume 600 fold. It can then be economically shipped in specially
designed tankers and vaporized for distribution at its point of
destination.

Liquified natural gas (LNG) has become an increasingly popular
substitute for pipeline gas in the northeast and especially
Massachusetts. Roughly 5% of Massachusetts' gas demand is now met16
through LNG and, in the near future, this proportion is expected to
rise to 7%-10%. The price of LNG is two-three times higher than
natural gas and is likely to rise even higher.17 Future price
increases are likely, resulting both from the need to use imported
LNG and the expected deregulation of natural gas prices. While these
increases may dampen historic growth rates in gas demand, some growth
will still take place, requiring importation of greater amounts of LNG.

In the long run, whether we will need more LNG facilities will
hinge on three factors: first, whether natural gas is found on Georges
Bank and is used in this region; second, whether future energy needs of
Massachusetts are based on sound energy conservation programs aimed at
reducing overall demand for gas; third, whether federal pricing policies
will encourage development of new domestic gas reserves.

At present, four major facilities in Massachusetts depend upon
marine transportation of LNG or feedstock for manufacturing synthetic
natural gas (SNG) to supplement pipeline deliveries of natural gas.
They are:

Boston Gas Company - Commercial Point, Dorchester - A liquefaction
plant with a 611,000 barrel storage capacity which is used to store LNG
transformed from pipeline gas. While Commercial Point can also receive
LNG from small tankers, most of its LNG supply is derived from liquify-
ing pipeline natural gas during off-peak periods.

Distrigas, Everett - A major LNG receiving terminal with a capacity
for storing 900,000 bbls. of LNG. LNG shipped to Everett is used by
companies throughout the northeast to meet peak demand.

Boston Gas Company - SNG Plant, Everett - With a capacity to produce
40 million cubic feet of SNG daily, the plant is able to supply up to
16% of Boston Gas' total annual sales. The plant manufactures SNG
from liquid propane feedstock delivered by ship to terminals on the
Mystic River.

2-G/10

Algonquin - SNG Plant-, Freetown - The plant has a capacity to produce
120 million cubic feet of SNG daily and relies on delivery of liquid
naptha feedstock landed at the Shell terminal in Fall River and piped
to Algonquin storage tanks in Freetown.

Other LNG storage facilities in Massachusetts are either equipped
with liquification facilities to convert pipeline gas to LNG for stor-
age and use during peak periods or are supplied directly with LNG trans-
ported by truck from Canada or from one of the major base load LNG
terminals such as Distrigas in Everett. A number of these storage
facilities are located on the waterfront, e.g., Fall River Gas Company,
Fall River, Massachusetts LNG Inc., Lynn, and New England Electric
System, Salem.18

LNG tanks are primarily holding tanks, constructed in relation to
the size of the tanker servicing it and the length of time between
tanker arrivals. The tanks have associated vaporization facilities
which allow the company to draw down gas as needed to meet demand.
Thus, even if demand increases, a larger volume could be handled at
existing facilities by adding additional vaporization equipment and
drawing down inventories more rapidly.

In accommodating needs for greater LNG deliveries, a number of
environmental and safety factors must be considered. LNG is a highly
flammable and hazardous substance, and requires extreme care in
handling. If LNG escapes, it forms a vapor plume and remains in a
cloud-like formation until sufficiently heated to become gas. If found
in quantities of 5%-15% vapor and air, it is highly flammable and in
enclosed spaces it might explode.

If the vapor were to ignite, the flames might burn back to the
source of the leaking gas and could endanger other tanks and result in
substantial personal and property damage. A worst case analysis shows
that an LNG fire could encompass a six-mile radius from the point of
the spill.19 Additionally, an LNG spill, due to its extremely low
temperature, could kill marine and animal life.

Proper siting of baseload LNG facilities require large amounts of
land. The tanks, in many instances, exceed 175 feet in height and over
300 feet in diameter. Containment dikes around each tank and a buffer
zone for safety and green belt purposes raise the total land require-
ment to 100-200 acres. In addition, LNG sites should have low
seismicity factors and the facilities themselves should be designed to
stand credible seismic risk.

Baseload LNG facilities, like that at Everett, are highly
coastally dependent. While it is technically feasible to site a
facility inland, away from the marine terminal through which the LNG is
imported, the expense involved would be prohibitive. In addition,
using a cryogenic pipeline running from the marine terminal to inland
storage tanks would increase the probability of an LNG accident. The
coastal dependency of baseload LNG facilities thus limits available
alternatives.

2-G/11

If additional facilities are expanded in built up.port areas
currently able to accommodate LNG tankers (which draw approximately
40 feet of water), the chance of harm resulting from a spill is
increased because a large volume of INC is stored and tanker arrivals
are more frequent. If reliance is placed on using existing capacity
to handle increased imports, tanker traffic will increase, thereby
raising the potential for collision, accidents and spillage. Cur-
rently, the Coast Guard promulgates safety measures to minimize risk
of collision of accidents. These include requirements on the numbers
and kind of tugs used to bring tankers into port, special arrival
notification procedures, and restrictions on other harbor traffic
while tankers enter ports to off-load LNG. While these measures will
reduce the potential for some sort of accident, that prospect, however
slight, still exists.

If sited in remote, rural areas the 'magnitude of harm to life and
property from an LNG accident would be less. However, coastal rural
siting would (1) require dredging to accommodate tankers as well as
construction of transportation access routes, (2) would obtrude on the
visual charm of rural landscapes, and (3) would encourage peripheral
development.

Each of these risks and environmental effects must be weighed
against one another before deciding how Massachusetts is to meet
future LNG requirements.

ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITIES

The Massachusetts coastal zone currently hosts 21 electric gen-
erating facilities of various sizes and types (see accompanying chart).
The most important of these are the I nuclear and 7 fossil fuel plants
which combined produce 75% of the total electric supply in the state.

As demand for electricity increases, and power plants retired
because of age, pressure to site more plants in the coastal zone may
be experienced. Future demand will be affected by such variables as
the future price of electricity, the success of energy conservation
programs, and the availability of alternative forms of energy produc-
tion such as solar and wind energy. Since World War II, electric
energy consumption has been doubling approximately every 10 years.
Following the 1973 energy crisis, however, growth in electric energy
consumption has dropped from an annual-rate of approximately 7%-8% to
4%-5%.20 This dampening in demand has caused utility companies to
either abandon or push-back the start-up times for a number of
facilities originally slated for construction in the coastal zone.
Only one facility of any major consequence is now proposed -- the addi-
tion (Pilgrim 2) to the nuclear power plant at Plymouth.

New England currently has a reserve generating capacity of approx-
imately 46%, of which 20%-23% is necessary to maintain reliability and
meet periods of peak demand. This reserve capacity was developed during
the 1960's, when construction costs for new power plants were far lower
than they are today. It is true that current excess reserve capacity
does represent a carrying cost to New England ratepayers. However, as

2-G/12

a result of that excess capacity, New England will not have to add as
much new generating equipment over the next decade.as will other areas
of the country., The escalating costs of new generating facilities and
more expensive natural gas will raise the cost of electricity for
Southern and mid-Western states significantly. By comparison, New
England"s electricity costs will begin to stabilize or rise more
moderately, enhancing the ability of Massachusetts and the entire
region to attract or retain new industry.21

The construction of Pilgrim 2 and exicting excess reserve capacity
will probably make major additions to electric generating capacity
unnecessary in the coastal zone until about 1990. By that time,
alternative sources of energy (solar, wind, etc.) may be more
practicable and in wider use, and technology to mitigate the adverse
environmental impacts of coastal power plants (discussed below) may
have fewer problems. Under these circumstances, the controversy
surrounding coastal power plant siting may be unwarranted and whether
the Massachusetts coastal zone will need to host additional major
power plants moot.

Power plants are drawn to the coast for a number of reasons: the
free abundant cooling water supply; proximity to the fuel imported
through marine terminals; and the fact that power plant equipment
components are more easily transported to sites by barge than by road
or rail. Power plants require extensive commitment of coastal land
not only for the plant itself but also for attendant facilities and
needs, e.g., tank farms, coal storage areas and buffer zones. A
large oil fired plant typically requires 70 acres while substantially
more is needed for a coal fired plant (approximately 250 acres) and
nuclear (up to 400 acres). Structures housing the plant's boiler or
reactor can be up to 20-25 stories high. Cooling towers or exhaust
stacks can reach 50 to 100 stories in height, resulting in substantial
visual impacts.

Existing facilities consume roughly 21% of all the oil, coal and
natural gas brought into Massachusetts each year. As the majority of
these products are imported through marine terminals, any increased
construction of fossil fuel plants will result in the need to import
more oil or coal. This in turn will result in the need to construct
other facilities, i.e., storage tank farms and coal storage capacity.
These facilities can have pronounced impacts on the coastal zone and
such effects must also be weighed in evaluating a new electric power
plant.

One of the major environmental impacts associated with electric
generating plants is that on water quality resulting from discharge of
thermal effluent from the plant's cooling systyem. (See Marine
Environment section for discussion of thermal effluent impacts.) These
impacts can be of different magnitude or type, however, depending upon
the kind of system employed. The system, which results in the dis-
charge of the greatest volume of heated water into coastal waters is
the "once-through cooling" system.22 In addition, effects of once-
through cooling include those associated with the dredging of tide-
lands to construct channels and intake structures insuring sufficient
water flow for cooling.

2-G/13

ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANTS IN COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS

AVERAGE FLOW RATE U
UTILITY 1975 CAPACITY PROPOSED EXPANSION (MW) TYPE OF COOLING WATER DIS-
PLANT SYSTEM (MW) DATE OF OPERATION PLANT CHARGE (CFS)
NEWBURYPORT New England Electric IA.. None Diesel NA
IPSWICH Municipal 9 None Internal Com- NA
bustion
GLOUCESTER New England Electric 28 None Diesel NA
PEABODY Municipal 31 75 (1980), 17 (1981) Gas Turbine-, NA
Diesel
SALEM HARBOR, SALEM New England Electric 775 None Thermal-Oil 980
MARBLEHEAD Municipal 6 None Internal Com- NA
bustion
LYNN New England Electric 23 None Diesel NA
MYSTIC, EVERETT Boston Edison 1055 None Thermal-Oil 1400
NEW BOSTON, BOSTON Boston Edison 718 None Thermal-Oil 640
"L" STREET, BOSTON on 49 Thermal-Oil
Boston Edis None NA
BRAINTREE Municipal 38 80 (1976), Combined Thermal-Oil NA
Cycle
EDGAR STATION, WEYMOUTH Boston Edison 300 None Thermal-Oil 500
PILGRIM, PLYMOUTH Boston Edison 655 1,180 (1982) Nuclear 815-860 (with ad-
dition 2575-2820)
CANAL, SANDWICH New England Gas & 560 560 (1976) Thermal-Oil 374 (within additio-
Electric 800)
WEST TISBURY, MARTHA'S New England Gas &
VINEYARD Electric 6 3 (1979), 3 (1981), Diesel NA
3 (1983)
OAK BLUFFS, MARTHA'S New England Gas &
VINEYARD Electric 8 None Diesel NA
NANTUCKET Nantucket Gas &
Electric 8 None Diesel NA
CANNON, NEW BEDFORD New England Gas & 93 69 (1980), gas --urbine Thermal-Oil 152
Electric
BRAYTON PT., SOMERSET New England Gas & 1590 None Thermal-Oil 1400
Electric
MONTAUP, SOMERSET Eastern Utilities 420 None Thermal-Oil 380
Associates ------

SOURCE: Power Plant Environmental Impact Statements, Communications with Utility Companies,
and NEPLAN, "New England Load and Capacity Report , 197546," January 1976.

Many of these impacts can be ameliorated or controlled if closed
cycle cooling systems are employed. Since substantially less water is
required, closed cycle systems would eliminate one of the needs to
site generating facilities in coastal areas.

Closed cycle alternatives, which could be employed in inland
locations, include (1) the use of cooling lagoons or spray ponds or
(2) 11wet" cooling towers. These methods need fresh water to replace
evaporation losses, but the amount used is only 2%-4% of that needed
in once-through cooling.

There are, however, certain disadvantages to using wet cooling
towers, cooling lagoons, or spray ponds. First, a cooling pond
requires approximately 1000 to 2000 acres for a 1000 MW plant, and
11wet" towers may result in fog and vapor fumes, and chemical dis-
charges. Both may also impact water supply availability. Another
closed cycle alternative in the future may be a "dry" cooling tower
which acts like an automobile radiator, blowing cool air over heated
coolant. "Dry" cooling towers have no need for replacement water
but their technology is still under development. Moreover, "dry"
cooling towers can consume up to 25% of a power plant'soutput, there-
by adding a substantial cost to their use. Cooling towers may range
in size from 60' to over 550' high depending upon the technology
employed. Thus, both "wet" and "dry" cooling towers can have sub-
stantial visual impacts.

In addition to the impacts on water and scenic quality, fossil
fuel plants can be a major source of air pollution - the most signif-
icant being particulates and sulfur oxides. The disposal of fly ash
and sulfur removed from scrubbers, installed to remove particulates
and sulfur, also posesenvironmental problems.

Nuclear power plants add a whole new dimension to the problems
associated with siting. Safety and public health problems due to the
potential of highly radioactive releases from either a meltdown of the
core reactor crfrom sabotage must also be considered. Moreover, the
land acreage necessary to site the facility and associated structures
is substantial.

Inland sites may, in some instances, be a feasible option to
siting in coastal areas, if closed cycle forms of cooling, as des-
cribed above, are employed. The costs associated with closed. cycle
cooling systems can, however, have an effect on electric generating
costs. For a 1000 MW nuclear plant, the capital costs (including
capitalization of operating costs) for a "wet" cooling tower system,
are greater than double the costs of once-through cooling.23 Circum-
stances may, however, bring the costs of once-through cooling systems
to the levels of closed cycle systems. If, for example, to meet EPA
standards, a once-through cooling system needs a lengthy inlet and
outlet discharge channel running I to 2 miles off-shore, then the
costs associated with such a system could approach the cost for a
11wet" tower. The cost of transmission lines, while less of a deter-
minant, might also equalize the attractiveness of inland alternatives.
If a plant had to be constructed more than 100 miles from a substation

2-G/15

and existing transmission line corridors in order to employ once-
through cooling, these circumstances would bring the costs in line
with constructing a "wet" cooling tower.24 25

Other alternatives to inland siting include underground siting
(which is technically feasible but substantially more expensive) and
off-shore siting (which is feasible but still under study). Inland
siting is thus the prime alternative to coastal siting and should be
given serious consideration when planning a new facility. Inland
locations are not, however, free from problems - air pollution may
be more severe inland than on the coast since the prevailing coast
winds normally carry pollutants out to sea. In addition, both wet
and dry cooling towers, as mentioned, are visually obstrusive,
although topography may be used to mitigate visual impacts. "Wet"
towers can also cause fogging problems. In eastern Massachusetts,
if closed cycle systems are not employed, inland siting would be
severely constrained because only the Merrimack River can provide
the 500,000 gallons of water per minute needed to cool an average
sized electric generating facility.26

REFINERIES AND DEEPWATER PORTS

Massachusetts presently lacks any refinery capacity, a
paradoxical f*act considering 85% of the Commonwealth's total energy
requirements are met by petroleum products.

Several proposals have been made to site refineries in
Massachusetts. A 1974 Massachusetts Port Authority study recommended
an off-shore terminal for crude oil along the northern Massachusetts
coast with a nearby refinery.27 During the past year, the Governor
has discussed with Venezuelan interests the establishment of a
refinery in Massachusetts. With the advent of OCS oil and gas
exploration, some speculate that a high find (2.4 billion barrels,
total with a daily production rate of 200,000 barrels) would be
adequate to support the construction of a refinery in New England.28

The refinery most commonly proposed for New England is one
with a 250,000 barrel per day capacity, an above average sized
refinery. Siting requirements and impacts of such a refinery have
been the subject of numerous studies in New England and are
summarized in the following table.

2-G/16

SITING REQUIREMENTS OF A 250,000 BARREL PER DAY REFINERY

RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS

Land 1,000-1,500 acres of clear, flat, industrially
zoned land, 40% of which is buffer

Water 5-15 million gallons of water per day (amount
depends largely on product mix and refinery
design; 40%-80% is used for cooling; the
remainder for processing)

Electric 1.5 million kwh/day
Energy
Fuel Oil 15,000-25,000 barrels/day of low sulfur fuel

ECONOMIC REQUIREMENTS

Construction 1,800-2,200 (30% of which are relocated from
Manpower other areas) (over 3 years). Average wage:
$20,000

Operation and 410 persons, ll%-14% of which are relocated
Maintenance from other areas. Average wage: $15,000
Manpower

Capital $690 million

TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS

Pipeline from production platform and/or marine terminals to
deliver crude oil.

Truck or rail for construction to deliver chemicals used in
processing.

Pipelines or trucks to deliver refined products.

NOTE: Estimates assume a 250,000 barrel per day facility that would
produce a product mix similar to the demand mix for the region
(i.e., h high fuel oil percentage as opposed to a high
gasoline percentage).

33% gas 27% distillate
4% kerosene/jet 36% residual

Sources: (1) Massachusetts CZM, Oil Refinery Development in
Massachusetts, May 1976.
(2) NERBC/RALI, Onshore Facilities Related to Offshore
Oil and Gas Development Factbook, August 1976.

2-G/17

Four major resource requirements must be met before a refinery
is sited: first, a labor pool of about 2,000 employees during the
3 year construction phase must be available as well as housing and
other social services to accommodate this work force; second, sub-
stantial land (1000-1500 acres) is required; third, availability
of water for cooling and processing purposes (depending on the
product mix refineries are major users of water, requiring about
the same amount as a population of 13,000 people).29 To meet federal
and state water quality standards, a large, well-flushed water body
is required so that federal and state mandated water quality standards
can be met. According to one study, the Merrimack River north of
Boston, is the only Massachusetts river with this capacity;30 and
fourth; a guaranteed supply source of crude oil for refining.

Of these four conditions, a guaranteed supply of crude is the
most significant constraint on refinery siting. Crude oil can be
imported directly from foreign nations; supplied from existing
domestic sources; or, in the future, possibly supplied from the
North Atlantic OCS. Changing federal policies on imports and the
uncertain economics of exporting crude vs. refined products make
foreign sources of crude oil unreliable, unless a foreign crude
source has an equity stake in the refinery itself. Importation
from existing domestic crude oil production areas to Massachusetts
or New England by major oil companies is unlikely because thier Mid-
Atlantic refineries are operating below full capacity. The possibility
of crude from the North Atlantic OCS will depend on whether a major
find is discovered. Even in the event of a major find, OCS oil will
not be on line for at least 5-10 years after the first lease sale now
scheduled for May 1977, and will probably be delivered to Mid-Atlantic
refineries.

Any refinery proposal would require crude brought in through one
of the following methods: a marine terminal, a deepwater port, or
a pipeline from Georges Bank. Given the shallow depths of
Massachusetts coastal waters, deliveries from shallow draft tankers
to marine terminals would have to be frequent in order to supply
adequate crude for a 250,000 barrel per day refinery. The greater
the tanker traffic, the greater the likelihood of collisions and
potential spills. An alternative is the construction of an off-
shore deepwater terminals, a receiving facility constructed far off-
shore in waters deep enough to handle larger tankers ranging frcm
60,000 to 250,000 deadweight tons. The oil would then be piped
ashore to a tank farm and refinery complex. Accommodating-fewer and
larger tankers could mean lower transportation costs, and less
probability of collisions and spills. However, if a spill did occur,
the magnitude of the spill would likely be far larger, given the size
of the tanker. In addition, the spill would most likely occur on the
open ocean where, due to rough seas, spills are much harder to con-
tain and clean-up than in harbors.

The table below enumerates the economic, environmental, and
social impacts of refinery development. The major economic impacts
are the increased local and state revenues from direct, indirect,
and induced taxes and the increased spending power of residents,

2-G/18

particularly in the construction phase. The major social impacts are
the costs for municipalities, particularly those adjacent to the
refinery location which do not benefit from the expanded tax base.
The Energy Impact Program authorized by the 1976 Coastal Zone Act
Amendments provides several sources for funding public services
and facilities needed to accommodate coastally dependent energy
facilities, including refineries. (See Program Incentives des-
cription in Chapter III).

The major environmental impacts are the amount of land and water
consumed and the effects on air and water quality. A 250,000 bbl.
refinery requires 1,000-1,500 acres of land for processing, tank
farm storage, and a "green belt" buffer zone. Vacant tracks of this
size with suitable topography and load bearing characteristics are
not readily available along the shore. In addition, siting a refinery
along the shore could adversely impact any number of coastal resources
important for public health, and safety, for recreation, for commercial
and port activities, and for marine production. Thus, the siting of
potential refineries inland, close to labor and demand centers, and in
areas already served by transportation, communication, and water supply,
should be considered.

The major effluents from refineries are thermal discharges from
cooling water and chemical contaminants from processing water
(detailed in Table 2). "Once-through cooling systems" (when all
heated water is discharged) can produce up to 15 million gallons of
water per day having temperatures high enough to kill marine
organisms.31 (See discussion of thermal effluent effects in
Marine Environment section). Thermal discharges and the quantity of
water consumed can be reduced by recycling cooling water, employment
of air cooling systems, or a combination of both.

Processing water is a less significant refinery effluent by
volume than cooling water, but more significant in terms of con-
taminants. By federal law, these discharges must meet specified
effluent standards. By requiring segregation of clean waters (non-
contaminated storm water and cooling water) from process waters, the
recycling of cooling water could be encouraged and process wastewater
discharge could be subject to a more stringent set of effluent
guidelines.

The major emissions from refineries are carbon monoxide, sulfur
oxides hydrocarbons, and particulates.32.

Solid wastes from refineries are a final environmental concern,
since these are frequently contaminated with oil and hazardous
substances.

2-G/19

IMPACTS OF A 250,000-BARREL/DAY REFINERY

ECONOMIC

Indirect employment in construction 182 persons
(generated in industries and services
supplying refineries)

Induced employment (jobs created by 1,045 persons
increased consumer demand due to increased
payroll and tax levels caused by refinery
development)

Total wages for the 3 year construction $39 million
period assuming average annual income of
$19,500 and 2,000 workers

Total average annual wages for operation $6.15 million
and maintenance (assuming $15,000 average
annual wage and 410 workers)

Income from taxes local, on total cost 20% of $690 million
of construction

State, direct, indirect and induced taxes $18 million per year

SOCIAL

Costs for services to municipalities $291,000
(assumes refinery will supply its own
services of fire, police, water and sewerage)

ENVIRONMENTAL

Water Quality of Cooling Water
sulfuric acid ph. app.
chromate 30.0 ppm
zinc 3.0 ppm
chlorine 0.1 - 0.2 ppm

Water Quality of Process Water Concentration, 2pm

Floating and dissolved oil 1-1,000
Dissolved solids 0-5,000
Phenol and other dissolved organics 0-1,000
Cyanide 0-20
Chormate 0-60
Organic nitrogen 0-50
Phosphate 0-60
Sulfides and mercaptans 0-100
Caustics and acids 2-11 ph

2-G/20

Noise Levels 50 decibels

Solid Wastes 120 cubic feet of
sludge per day

Sources: (1) Connecticut Governor's Fact Finding Task Force on
Oil Refineries, Final Report, (Hartford, January
1975), p. 2.

(2) NERBC/RALI, Onshore Facilities Related to Offshore
Oil and Gas bevelopment Factbook, August 1976.

2-G/21

OBJECTIVES

The management program for energy facilities within the coastal
zone should encompass the following objectives:

1. to provide adequate sites for needed energy facilities

2. to allow for an adequate supply of energy

3. to ensure that coastal energy facilities are sited and
designed to minimize impacts on the marine and visual
environment.

CZM POLICIES AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

(Note that additional analysis will be undertaken on energy
facility siting this coming year, in response to the 1976 Amendments
to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. This analysis will result
in the incorporation of revised criteria into the policies below.)

Policy (29) Maximize use of existing marine terminal capacity.

Approval for the construction of a new or expanded marine terminal
shall be given only after it can be shown that the increased petroleum
demand cannot be met through existing marine terminals. If there is a
demonstrable need for a new facility then it should be constructed in
those ports which:

a) have existing marine terminals;

b) already have channels which are able to accommodate tankers;

c) can accommodate increased tanker traffic without causing
congestion or navigation problems; and

d) are linked by existing or new pipelines to inland
storage facilities.

idhen construction of a new terminal is necessary, it shall be
given priority over non-coastally dependent uses.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) (MGLA Ch. 164, S. 69G-R)
The Council is given jurisdiction over the siting of electric generat-
ing, gas and oil facilities. The Council's jurisdiction includes:
a) any bulk generating unit, including associated buildings and struc-
tures with a design capacity of 100 MW or more; b) any new electric
transmission line of more than one mile in length and 69KV or more
designation; c) any ancillary structure to (a) and (b) including but

2-G/22

not limited to fuel storage facilities; d) any unit, including asso-
ciated buildings designed for or capable of storage of gas; e) any
pipeline for the transmission of gas; f) any unit including associated
buildings designed for refining oil or refined oil products; g) any
unit capable of storing more than 500,000 barrels of oil or refined
oil products; h) any new pipeline for the transportation of oil or
refined oil products greater than one mile in length. CZM will pro-
pose, through a Memorandum of Understanding, that the policy and
criteria outlined above be adopted by the EFSC and used by them in
considering proposed new facilities. CZM will provide the EFSC with
technical assistance in reviewing applications to construct energy
facilties in the coastal zone. The EFSC has the responsibility under
Chapter 164, Section 69 to implement "current health, environmental
protection and resource use policies as adopted by the Commonwealth."
The CZM Plan, once adopted, will constitute such a policy, and the
Council may then require energy facilities to be consistent with the
CZM Plan.

The CZM Program will also provide the EFSC with maps delineating
areas of the coastal zone which have been designated as critical. The
Council will use these maps to identify areas where the siting of
energy facilities would be inconsistent with the plan.

Lastly, CZM will intervene in the adjudicatory hearings of the
Council to present evidence if a proposed facility does not in its
estimation conform with CZM policies.

-- Marine Oil Terminal Licenses (MGLA Ch. 21, S. 50) - The Divi-
sion of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) is given authority to license
marine terminal in order to protect the public safety and prevent oil
spills. Through networking, CZM will work to ensure that DWPC only
licenses terminals in areas which meet this policy and criteria
(see Ports and Harbors Policy (19) for further conditions) and deny or
condition such licenses in areas identified to be environmentally
sensitive.

Waterways Program - Chapter 91 of the Massachusetts General
Laws gives the Waterways Program authority over tidelands, harbors,
and certain rivers below the high water mark. Activities covered by
such licenses include filling, wharf construction, bridges, pipelines,
etc. This power is based on the reserved public property rights of
navigation and fishery. DEQE as trustee over these lands thus issues
licenses, and not permits, for the permission to interfere with these
public lands. Under the law, all licenses are to expire after five
years or upon non-use.

Under a Memorandum of Understanding with Waterways, the preceding
CZM policy will be implemented as follows. Marine terminals in port
areas will be given high priority (see Ports and Harbors Policy (19)).
If, to secure financing, the developer needs to obtain an irrevocable
license from the Legislature, CZM will actively support such legisla-
tion.

2-G/23

-- Ocean Sanctuaries Acts (MGLA Ch. 132A, S. 13-17) - Ocean sanc-
tuaries protect all state waters except those from Lynn to Marshfield
and those in Mt. Hope Bay. While the terms of the five sanctuaries
vary, in general such activities as removal of any sand, gravel or
minerals, any dumping, or any waste discharge are prohibited, and
shore protection, water navigation aids or fish harvesting are per-
mitted. A significant clause permits improvements approved by appro-
priate federal and state agencies; CZM networking and federal consis-
tency mechanisms will insure that, with the flexibility created by this
clause, the CZM policies will be carried out. CZM will also work with
DEM to prepare regulations to implement the program.

-- Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency (MEPA)
(MGLA Ch. 30, S. 61-62) - CZM will monitor proposed energy facilities
to guarantee that their design and construction are such as to minimize
impacts on coastal resources. In addition, MEPA will be used to
guarantee that alternatives to the proposed action are given serious
consideration.

Policy (30) Discourage siting of tank farms on the coast.

Approval shall not be given to the construction of oil storage
tanks in the coastal zone, unless the applicant can demonstrate that:

1. the storage tanks are legitimately coastally dependent
(bunker fuel storage, storage of oil for coastal power
plants, and surge storage), or 1

2. siting the tanks inland would result in greater adverse
environmental impacts and undue economic costs.

If a storage tank is to be located in the coas'tal zone, the new
storage facility must be sited: (a) abutting existing storage tanks,
or if not possible, (b) in urban-industrial areas which can accommo-
date storage facilities with minimal impact.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

-- Energy Facilities Siting Council (MGLA Ch. 164, S. 69F-R)
The Council has jurisdiction over major oil facilities, including the,
siting of tank farms (see detailed discussion under preceding policy).
A Memorandum of Understanding will be signed between CZM and EFSC
which will detail the inter-agency coordination of policies. More
specifically, the Memorandum of Understanding will define how the
Council will exercise its authority to deny permits and thereby encour
age the inland siting of tank farms.

-- Local Licensing Authorities (MGLA Ch. 148, S. 13) - Local
licensing authorities are empowered to license a parcel of land for
the "keeping, storage, manufacture or sale" of inflammable materials,
including oil and gas. CZM will work with local community licensing
authorities to insure that, to the extent possible, licenses are
granted consistent with the above policies.

2-G/24

-- Department of Public Safet y (MGLA Ch. 148, S. 13, 37) - LicenSES
all tanks for the storage of all liquids other than water which exceed
10,000 gallons. CZM will prepare a Memorandum of Understanding with
this Department to incorporate CZM concerns into their licensing
procedures.

Policy (31) Accommodate new base load LNG facilities or additional
LNG deliveries where and when the risks to public safety
and the environment are minimized.

Approval to expand LNG deliveries or to construct new or expanded
base load LNG facilities at existing sites will be given only if it can
be demonstrated that: a) existing facilities cannot accommodate addi-
tional through put, and b) environmental assessments indicate that
public safety risks and environmental damage would be less than
accommodating larger deliveries,or new facilities elsewhere.

Additional guidelines that should be applied to new or expanded
facility construction include those for oil tank farms above and the
following:

1. tanks must be sited away from areas of high population
densities

2. design and operation techniques shall be used which reflect
the hi-hest state of the art; dikes must be constructed
0
around tanks so as to contain any LNG which, if there was
a rupture, might escape

3. adequate buffer zones must be provided in order to protect
the public from dangers associated with a spill.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

Energy Facility Siting Council (MGLA Ch. 164, S. 69F-R) - The
Council has primary authority for the siting of gas facilities and
associated structures. CZM will, as in the case of tank farms and
terminals, work through the EFSC to ensure that gas facilities are
sited in accordance with CZM policy.

-- The Air Quality Program, Division of Water Pollution Control,
Waterways Program, Wetlands Program, Hazardous Wastes Program, Depart-
ment of Public Safety, Corps of Engineers, Ocean Sanctuaries, Marine
Oil Terminal License, and MEPA, NEPA and A-95 Reviews will also be
utilized by CZM where relevant in order to insure consistency with
this policy. (Please refer to appropriate discussions of these
authorities after Policies (29), (30), and (33).

-- Federal Power Commission (16 USC 791 a-825r) - Regulates the
interstate aspects of electric power and natural gas industries
including construction of pipeline facilities and the importation of
gas. The Commission's concerns include protection of the environT .nent,.

2-G/25

safety of facilities, equitable rates to consumers and energy conserva-
tion. CZM will employ the federal consistency clause to insure that
LNG siting and design incorporate CZM's concerns.

Policy (32) Consider siting of electric generating facilities in
non-coastal areas.

As discussed in the text, the need to accon odate new major power
plants in the coastal zone may prove unnecessary until after 1990
because of existing excess reserve capacity. By then, power plant
technology and alternative sources of energy can be expected to have
advanced considerably, and the standards below should pose far less
burden on the utility industry than if they had to be applied now.

All the following factors must be considered before power plants
can be constructed in the coastal zone:

1. the use of coastal land for electric generating facilities
shall be made available only after it is demonstrated that,
on balance, use of inland sites would be more environmentally
damaging or economically impractical

2. if a facility is to be sited in coastal areas, the following
guidelines will be applied:

(a) expansion at existing sites is given equal considera-
tion with the construction of a new facility;

(b) no construction shall be allowed on barrier beaches,
in salt ponds, or in designated Areas for Preservation
or Restoration. And applicants must demonstrate that
Areas for Preservation or Restoration will not be
affected by adjacent siting of an electric generating
facility;

(d) the plant is sited so that natural topographic fea-
tures and vegetation will screen the facility to the
maximum extent possible; and

(e) any new facility must be consistent with current air,
water quality and public safety standards and will not
result in any degradation of ambient air or water
quality or pose undue risks to the public.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

-- Energy Facilities Siting Council (MGLA Ch. 164, S. 69F-R)
Will again be the primary implementation authority for electric gen-
erating facilities.

2-G/26

The Air Quality Porgran, @aterways Program, Wetlands Program,
Hazardous Wastes Program, Division of Water Pollution Control, Division
of Water Supply, Ocean Sanctuaries Acts, Corps of Engineers, MEPA, NEPA
and A-95 Reviews will also be applied by CZM where relevant. (Refer to
descriptions following Policies (29) and (33)).

-- Nuclear Regulatory Commission (88 Stat. 1242; 42 USC 5841) -
Is the federal agency which licenses nuclear power plants and regulates
the safety, design, processing, shipment, and disposal of nuclear
plants and materials. The purpose of the agency is to ensure that the
use of nuclear materials is consistent with public health and safety,
environmental quality, national security, and anti-trust laws. CZM
will employ the federal consistency clause to insure that any federal
approvals are consistent with the Plan.

Policy (33) Evaluate refinery and deepwater ports and sites to ensure
that proposed facilities and sites will cause minimum harm
to the coastal environment. Ensure that facilities make
use of technology that minimizes public health and safety
risks.

Approval for siting a refinery in the coastal zone will be granted
only if alternative inland sites have been evaluated and after the
social, economic, and environmental costs of coastal siting are fully
weighed.

If after such evaluation, a coastal site is deemed preferable,
the following conditions must be met:

1. sufficient acreage is allotted for a buffer zone

2. the site is not within an Area for Preservation or Restora-
tion, and the applicant demonstrates that if such an area is
near the facility, their resources will not be adversely
effected

3. provision is made for the meeting of all applicable air and
water quality standards

4. alternative cooling systems oth er than "once-through cooling"
are evaluated and cooling and process waters are separated,
and

5. a management program for solid waste and treatment of
hazardous wastes is developed which ensures that such wastes
will not be discharged into the marine environment.

Deepwater ports will be preferred to marine terminals if:

1. the conditions of the site (topography, currents, proximity
to shore, and projected oil spill drift patterns), the
technology employed, and the frequency of traffic to, from,

2-G/27

and around the site combine to present lower risk of both oil
spills and damage to the environment;

2. neither the pipeline nor the pipeline landfall are placed in
an Ocean Sanctuary, nor in Areas for Preservation or
Restoration, nor in an area where it might adversely affect
the Areas for Preservation or Restoration; and

3. The location, construction, and operation of the deepwater
port are consistent with the policies of the Marine Environ-
ment section.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

-- The Waterways Program, the-Energy Facilities Siting Council,
the Ocean Sanctuaries Acts, the Corps of Engineers, the Marine Oil
Terminal License and MEPA, NEPA, and A-95 Reviews (all discussed above)
will be used by CZM to implement its policies relating to refineries
and deepwater ports. Other pertinent programs include:

-- Air Quality Program (MGLA Ch. 111, S. 142A-F) - Is authorized
to create air pollution control districts, to adopt ambient air quality
standards for such districts, prepare a plan for the implementation,
maintenance, and attainment of such standards, and take necessary
neasures to monitor and enforce the standards. A Memorandum of Under-
standing will be prepared between CZM and the Air Quality Program to
insure adequate protection, including revising the applicable implemen-
tation plans,if necessary, for Areas for Preservation or Restoration.

-- Hazardous Waste Program (MGLA Ch. 21, S. 57-58) - Licenses the
lisposal of chemical, explosive, reactive, and toxic substances which
nay constitute a danger to public health, safety or welfare or to the
anvironment. CZM and the Division of Water Pollution Control will
?repare a Memorandum of Understanding which will incorporate CZM's
concerns regarding the disposal of such wastes into the marine envir-
c)nment in general and specifically into Areas for Preservation or
Ptestoration.

-- Division of Water Pollution Control (MGLA Chapter 21)
kdministers the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for Massachusetts
and has jurisdiction over freshwater, salt water, and ground water.
4PC's permit authority covers sewer hook-ups, certain industrial
coolants, and thermal effluents. A Memorandum of Understanding with
4PC will reflect CZM's policies regarding pollution of the marine
anvironment, protection of critical areas, and disfavoring coastal
3iting except when it is preferable to'inland siting.

Division of Water Supply (MGLA Chapter 40) - Has permit
authority over all proposed withdrawals from surface or ground water
3ources in order to insure the availability of a safe and adequate
3upply of water for public use. CZM and DWS will work together on
appropriate occasions when either (1) an alteration in the supply of
I

Eresh water would affect the salinity of an area and its attendant

2-G/28

ability to be an ecologically productive area, or (2) the proposed
withdrawal is so significant that other economically beneficial uses
found by the Plan may be foreclosed and thus the proposal should be
closely reviewed.

Deepwater Port License (P.L. 93-627) - Is granted by the U.S.
Secretary of Transportation. Conditions for licensing include joining
an oil spill liability fund; consistency of the port with national
interest and policy; non-interference with navigation and international
law; use of best available technology to prevent adverse environmental
impacts; consistency with the state Coastal Zone Management Program;
and approval by the Governor of the adjacent state. Through this act
CZM and the Commonwealth have direct authority to approve or deny a
deepwater port, even beyond the three-mile limit. CZM will use this
authority to insure that crude oil shipments are received in a means
and at a site which will cause the least possible risk of environmental
damage.
7osed

2-G/29

TECHNICAL NOTES AND SOURCES

1. Petroleum consumption figures are taken from A.D. Little, Inc.,
Historical Data on New England's Energy Requirements, prepared
by NERCOM, 1974; estimate of proportion of Massachusetts demand
served by marine terminals derived from share of population in
eastern Massachusetts compared to state total and on petroleum
share by countytaken from U.S. Bureau of Census, 1967 Census of
Business, "Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals", Washington, D.C.

2. Surge storage is that needed to hold oil as it is unloaded from a
tanker, until it can be transferred to permanent storage. Capacity
needed is roughly one to two times tanker size per berth.

3. Petroleum consumption projections taken from A.D. Little, Inc.,
Preliminary Projections of New England's Energy Requirements,
prepared for NERCOM, 1974.

4. A.D. Little, Inc., Effects of New England of Petroleum-Related
Industrial Development, prepared for NERCOM, 1975, Vol. III,
pp. 111-20, 111-21.

5. See Ports and Harbors section, technical note number 3.

6. With the exception of storage of oil for use in the coastal zone,
e.g., bunker fuel for commercial shipping, the oil fired power
plants on the coast, for trans-shipment of oil, and surge
storage at terminals.

7. Intermetric, The Petroleum Distribution Network for New England,
prepared for NERCOM, 1974.

8. Federal Energy Administration, Strategic Petroleum Reserve Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, June 1976.

9. A.D. Little, Inc., Preliminary Environmental Study of Alterngtive
Methods of Supplying Petroleum Products to Eastern Massachusetts,
prepared for MASSPORT, 1973, Vol. III, p. 111-6-111.

10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Draft Environmental Statement2
Addition of Unit No. 5. Salem Harbor, March 1975.

11. The Massachusetts coast from the Cape northward is classified as
an area with the potential for major destructive earthquakes.
The California coast is in the same category. Coffman, J.L., and
Von Hake, L., Earthquake History of the U.S., U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1972.

12. Oil and Gas Journal, August 23, 1976, p. 83.

13. Costs to transport oil by pipeline are on the average 11% of the
costs of truck transport; Hulbert R.C., "Principles of Pipeline
Economics", Association of Oil Pipelines Educators Tour, July 1974.

2-G/30

14. "Relocating existing shorefront tanks inland can be phased over
a period of ten-twenty years as tanks have to be replaced, water-
front property taxes increase, and alternative tax producing
water-related development are proposed. Since tank farms provide
less tax per acre than virtually any other industrial use, it
should be possible for each city to maintain or increase its
base through intensive development of only a portion of the
relocated tank farm acreage, with the balance for recreation,
public access to the water and other public uses." U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, People and the Sound, Marine Transportation,
A Planning Report Prepared for the New England River Basins
Commission, Long Island Sound Regional Study, February 1975,
p. 62.

15. New England Regional Commission, Gas Industry Development in New
England, Analysis of Alternatives, 1975, pp. 4, 6.

16. Massachusetts Energy Policy Office, Report on Natural Gas in
Massachusetts, October 1975, p. 14.

17. Personal communication with Algonquin Gas Company.

18. Descriptions of existing gas facilities extracted from: New
England Regional Commission, Gas Industry Development in New
England, Analysis of Alternatives, 1975, and Massachusetts
Energy Policy Office, Natural Gas, November 1975.

19. Testimony given by Dr. James Fay before a Federal Power Commission
Hearing, Boston, Massachusetts, October 8, 1976.

20. Booz, Allen, Hamilton, Inc., Electric Power Demand and Supply in
New England: A Review of Trends and Forecasts, prepared for
NERCOM, 1975; NEPLAN, New England Load and Capacity Report,
January 1976; and estimates developed by Massachusetts Energy
Facilities Siting Council.

21. Taken directly from, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, An Economic
Development Program for Massachusetts, 1976.

22. "Both fossil fuel and nuclear fired thermal electric generating
plants operate on the same general principle. Steam is created
by burning the fuel substance and used to power a turbine which
turns an electric generator. The spent steam is condensed and
the water returned to be revaporized into steam to start the
cycle anew. The steam condenser is cooled with water that is
either drawn continually from a natural water body (once-through
cooling) or recirculated through an artificially constructed
cooling system (closed cycle)." Taken from Clark and Brownell,
Electric Power Plants in the Coastal Zone: Environmental Issues,
American Littoral Society, 1973, p. III-1.

23. Personal communication with Boston Edison.

2-G-31

24. Ibid and Ball, R.H., and Salter, R.G., California's Electricity
Quandry: Planning for Power Plant Siting, Volume II, the Rand
Corporation, 1972, pp. 76-80.

25. For an excellent discussion of power plant costs, see
Massachusetts Energy Policy Office, The Economics of Nuclear
Power: A New England Perspective, December 1975.

26. Once-through cooling systems for a 1000 MW plant can use up to
500,000 gallons of water per minute, equivalent to 1100 cubic
feet per second (cfs). Records kept by the U.S. Geological
Survey show that average daily flow at the Merrimack River at
Lowell is 7271 cfs.

27. Raytheon and Frederick R. Harris, Inc., MASSPORT Marine Water
Terminal Study, May 1974.

28. New England River Basins Commission, Resource and Land Investi-
gations Program, Estimates for New England, staff draft,
August 1976.

29. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program, Oil Refinery
Development in Massachusetts, Draft, May 1976.

30. A.D. Little, Inc., Effects on New England of Petroleum-Related
Industrial Development, Volume III, prepared for NERCOM, 1975.

31. New England River Basins Commission, Resource and Land Investi-
gations Program, Onshore Facilities Related to Offshore Oil and
Gas Development, Factbook, August 1976.

32. Emissions from oil refineries must meet the following air
quality standards:

Particulates: 1.01b/1000 lbs of coke burnoff

Carbon Monoxide: 30% opacity
0.05% p by volume

Hydrogen Sulfide fuel utilized in processing machinery
Content: may not exceed 0.1 grams of hydrogen
sulfide per dry cubic foot at standard
conditions

Source: 40 CFR 50; 39 PR 9315, March 8. 1974

2-G/32

c4A=O*
I I

MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION: CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DESIGN OF A MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Three considerations have led the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Program to design the management scheme proposed in this
chapter. First, it was important that the management scheme fit within
the state's developing environmental and land use programs. In other
words, it was important to understand where in the process of the state's
history we were trying to fit a coastal zone management system. For if
the system were out of sync with the times, no matter how inventive and
virtuous our system might be, our ability to implement the management
system would be weak and, quite possibly, fail.

Second, it was important to ensure that the management system we
proposed would be useful and, in fact, would be used. Here, we were
concerned with mechanics: under what institutional structure and manage-
ment, with what training and what materials, will a management system
get used by those whom the system is intended to serve?

Finally, we were concerned that, in its implementation, the manage-
ment system be sufficiently resilient and institutionalized that the
system would survive the tenure of any key political and administrative
office holder -- Governor, Cabinet Secretary, Commissioner and the like.

The rest of this introduction explains each of these considerations
in more detail.

A MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT FITS WITHIN THE TIMES IN MASSACHUSETTS

The recent history of environmental legislation passed in Mass-
achusetts became the primary determining factor of the proposed manage-
ment system. During the early 1970's, many progressive environmental
statutes were passed. Wetlands protection was legislated; the protection
of Scenic Rivers was guaranteed; dredging and filling of inland and
coastal waterways became regulated; and more.

The pace with which this legislation was enacted made it practically
impossible for the executive branch to keep pace with sound, efficient
management of the newly enacted programs. Moreover, while legislation
was forthcoming, appropriations to implement the programs lagged behind
the enabling actions. So management of these programs, during the early
1970's was fragmented, uncoordinated, and in some instances, seemingly
nonexistent.

The first step toward bringing some semblance of cohesion to the
management of the state's environmental protection statutes came with
the reorganization of Environmental Affairs, which took affect July 1975.
The reorganization brought under one administrative head, the Secretary
of Environmental Affairs, all the environmental regulatory programs, as
well as the land use, land management program of the Commonwealth.
Programs previously situated in the Department of Public Works and the
Department of Public Health were consolidated into Environmental Affairs.

3-1

The Secretary of Environmental Affairs was given broad ranging
responsibilities for setting environmental policy and for ensuring
actions within all departments consistent with this policy. The year
following reorganization was spent designing and implementing some
measure of management reform and improvement. As with any corporate
merger, two to three years will be needed to implement this reorganization
completely, -:@sp2C_ally since the financial troubles of the state have
imposed severe spending restrictions on all state programs. Even
relatively easy adjustments to mergers, such as consolidating office
space, have been slowed by the state's financial limitations.

Yet while Environmental Affairs has been progressing toward better
management of environmental programs, there is no doubt that the
confluence of three circumstances -- reorganization with its expanded
responsibilities, the plethora of new statutes in need of good manage-
ment, and the state's serious financial straits -- means that we have
not progressed to the sophistication we should have in our management
system. That is, we have not yet begun to manage the many pieces of
statutory authority and responsibility as an integrated, coordinated
whole.

So that is precisely what our concept of "networking" is. It is a
management system representing the next step in the state's efforts at
instituting enlightened management; it is a deliberate, systematic
effort to bring all the state's legislative authority to bear on a
specific region of the state -- the coastal zone; and it is a management
system capable of assessing before anyone takes action, how, with all
the incentives and disincentives that the state can bring to bear on any
action, we act in ways most beneficial to the resources of the coastal
zone.

However, this concept has an important, as yet unmentioned, assumption.
It assumes that Massachusetts has sufficient statutory authorities that
focus on a management plan that can rightly be placed on management
rather than legislative measures. An extensive analysis of the statutes
was undertaken by an independent contractor for fully six of the last
twleve months to appraise this assumption, We are satisfied with the
conclusions of this study, -- a strong and unequivical support for our
premise.

A MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT IS USEFUL AND USED

Given the strong tradition of home rule in Massachusetts, a basic
ingredient for the assurance that the system will be useful and used is
strong citizen involvement in its design. The records of our research,
meetings, presentations, discussions and negotiations with citizens
along the coastline will clearly demonstrate the widespread, major
involvement of Massachusetts residents in this plan.

For the past three years, CZM has been asking people what they would
like to see in a coastal zone management porgram. We learned a number
of things. People want a system where decisions will be made at the

3-2

local level if the issues affect only their town and no others. They
want to protect natural resources because they recognize the important
role that coastal ecosystems play in primary food production and storm
protection. However, they perceive that if other communities are allowed
free reign over all siting decisions, then undesirable but income -
producing uses will be placed very near their borders and they may have
to bear the pollution, traffic, and public service burdens without any
of the attendent financial benefits. While they do not want to be
forced into anything, they are willing to give up a measure of control
over their own ability to site developments in exchange for being able
to influence the siting decisions of neighboring communities.

Citizens want technical advice -- architectual, engineering, biological,
geological and legal. They do not have the financial resources with
which to hire full-time technical staffs, but feel the clear need at
times for such expertise. Inland citizens have expressed the concern that
their tax money is being used to support recreation, flood, erosion
or navigation projects, and other coastal programs. But they do not
trust local coastal town governments to represent their legitimate needs
for access to beaches, boat ramps, and conservation areas.

People are suspicious of creating a new, potentially cumbersome,
expansive bureaucracy, at either the state or regional level. They are
suspicious of a formal regional entity due to past disenchantment with
regional government. (They remain suspicious even though they under-
stand the lack of authority which regional bodies have traditionally
been given.)

They value state regulation in some instances because the state can
implement programs uniformly and consistently but are skeptical of a
state-level super agency because they fear that they will have little
voice in its decisions and that it will be unresponsive to local
differences and concerns. While essentially supportive of state programs
they are, nonetheless, very critical of time delays and disorganization-
in state agencies. And, where they might be receptive to some new form
of management in the future, people generally feel the first priority
is for the state "to get itself together."

Clearly the networking scheme responds to these basic concerns of
coastal residents, essentially by putting first priority on improving
the state's own administration and by doing so without imposing
a new layer of bureaucracy.

Next, to be a used and useful management system, the materials
maps, data sheets, guidelines for implementing policy, and the like
must be accessible to state and local interested parties. And these.
materials must be readily understood by the layman, devoid of jargon
and formidable technical language wherever possible. The maps, commentary,
technical information presented in this document give evidence to our
sensitivity to the need for usable materials. Our experience to date in
citizen participation has provided sufficient understanding and insight

3-3

into the tolerances and abilities of the general public so that our
materials have already enjoyed wide distribution and use. In keeping
with that measure of our own capabilities, we anticipate comparable
usefulness of the materials for use in implementing the management
system.

Finally, the assurance that the management system will be instituted
hinges on the extent of commitment of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
to the program and the ability of the key administrators to turn that
commitment into reality.

It should be noted that the document will only be submitted for
federal approval under the Coastal Zone Management Act after receiving
endorsement from the Governor's Economic Development Cabinet, the
entire cabinet, the Governor and Lt. Governor, the Joint Committee on
Natural Resources and Agriculture, key coastal legislators, the selectmen
of towns, RPA's, mayors and city councils.
In short, prior to submission, the management plan must receive
widespread, endorsement as being sensible, reasonable, and honoring
the rights and responsibilities that various local and state authorities
seek to maintain.

Since the primary responsibility for implementing the management
system rests with the Secretary of Environmental Affairs, some comments
on the Secretary's role in Massachusetts government are in order.
First, the Secretary has direct and frequent access to the Governor as
well as other cabinet secretaries. The cabinet meets weekly and serves
as the Governor's board of policy advisors. Each cabinet secretary has
a monthly review with the Governor of the entire secretariat; because
of the impact of Environmental Affairs on all state activities, the
Secretary of Environmental Affairs typically meets with the Governor
another half dozen times each week on specific issues.

Second, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs took office almost
two years ago with a specific openingstatement about interest in bringing
her private sector management and planning experience to bear on public
administration. Finally, the Secretary has taken active part in the
coastal zone planning throughout the last two years, thereby demonstrating
sincere intent to make this program a vital persuasive force in.Mass-
achusetts.

A MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT SURVIVES THE TENURE OF STATE ADMINISTRATION

CZM is aware that to receive the endorsement of the public, the
present political leadership of Massachusetts and the current Secretary
of Environmental Affairs will not be sufficient to ensure the long-
lasting viability of the program, CZM must institutionalize its concerns
with the daily functions of the state bureaucracy. This cannot be icing
glossed on the surface - it must be a fundamental integration of the
CZM program wi th on-going programs in Environmental Af f airs.

3-4

As described in full detail in later pages, CZM will utilize several
mechanisms to ensure a desirable administrative structure. These will
consist of new regulations relating to the coastal activities of various
agencies and will be promulgated under the formal procedures of the
Secretary of the Commonwealth. Regulations once promulgated, tend to
have a tenure far beyond the administration which drafted them. The
CZM program will also be fully integrated with a number of on-going
programs by providing staff people to those agencies which are most
critically underfunded or unfunded and which play a key role in
coastal management. In particular, the Division of Environmental
Quality Engineering is establishing regional offices which will now be
the focus for a majority of the relevant premit processing plus CZM's
reinforcement efforts. In addition, through these regional offices CZM
will be providing significant technical assistance and grants to local
communities, thereby improving their abilities to implement positive
coastal developments and enabling a constituency.of committed and informed
local coastal zone decision-makers to develop.

CZM and appropriate agencies will also prepare Memoranda of Under-
standing and program guidelines which will be geared to individual
programs and will detail agreed-upon priorities for agency actions, other
agencies to be consulted in reaching certain decisions, or CZM's
commitments for funding or staff support. There will also be the fore-
mentioned formal endorsements of the program via an Executive Order
by the Governor and the adoption of the Plan as a part of the formal
policy and regulations for Environmental Affairs by the Secretary.

In the federal sphere, the Coastal Zone Management Act gives to the
states a significant new power over federal agency activities by requiring
all federal agencies to administer their programs consistently with the
state CZM Plan. CZM and each federal agency will work out agreements
and operating procedures which will institutionalize this requirement
and which will endure far beyond any political changes at the state
level.

The management system which unfolds over the following pages has
thus been designed to be a viable and practical system:. one which
improves the operation of existing state programs; one which responds to
the needs and desires of the coastal actors -- the beach-goer, the
ferry operator, the marine ecologist, the developer, the state admin-
istrator, and the town official; and one which shall endure, effectively
promoting CZM policies but insulated from the vagaries of executive
change-overs.

THE NETWORKING SYSTEM

Networking, in the first instance, is the use of existing EOEA
laws and programs administered in a coordinated and uniform manner. The
networking equipment includes inter-agency Memoranda of Understanding,
guidelines, regulations, and a set of maps and commentary. These tools
are designed to interface the policies which were presented in Chapter II

3-5

with the administrative procedures of the various agencies. For instance,
when an applicant comes forward with a proposal for a certain activity,
there is an activity matrix which quickly tells the administrator which
policies apply to that activity. If CZM and the agency have worked out
specific priorities or agreements regarding how either a regulatory
or a funding program is to be administered, these procedures will be
detailed in the Memoranda of Understanding, in the guidelines and in new
or revised regulations.

The maps identify sensitive coastal areas critical to marine
productivity, plus areas of natural hazard, existing development, and
recreational opportunity. The major purpose of the maps, regulations and
quidelines is to ensure adequate protection for these marine resources.
When agencies are approached by a permit applicant or are deciding how
to allocate their own project funds, they need simply refer to the CZM
maps. If the project is located in or near an area identified on the
maps, they will then refer to the commentary, policy sections, and revised
regulations for further guidance. Thus, the maps will serve as internal
"flags" to notify all agencies that this area is significant for some
reason. The discussions in the policy sections will provide information
on why such areas are significant while the site-by-site commentary and
the regulations will provide additional guidance for deciding how to
respond to the decision at hand.

The maps also indicate where these critical resources combine to
form a more diverse and interdependent complex, such as an estuarine
system, where activities must be reviewed for their impacts on the whole
complex. A detailed commentary has been prepared for each of these
complexes to advise decision-makers and the public on its sensitivities
to, and opportunities for, development. A basic policy of the CZM Plan
and of the Growth Policy for Massachusetts is that development should
be guided into existing developed centers in order to maximize economic
benefits and to preserve the environment by concentrating development in
areas where alterations from the natural state have irrevocably occurred
so that further ecological deterioration can be minimized. This policy
will be reinforced throughout the management effort.

This system has also been designed to provide a significant new
voice to the public. Over the past three years, hundreds of citizens have
contributed their time in an effort to improve coastal zone management.
The maps and the commentary record and reflect their concerns and their
information. Through these maps, citizens will speak to the agency
personnel who make the decisions affecting those areas of key concern.
While CZM and agencies will review projects under the permit processes
and through the National Enviornmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) procedures, the intention
of networking is to inform developers, decision-makers, and conservation-
ists of the CZM policies before funds are spent for engineering or impact
studies or project plans are solidified. Citizens are strongly urged to
contact CZM early in their planning processes, and before sites have 'even
been chosen, to determine whether the project is consistent with the

3-6

Plan and what sanctions or incentives are applicable to that proposal.

The second key element of the management system is the federal
agencies who also have a vital role in the coastal zone. As discussed
in the Federal Consistency section, all federal agencies will need to
carry out their projects and permitting programs consistently with the
Plan. While CZM and federal agencies will have their own administrative
mechanism, the maps will also serve to emphasize to federal decision-
makers the significance of the various areas and to indicate the policy,
special regulations, or heightened concerns that the state attaches to
them.

The third element of the CZM management system is the closer
integration with local concerns. Through our public participation net-
work CZM has repeatedly heard citizens voice the desire to redevelop their
waterfront, acquire beaches, etc., but they frequently have felt hampered
either by a lack of funds, a lack of ability to manipulate the myriad
of state and federal programs, or a perceived disparity in the directions
and focus of state vs. local procedures.

In those programs which are jointly administered by state and local
units (such as Environmental Code, governing sub-surface sewage discharges
or the guidelines for local Conservation Commissions where the state
essentially sets standards for local implementation), these documents
will be revised to reflect CZM concerns in order to insure more consistent
management of critical areas by all levels.

It is a CZM goal to help state and local decision-making support
one another. Many municipalities have areas zoned for water-dependent
uses, for commercial and industrial use, or for conservation open space.
While no project could come to the state without having received all
prerequisite local approvals, the intention of EOEA networking is to
expedite the state permit process and to reinforce local zoning policies
when that development is consistent with the CZM Plan. Another purpose
of the Plan is to assist communities in their protection of local resources.
The Plan, the maps, and CZM's technical advisors can assist local officials
in their decisions. CZM people will be available to answer questions --
ecological, geological, legal, etc. -- or to present information to
Conservation Commissions and public bodies. Secondly, the CZM staff,
-savvy in the inter-workings of state and federal programs, will also be
willing to promote and expedite local proposals, in the role of a
general advisor/ombudsman.

And finally, through 'a program of special incentives, which will be
funded by CZM with its Section 306 monies, local governments will be
eligible to receive more incentive technical assistance, legal support
and cash grants to facilitate implementation of those projects which CZM
would like to encourage. Here is the opportunity for that desired harbor
area renewal project to come to be.

3-7

THE CREATION OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFAIRS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOR MASSACHUSETTS

The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) was
established in 1969 as part of a major reorganization of Massachusetts
state government. It and the other cabinet level offices were initially
charged with the responsibility to develop recommendations for
restructuring state government. Section 50 of Chapter 704 of the Acts
of 1969 states in this respect that:

"Such recommendations shall be made with a view to the
elimination of duplication and overalpping in the functions,
administrative practices and facilities of said agencies,
the combination and coordination of information systems, the
creation of administrative structures which will assure
coordination of information systems, the creation of administrative
structures which will assure coordinated and joint planning, the
establishment of clear and readily identifiable lines of
authority and allocations of responsibility, the coordination
and consolidation of the delivery of state services at state
and regional levels, and the enlargement of career opportunities."

Specifically, under Section 2, codified as MGLA Chapter 21A,
Section 2, Environmental Affairs is charged with the following power
and responsibilities:

"The office and its appropriate deaprtments and divisions shall
carry out the state environmental policy and in so doing they shall:

1) develop policies, plans, and programs for carrying out their
assigned duties;
2) provide for the management of air, water and land resources to
assure the protection and balanced utilization of such resources
within the commonwealth, realizing that providing safe water to
drink and clean air to breath is a basic mandate;
3) provide for the propagation, protection, control and management of
fish, other aquatic life, wildlife, and endangered species and
promote and further develop hunting, fishing, recreational and
competitive marksmanship, and trapping opportunities in the
commonwealth;
4) aid in the promotion and development of the food and agricultural
resources of the commonwealth to preserve agricultural lands,
.and insure an adequate supply of high quality farm products;
5) provide for the regulation and management of marine and coastal
fisheries and natural resources including those located in the
territorial waters, the economic zone waters and the continental
shelf, wetlands, estuaries, shorelines, and interior of the
commonwealth;
6) promote the perpetuation, extension, and proper management of the
public and private forest lands of the commonwealth;

3-8

7) develop statewide policies regarding the acquisition, protection
and use of areas of critical environmental concern to the
commonwealth;
8) develop and administer programs relating to recreation including
the acquisition of land, development of facilities, and the
provision of advisory services to municipalities and private
organizations;
9) promote the best usage of land, water, and air to optimize and
preserve environmental quality by encouraging and providing for,
in cooperation with other appropriate state agencies, planned
industrial, commercial, recreational and community development;
10) provide for the preservation and abatement of water, land, air,
noise, and other pollution or environmental degradation;
11) promote the preservation and enhancement of natural, scenic,
historic, and aesthetic qualities in both urban and rural areas;
12) provide for the control of insects, plant diseases, and pests, and
regulate the use and disposal of pesticides;
13) develop programs relating to the reclamation or disposal of solid
waste material and the operation of sewer and water systems;
14) encourage the restoration and reclamation of degraded or despoiled
areas, including harbors and inland and coastal waters;
15) manage all lands and properties acquired by or assigned to them
to preserve their natural beauty, wilderness, or open character
of hydrological, geological, historical, scientific, wildlife
management, recreational or other significance value;
16) assist other state and regional agencies in developing appropriate
programs and policies relating to land use planning and regulation
in the commonwealth;
17) analyze and make recommendations, in cooperation with other state
and regional agencies, concerning the development of energy policies
and programs in the commonwealth;
18) advise, assist, and cooperate with such oher departments, agencies,
authorities, officials, and institutions, including state
institutions of higher learning, as may be concerned with or
involved in matters under their control or supervision;
19) encourage recycling, resource recovery and environmentally
sound purchasing practives to conserve resources and reduce waste;
20) monitor the environment to identify changes and to insure
efficient and effective control practices;
21) develop environmental datq management capabilities to aid
environmental planning and decision-making;
22) encourage, support, and undertake research facilities to produce
information relating to the ecological system, pollution preser-
vation and abatement, resource management, and other areas
essential to implementing the environmental policies of the
commonwealth;
23) advise and assist local governments, private and public
institutions, organizations and associations, businesses,
industries, and individuals by providing and acting as a clearing-
house for environmental information, data and other materials;
24) promote the development of sound environmental education programs;

3-9

25) represent and act on behalf of the commonwealth in connection
with federal grant programs;
26) keep accounts, records, personal data, enter into contracts,
adjust claims, accept gifts, bequests and devices, and subject
to appropriation acquire real or personal property by eminent
domain or otherwise;
27) advise and assist state agencies, cities and towns, and other units
of local government in the preparation or enhancement programs;
28) promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out their
statutory responsibilities;

In order to assfst the office in the discharge of its duties, the
Secretary may request from any agency or political subdivision of the
commonwealth any information relevant to the discharge of such duties.
An information copy of each application submitted by any political
subdivision to any public or private agency for a grant or loan with
respect to any environmental protection or enhancement program, including
the acquisition of land and facilities for these purposes shall be filed
with the office not later than the twentieth day after submission.
As the primary agency of the commonwealth for environmental planning, the
office shall utilize the services and plans of regional planning agencies,
conservation districts, conservation commissions and historical commissions
in fulfilling its environmental planning responsibilities."

Of key significance is that these broad powers and responsibilities
are given to the departments and divisions of Environmental Affairs in
addition to the Office of the Secretary itself. Thus, while each line
agency still has its own specific enabling legislation, Chapter 21A
superimposes on the specific criteria in those individual acts the
requirement that every EOEA agency carry out the state environmental
policy in the manner directed by Section Two.

The State Environmental Policy is voiced in several places. Article
49/97 of the Constitution declares:

"The people should have the right to clean air and water,
freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the natural
scenic, historic and esthetic qualities of their environment;
and the protection of the people in their right to the conser-
vation, development and utilization of the agricultural, mineral,
forest, water, air .:tnd other natural resources is hereby declared
to be a public purpose."

Furthermore, in Chapter 30, Section 61, the Massachusetts Environmental
Protection Act (MEPA) directs:

"All agencies, departments, boards, commissions, and authorities
(to) ... determine the impact on the natural environment of all
works, projects or activities conducted by them and shall use all
practicable means and measures to minimize damage to the environ-
ment (which) shall mean any destruction, damage or impair-

3-10

ment and eutrophication of rivers, streams or subsurface
water resource$; destruction of seashores, dunes, Marine
resources, underwater archeological resources, wetlands, open
spaces, natural areas, parks, historic districts or sites. Damage
to the environment shall not be construed to include any
unsignificant damage to or impairment of such resources."

Chapter 21A does not expand basic agency jurisdiction or authority.
It does not require agencies to undertake new programs which are beyond the
scope of their authorizing legislation. But Chapter 21A does impose an
affirmative duty to implement the state environmental policy when they
are acting within their existing jurisdiction, whether reviewing a permit
or conducting some activity.

Where the grant of authority is broad or general (for instance, if
the statute or case law uses such words as public welfare, good order,
or care and control; where the state is to serve as a trustee; or where
no guidance is provided), then Chapter 21A acts to focus the exercise
of that discretion. Chapter 21A operates to prevent an agency from
taking any action which would serve to contraveme its provisions.

Let us take as an example, a proposal for an activity in a critical
area. The effect of Chapter 21A is that an administrator could not
proceed in a manner which would be contrary to policies regarding the
protection and iise of areas of critical environmental concern to the
Commonealth. Or if a project were to entail risks to marine resources,
the administrator could not act in ways which would be inconsistent with
the directives to "provide for the propagation, protection., control and
management of fish, other aquatic life ..." or to "provide for the
regulation and management of marine and coastal fisheries and natural
resources including those located in the (open sea), wetlands,
estuaries, shorelines,.,.." etc.

There are other cases in which the enabling elgislation is of a
somewhat more limited nature in that it identifies several interests
which are to be protected but gives no guidance for how those interests
are to be protected or what constitutes protection. Here Chapter 21A
will not expand the litt of interests but it does serve to define the
scope of those articulated interests. For example, the statute may
call upon the administrator to address the protection of fisheries, the
prevention of pollution, or the prevention of storm damage. Chapter 21A
thus defines these grants of authority. In addition, there may be a
very few statutes where administrators serve purely ministerial roles;
Chapter 21A would not alter these limited grants of authority.

In sum, the Legislative mandate to the EOEAagencies requires an
integrated approach towards critical areas, towards the balanced
and best usage of all resources, and towards conflicting uses of land
natural and commercial, urban and rural or historical and industrial.
Chapter 21A thus furthers the essential purpose of Reorganization by
ensuring that no agency can wilfully act in any way which would under-
mine the concerns of any other unit within EOEA.

3-11

The Coastal Zone Management Plan, which will receive full endorse-
ment by the Governor of the Commonwealth and by his Cabinet (composed
of the Secretaries of all of the Executive Offices of the Commonwealth),
and the Growth Policy Plan (which received similar gubernatd-nial
endorsement) are a part of the state environmental policy. These
endorsements will, in effect, incorporate the CZM Plan into the
Chapter 21A directive. Furthermore, as a part of the regulations for
EOEA, the Secretary will adopt the CZM Plan. Thus, as a part of the
inte-rnaloperating policy of the Secretariat, EOEA agencies will be
doubly bound to carry out the Plan's directives.

EOEA AGENCIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

-The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) is the overall
fiscal@policy, planning, and legal decision-making entity for
environmental matters. Besides CZM, there are three units within
the Executive Office: the Division of Law Enforcement, The Division
of Conservation Services, and the Massachusetts Environmental Impact
Review Program.

-The Division of Law Enforcement (DLE) has the responsibility of
enforcing, through legal action if necessary, all of the Laws and
regulations the Executive Office is empowered to enforce. The 70-
member force ensures compliance with the Commonwealth's hunting,
fishing, and trapping laws, as well as laws relating to forests,
forest fires, and the operation of motorboats and snowmobiles. DLE
is involved in the detection of inland and coastal wetland violations
under the state's wetland protection laws. DLE officers work with
the Division of Water Pollution Control in detecting oil spills and
other pollution sources in an accelerated program to clean up
Massachusetts' waters. CZM will work with this unit, and may supplement
.its staff, to ensure adequate protection of critical areas and
enforcement of CZM policies.

-The Division of Conservation Services (DCS) assists regional local
conservation commissions in their efforts to preserve and acquire
open space land, including the administration of a program to provide
partial reimbursement for lands purchased for conservation and public
recreation. Conservation Services provides financial assistance to
15 regional conservation districts, and coordinates their activities
with other agencies in establishing a team approach to environmental
problem solving. Finally, Conservation Services administers a land
conservation restriction program which allows property owners to
retain title to property while remaining legally bound not to develop
it. The land owner receives tax advantages for accepting such
restrictions. CZM will work with DCS to insure that funding requests
for acquisition of critical coastal areas will receive high priority.

-Environmental Impact Review This division of the Secretary's staff
is responsible for the evaluating and monitoring of environmental

3-12

impact statements required by the Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act (MEPA). MEPA established an environmental review process
for 'state actions, projects with state funding contributions, or
projects requiring permits or licenses from state agencies. The
intent of MEPA is to improve environmental planning and the design of
activities so that they minimize damage to the natural environment,
but not necessarily to stop them. As an informational device, MEPA
attempts to provide full dsiclosure of the environmental consequences
of state related activities. The MEPA staff also reviews and
comments on appropriate federal projects filed under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). There also- are procedural
protections for activities in designated critical areas. CZM will
continue its close working relationship with the MEPA program, and
will work out special procedures for review of projects in highly
critical areas.

The majority of the regulatory and program authorities of EOEA are
grouped into five major departments.

-Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, (DEQE) is basically
Massachusetts' equivalent to the federal Environmental Protection
Agency. DEQE serves as the state's principle environmental watch-
dog, continually monitoring the quality of our air and waters. DEQE
also administers regulatory programs to reverse any current environ-
mental degradation and to guarantee the future quality of our air,
land,axfd water resources. This Department is of key concern to
CZM. The programs noted under Implementation Measures in Chapter II
reveal the ways in which CZM will coordinate with and supplement the
activities of DEQE.

-The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) embodies the state's
commitment to protect, enhance, develop, and manage the natural
resources of Massachusetts for this and future generations. DEM
manages lands which cover 255,000 acres and are held for timber,
recreation and watershed purposes. CZM and DEM will be working
together on those programs which relate to the coastal zone: Ocean
Sanctuaries, Wetland Restrictions, and Scenic Rivers.

-The Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles (DFW&RV)
manages and studies inland and marine fish and wildlife resources.
It works to improve markets and resources for commercial fisheries
and opportunities for public access for recreational boaters and
sports fishermen. It also enforces the state's laws concerning
motorboats, snowmobiles, trail bikes, and other off-road vehicles.
The programs in DFW and RV of major concern to CZM are Marine
Fisheries and Public Access.

-Department of the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) was the
nation's first legally constituted metropolitan district. By
utilizing economics of scale and efficienes not available to
individual communities, it currently serves 54 cities and towns in
the greater Boston area with one of the largest domestic water supply

3-13

and distribution systems in the world, a sewer system with thousands
of miles of local and trunk sewer lines, and a recreation system
exceeding 12,500 acres of land. Reservations, ice skating rinks,
swimming pools, beaches, road and parkways, playgrounds, ball courts,
zoos, and museums plus a substantial police force all fall under MDC
control. Since many of these facilities lie in the coastal zone, CZM
will ensure that they are managed consistently with the Plan.

-The Department of Food and Agriculture has the legislative mandate to
11preserve agricultural lands, and to issue an adequate supply of high
quality farm products." The Department inspects and grades food
products and fairs, licenses producers, and investigates market prices.
It administers the agricultural assessment program, of key interest
for CZM's open-space policies, which provides farmers preferential
tax rates in exchange for retaining land in agricultural production.

THE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING, REGnATIONS AND GUIDELINES

During the third year of the planning period and probably continuing
into the implementation period, CZM and the EOEA agencies will be
preparing regulations. Some agencies already have regulations, some have
just procedural and not substantive regulations, and others have no
regulations at all. Furthermore, no agency has regulations specifically
addressing activities in critical coastal areas. In some cases significant
work has already been done -- the Environmental Code covers subsurface
sewage discharges and the Wetlands Restriction Programs lists permissible
activities. For other cases like the Ocean Sanctuaries program, the
Scenic Rivers Program, the Executive Office itself, or in integrating
the Colonial Ordinance with the Waterways program, major efforts by the
agencies and CZM will be required.

The Memoran-da; of Understanding will fill the general purpose of
substantiating the cooperative relationship between CZM and other EOEA
units. But they will contain far more. Where it is important for certain
prorgams to incorporate views of other agencies, such as Marine Fisheries
or Food and Agriculture in decisions made by DEQE, the Memoranda of
Understanding will detail this. Where the CZM policies require a
modification in administrative practices, the memoranda will outline
the new procedures. Where priorities must be assigned due to limited
staff or financial resources, such as which communities the Wetlands
Restrictions Program will cover next of how Self-Help funds will be
allocated, the Memoranda of Understanding addresses these. Since CZM
will also be supplementing the staff of certain agenceis to ensure that
there is adequate personnel to provide the requisite scrutiny for activities
in critical areas, the Memoranda of Understanding will also record such
agreements.

Some of the regulations will relate to specific activities which the
policy sections addressed, as for example, the discharge of heavy metals
or dredging of contaminated spoil. Other regulations will generally be

3-14

geared to the marine ecosystems which are identified in the discussion
of CZM maps. For instance, an appendix to the new Environmental Code
will deal with critical areas. Since the new regulations will address
land types they will be applicable throughout the state where such an
area is encountered. For example, rules governing setbacks from fresh-
water bodies or percolation rates through.;soil t,17pes will apply inland
as well as on the coast.

In other cases the work CZM has been doing with other agencies is
really the preparation of guidelines, not regulations. CZM has been
involved with the Division of Waterways in preparing a rating system to
rank the relative benefits of navigation proposals. CZM and Waterways
are also preparing a matrix to provide administrators with a quick guide
to the impacts of their most frequently proposed activities upon the types
of special areas.

Where the regulations, guidelines and Memoranda of Understanding have
established new or higher thresholds for activities in coastal areas,
the effect will be to shift the burden of proof from the government to
the applicant. In other words, a general standard may apply in normal,
non-critical areas. And for the highly critical areas, the regulations,
etc., will require consideration of even broader areas and impacts and
the burden of proof will be even higher. The essential reason for the
stiffer standards is that as the degree of sensitivity and importance
of these areas escalates, the need for stricter controls also escalates.
These standards will be the guiding criteria for all agency actions. But,
should a situation arise, on an individual site, where the concern attached
to that area or by that activity would not in any way affect the concern
addressed by the CZM policy, then in that isolated circumstance, the
regulation would not apply. To put it in the language of lawyers, on
the basis of scientific evidence it has been determined that these
classes of areas are of particular environmental sensitivity and since the
Legislature has mandated all EOEA agencies to promulgate regulations
concerning the protection of areas of critical enviornmental concern and
the general management of coastal resources, the new standards as
cont,@An@din the CZM-EOEA Plan, maps, regulations, guidelines and
Memoranda of Understanding, will be presumed necessary and will be applied;
unless such presumption can be overcome by an affirmative showing by
the applicant, an agency, or some other interested individual, that
the result is unreasonable as applied to that site or activity in that it
does not jeopardize the concern addressed by the statement of policy or
by the identification and classification of the area.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION MECHANISM

EOEA processes several thousand permits per year for projects in the
coastal zone. In addition, many agencies conduct numerous other activities-
building shore protection works, acquiring parkland, etc. CZM's presence
will require a re-analysis of priorities and a reweighing of decision-
making criteria. There are bound to be conflicts. There have also always

3-15

been conflicts bewteen some programs, well before the coming of CZM.

CZM networking will serve to identify those conflicts early in
decision-making process, so that they can be resolved without great
time delay. Any disagreements will be resolved at the level of the
Secretary.

Section 4 of the Reorganization Act gave to the Secretary the
following powers:

"In order to enable him to coordinate and improve the
operations of all departments, divisions and other
administrative units within the office, the secretary
shall have the following powers and duties concerning
any power of duty assigned to any such department,division
or other administrative--ufiit :
(1) the power and duty to resolve administrative and
jurisdictional conflicts between any such agencies or
officers;
(2) the:power and duty to implement, upon request of
any such agency of officer, programs jointly agreed to
by the secretary and such an agency or officer;
(3) the power and duty to coordinate and improve
program activities involving two or more agencies or
officers."

As mutually agreed to in the Memoranda of Understanding, all
EOEA units will refer to the CZM policies and maps before taking any
action in the coastal zone. Should that action be located in or near
a special area, the agency will refer to the commentary and the
regulations to determine why that area was considered important and by
whom. Perhaps Marine Fisheries has identified it as a significant
spawning ground, perhaps DEM's Wetlands Program has restricted it,
perhaps the Federal Flood Insurance Porgram has mapped it as a hazard
zone, perhaps citizens have identified it as a key historical and
recreational spot, or perhaps CZM has determined that it is a valuable
commercial port. If the action proposed by or to the acting agency is
inconsistent with the reason the area has been designated, then the
agency will contact the concerned party-be it another state agency, a
federal agency, the local planning board, or CZM. All efforts will be
made on the part of all af f ected parties to modify or otherwise resolve
the dispute informally. CZM will assist in this process if requested.

But should the agency decide that it will proceed in a direction
contrary to that outlined in the Plan, then a conflict will have
arisen within EOEA. It will be at the level of the Office of the
Secretary that the dispute will be resolved. CZM policy, because it has
been adopted as an official part of EOEA policy, will be accorded the
same presumption as were the regulations discussed above. The CZM policy
may perhaps be over-ruled, perhaps the agency decision. But the key
idea for all actors is that if conflicts develop after all units have

3-16

considered the appropriate criteria and guidelines, then that conflict
is to be resolved at the Executive level. The essenti@dl goal is for
EOEA to take a uniform position on any coastal issue.

THE CZM MAPS - DEFINITION OF SPECIAL AREAS

Some CZM policies relate to certain activities wherever they occur
in the coastal zone. Others are to be applied just to certain coastal
areas. In addition, since CZM policies vary, from providing incentives
for development in some areas to protecting other areas, it was necessary
to classify areas in several categories. The categories are: Significant
Resource Areas (SRA's), Areas for Preservation and Restoration (APRA's)
and Special Assistance Areas (SAA's). The sections below desribe these
categories, define the boundaries, and outline how they will be managed.

SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREAS AND THE BASE MAPS (SPA's)

The CZM base map of the coastal zone identifies important resource
areas, both natural and man-made, and areas that contain potential hazards.

Five categories of resource and hazard areas are given below and are
defined by the subcategories they encompass. They have been defined.and.
identified using definitions expressed in existing laws, information
provided by citizens, and relevant data maps. For these subcategories
the agencies or organizations which have generated the initial information
are cited. While the maps reflect all coastal areas which fit the
criteria, should land use change occur or new information arise, the maps
will be corrected to conform to these definitions.

1) Marine Environment: The important role of marine ecosystems
within the coastal zone has been thoroughly elaborated on in
the policy chapter. Based on the systems and processes discussed
there, the following types of marine enviroments. have been
defined and identified for management purposes.

a. barrier beach system: a narrow strip of land or uncon-
solidated material extending roughly parallel to the
general coast and either completely or partially separated
from the mainland by a narrow body of fresh brackish, or
saline water. In addition to its ocean facing beach, the
system may include vegetation or unvegetated dunes and
may be fringed on its landward side by marsh vegetation.
Undeveloped (natural conditions intact and relatively free
from alteration) and developed barrier beach systems are
delineated on the basis of information provided by the
Institute of Man and Environment (IME) at the University
of Massachusetts for CZM.

b. dune - a mound, ridge, or hill of wind blown or drifted
sand which can be bare or vegetated, stabilized or
migrating. These features have also been identified by
IME and include both natural and altered dunes.

3-17

c. high saltwater marsh - lowlying coastal wetlands characterizEd
by the presence of Spartina patens. These marshes are
flooded by seasonal high tides. They have been identified
and mapped for CZM by the Institute for-Man and Environment.

d. low saltwater marsh - areas vegetated by Spartina alter.-
niflora. This land is submerged by every high tide. These
marshes also have been identified by IME.

e. shellfish beds - areas of bottom which, in combination with
other environmental factors, favor the establishment and
production of harvestable shellfish: blue mussel, oyster,
quahog and soft shell clams, bay scallops, sea clam, and
ocean quahog. Bottom areas with associated Zostera marina
serve in places as bay scallop nurseries ' These areas have
been identified and mapped for CZM by the Division of Marine
Fisheries.

f. salt ponds - a shallow enclosed or semi-enclosed bay of
saline water formed as the result of glaciation or barrier
beach formation at the mouth of a shallow bay. Salt ponds
are subject to fresh water influence from small streams
emptying into the upper reaches of the pond or springs
along the periphery and/or in the pond itself. Salt marsh
vegetation usually forms a fringe around the pond. Salt
ponds have been identified by the CZM staff using the USGS
quadrangle maps, air photos, and field knowledge.

9- andy beaches - shoreline features made of unconsolidated
sand and/or pebbles eroded from headlands or brought down
rivers that carry the products of weathering and erosion
from land masses or transported from offshore sources.
Sandy beaches extend from mean low tide line landward across
summer and winter berms to where vegetation begins. These
beaches have been mapped by CZM using IME and Division of
Mineral Resources data.

h. areas of finfish concentration - areas within estuaries,
bays and coastal waters which are spawning, nursery or feeding
grounds for finfish. Spawning areas within rivers are also
shown for anadromous fish. All of these areas were
identified and mapped by the Division of Marine Fisheries.
for CZM.

i. e.@!@yr - a semi-enclosed body of water which has a free
connection with the open sea and within which sea water is
measurably diluted with fresh water derived from outflowing
fresh water rivers. In most instances, the landward extent
of the mixing of fresh and salt water is shown by the presence
of saltwater marshes which form along the banks of the river.
CZM has mapped the estuaries using McConnell, and IME
vegetation maps. Where no salt marsh system is present, field

3-18

studies were made to determine the extent of salt water
mixing. The CZM maps show only the surface water areas of
the estuaries (not the wetlands) from the river headlands
to the inland point where saltwater mixing is no longer
evident.

j. coastal embayments - marine waters that have a restricted
opening to the ocean due at least in part to the formation
of a barrier beach. Unlike estuaries or salt ponds there
is very little fresh water influence. Coastal -embayments
are shallow and may support healthy stands of eelgrass
and populations of shellfish. Most coastal embayments
support wtll developed salt marsh systems. CZM has identified
and mapped the coastal embayments showing only those areas
covered by marine waters from the headlands of the seaward
opening landward to the mean low tide line. The associated
marsh system is illustrated under the headings high salt-
water marsh and low saltwater marsh.

k. freshwater ponds - enclosed bodies of fresh water which,
within the Massachusetts' coastal zone, were formed-primarily
by glacial action. These ponds weru created by blocks of
stagnant ice that became isolated from the receding glacier.
When the blocks melted depressions remained which later
became filled with water. These ponds, which include the
Great Ponds, were identified and mapped by CZM using USGS
quadrangle maps and field investigation.

1. aquacultur land and wffat%@r - tracts of land and water in
estuaries and coastal embayments used for the propagation
of shellfish. These areas have been identified by the
Division of Marine Fisheries.

2) Hazardous Areas: The storm buffering capabilities of natural
areas and the hazards posed--to people and property located in
damage prone areas has been discussed in Chapter II. In order to
respond to the needs of such areas, the following criteria for
site identification has been prepared:

a. Flood Plains - Coastal lands located within the 100 year
tidal flood zone. If they had been completed, town Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIR3prepared by HUD under the National
Flood Insurance Program were used to delineate A zones
(areas subject to 100 year tidal floods) and V zones (area
within the 100 year tidal flood zone that are subject to
storm wave impact). For towns who's FIRM's had not been
completed, tidal flood profile data compiled, by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and preliminary flood hazard
boundary maps prepared by HUD were used to delineate the
100 year tidal flood zone.

3-19

b. Erosion - Areas where there is a loss of land along the
shoreline caused either by natural forces or by the action
of man. Critical erosion is defined as erosion of shorefront
property that causes it to become unusable or imminently
rendered unusable for its primary use or uses. All other
erosion is termed moderate. Erosion areas are delineated
on the basis of data collected and mapped by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for the Massachusetts Division of
Mineral Resources. It is expected that this data will
eventually be supplemented with information on E zones
(flood related erosion areas) generated by HUD's Flood
Insurance Rate Mapping process.

c. Areas of accretion - New land or shoals that are being
formed along the coast due to the deposition of silt and
sand by the littoral drift. These areas have been identified
using data compiled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Division of Mineral
Resources.

d. Areas of mass wasting - Land subject to slow or sudden
downslope movement of a massive amount of earth material
(rock debris or unconsolidated sediments). In the coastal
environment this most commonly occurs on sea cliffs or
bluffs where the tow of the slope is being removed by wave
action. These areas have been identified by Dr. Clifford
Kaye of the USGS and by CZM staff.

3) Recreational Areas: One of the greatest assets of the coastline
is the recreational opportunities it offers the citizens of the
Commonwealth. In order to assess the supply and distribution of
recreation facilities, a map of the existing sites was prepared,
using inventories prepared by the Regional Planning Agencies, the
Department of Environmental Management, Conservation Services,
the SENE Report, and citizen input. CZM has identified and
mapped all public and private boat marinas, boat launches, camp-
groundsl golf courses, amusement parksli beaches accessible to the
public and public parks over 10 acres. The following
characteristics define special resource areas.

a.. existing recreation sites- which 7omprise the majority of
beaches, campgrounds, large parks, marinas and boat ramps.
These sites are sufficient in their present state, and
and warrant no further improvements or expansions. Sources
are the reports listed above.

b. existing recreation sites suitable for multiple use and/or
increased maintenance - existing areas that are under-
utilized or whose use can be increased through improved
maintenance or multiple use management. Developed from
citizen comments and CZM's inventory of recreation sites.

3-20

c. existing recreation sites suitable for physical expansion
recreational facilities which can be expanded into adjacent
undeveloped areas which are ideally suited for the expansion
of such activities. Criteria for site selection will be
developed under continued recreation planning funds (see
Recreation section).

d. areas suitable for new recreation - areas whose undeveloped
nature, proximity to populations, and suitable characteristics
make them ideal for new acquisition. Developed in part
through citizen comments and undeveloped "coastal" view land.

4) Visual: the characteristics and importance of the visual environ-
ment of the coastal zone were discussed in Chapter II. Areas
that relate to the policies expressed in that section include:

a. coastal viewshed - the inland boundary of areas within
which views of the shoreline and water are unobstructed by
topography, vegetation, or development. The viewshed was
constructed by CZM using USGS topographical maps.

b. undeveloped coastal view lands - agricultural or other open
space areas that contain less than one unit of development
per acre and across which views of the shoreline or coastal
features (e.g. dunes, salt marshed) are possible. Undeveloped
coastal view lands have been identified and mapped by CZM.

c. sites for historical or educational value - individual
sites that are either illustrative of typical natural
processes or environment types, representative of relatively
unique natural occurrenc.es,or important for their historical
or cultural value. Major coastal dependent activities
which could offer visual educational opportunities are also
noted. Primary sources of data include the Massachusetts
Landscape and Natural Areas Survey and the Massachusetts
Historical Commission.

5) Developed Areas: The desire to concentrate development within
areas where similar development now occurs has been demonstrated
to be beneficial from many perspectives. Existing developed areas
include marine transpotation and energy sites. In addition, some
areas offer mineral resource potential that can be exploited for
the benefit of the Commonwealth.

a. port areas - locations that include navigable channels of
20 foot depth or more, lands abutting such channels which
are zoned for marine dependent or industrial use, and well-
developed road and rail links leading to major arterial
and trunk routes. Such locations are also served by public
water supply and sewerage treatment systems capable of
accommodating heavy industrial use and are separated or
remote from residential neighborhoods and commercial business

3-21

districts. To identify these areas, zoning maps, urban
renewal and port facility plans, and fie ld investigations
were used.

b. developed harbors - sheltered harbors and navigable
channels which provide mooring space, berths, slips, ramps,
and docks serving a regionwide boating public, commercial
fishermen, cruise boats, ferries, or light marine industry.
Such harbors may also present unique opportunities for the
fishing industry or for waterfront renewal and revitalization.
These areas have been identified by using zoning maps,.
navigation charts, McConnell land use maps, inventories of
ramps, marinas and piers, community plans, surveys of
habrormasters, and field investigations.

c. other urban waterfronts - shoreline areas which do not
presently contain developed harbors but which are character-
ized by extremely dense, urban residential neighborhoods or
commercial development. Such waterfront areas have been
identified by using McConnell land use maps, zoning maps,
community plans, and field investigations.

d. energy facilities - sites of existing major energy
facilities in the coastal zone. These facilities have been
identified in the Chapt-er II Energy Section.

e. offshore areas of potential mineral deposits - potential
offshore sand and gravel deposits between Cape Ann and
Brant Rock (generally between 40 and 150 foot contours)
were identified by Raytheon Company, Oceanographic and
Environmental Services Division for the Massachusetts
Division of Mineral Resources. Other potential mineral
resources (such as oil and gas and possibly coal) have yet
to be identified.

The above lands and waters play a vital role in the functioning of
the coast and thus have been identified by CZM, and in many instances by
state laws, as areas which merit special consideration.

But the basic rule is that no EOEA agency is about to conduct nor
permit any activity in or near an SRA which would be inconsistent with
the reason the area has been considered significant and the policies
applied to it.

Where @networking and Chapter 21A will affect a significant change
when an administrator is reviewing a project under a law which does not
expressly address those resources, the effect of that project on those
areas must now be considered.

Let us take for example, a proposal to construct a large solid fill
pier. Construction of such a pier requires a tideland license from the

3-22

the Waterways Program. Prior to newworking, the license was granted or
denied based on navigational considerations. Under networking, a
principal CZM concern that of impairing natural flushing rates and
circulation patterns must also be taken into account. To wit, in
highly productive and environmentally sensitive enclosed water bodies
such as estuaries and coastal embayments (both of which are SRA's),
proposals for solid fill piers will only be licensed if reduction in
flushing capabilities and circulation patterns will not adversely
affect water quality or marine productivity. If the solid fill pier is
to be located in a salt marsh or shellfish bed (both SRA's as well), the
effects on marine productivity could be significant, and the project would
need to be denied as it would contradict the requirements of Chapter 21A
to protect fish, other aquatic life, and areas of critical environmental
concern. If the proposal is for a timber piling pier the problem of inter-
ference with flushing capacity and circualtion patterns would not arise -nor
would the problem of filling or altering salt marshes. Thus, small
piers on timber pilings will be categorically exempt undet the new
CZM - Waterways Program regulations.

Preliminary SRA maps were reviewed at regional meetings during
which citizens updated and corrected the data and outlined areas of
special concern to them. CZM asked the citizens to include within these
sites comments addressing public land that was being severely or
moderately eroding,scenic areas that were subject to erosion, the use
of public and private recreational sites, sites for potential new
recreation, areas of high scenic quality within the coastal zone and
sites which offered scenic views of the coast. In addition to these
areas, many citizens designated other areas that were of special
importance and interest to the town. Citizens' comments are recorded on
the maps, further enhancing descriptionsof SRA's and forming part of
the basis for the identification of Areas for Preservation or Restoration
and Special Assistance Areas.

AREAS FOR PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION(APR's)

Under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, Massachusetts is
required to designate areas whose conservation, recreational, ecological,
and/or aesthetic values are so important that these characteristics must
be preserved or when need be,restored.

Since changes introduced into one part of an ecosystem so frequently
have an impact on other parts of the system, but may or may not be
perceivable at the direct site of the change, it is of utmost importance
that an APR be treated as interdependent system. Therefore, they will
encompass more land area than SRA's and receive far closer scrutiny
than SRA's.

Where several SRA's join and overlap one another and serve to define
an interrelated marine complex, which may be high in marine productivity,
contain storm buffering features, be particularly sensitive to ecological
alteration, or have unique aesthetic values, that complex may acheive
that high measure of importance which will permit its designation as
an APR. A description of each APR will be provided which will enumerate

3-23

the factors from all of the policy sections which led to its designation.

APR's will then be designated by the Secretary of the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs as areas of critical environmental
concern. For these areas the categorical exemptions granted to
activities that fall within the MEPA review process (Chapter 30 MGL
Sections 61 and 62) are suspended. (Section 8.3 of the MEPA Regulations)
This will allow EOEA to review all projects proposed for an APR if they
use state funds or need a state permit. Regulations and Memoranda
of Understanding governing the permitted activities within the entire
area will be formulated and will be more stringent than those applied
to SRA's. Furthermore, no EOEA agency will be able to permit or
conduct an activity adjacent to an APR which might, through currents,
winds, or on-land activities, have a detrimental effect on the APR.

For example, extension of public sewer services may be
encouraged in such SRA's as developed harbors. In APR's, however, the
growth inducing effects of puBlic sewer services may pose risks of
damage to the resources deemed important to the area's designation
as an APR. Thus, extension of sewer services will be carefully reviewed
and may be denied or conditions placed on their capacity, design,
and layout.

Sites recommended for APR designation will be outlined on the
CZM base maps. The designation will serve to inform the public,
before they embark on a development project, that a highly sensitive
area existsand as such, all EOEA agencies and federal agencies will be
administering their programs in full conformance and consistency with
the policies established for those areas. Furthermore, CZM will be
monitoring the actions taken by state and federal agencies to serve as
an additional check. CZM will also take positive steps to protect
these areas by promoting the wetlands restriction program, procuring
Self-Help and other acquisition monies, and coordinating other assist-
ance programs to insure that state and federal agencies provide the
fullest and possible measure of protection and wise management to
these areas.

Under the Reorganizat ion legislation, the Secretary is charged,
in Chapter 21A Section 2 to "develop state-wide policies regarding the
acquisition, protection, and use of areas of critical environmental
concern to the Commonwealth." She and her agencies are further enabled
to "promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out their
responsibilities." (Section 28) Under the MEPA legislation (Chapter
30, Sections 61 and 62) all the Secretaries of the Exeuctive Offices
are to "promulgate rules and regulations approved by the Secretary
of Environmental Affairs to ... minimize damage to the environment."
These sections have been used in the interior of the Commonwealth to
designate areas of critical environmental concern. This designation
will have two effects. As an internal regulation it will substantively
affect EOEA agencies in that they must now attach a high degree of
scrutiny to their activities therein and may not proceed with any

3-24

action which might impair the values of the area. For agencies outside
of EOEA, and for all EOEA agencies, the effect of such designations is
to remove all activities in that area from the scope of the categorical
exemptions under MEPA, therefore, environmental assessment forms will
need to be compleLed for all activities cbnducted in APR's.

The Reorganization legislation which created EOEA and granted it
such extensive new powers also addressed the issue of areas of critical
environmental concern. In Chapter 806, Section 40(e) of the statutes
of 1974, the Legislature charged the Secretary:

"To conduct a study relative to land use so as to identify
and designate areas of critical environmental concern where
uncontrolled development could result in irreversible
damage to the environment."

Areas cited by the Legislature included:" the coastal zone, inland
and coastal wetlands; rare and valuable ecosystems and habitats; rivers,
streams, and floodplains; natural areas and buildings, structures and
sites of scenic, historical, architectural, archaeological, geological,
biological, recreational significance; great ponds; lands of prime
productivity; park, preservation, forest, recreation, or open space
lands determined to be of regional significance; (and) fish, bird, and
other wildlife management areas."

Here clearly is evidence of the Legislature's concern with critical
areas, in particular the coastal zone, wetlands, rare ecosystems and
floodplains, etc. Following the Legislative directives in this enactment
and in Chapter 21A, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs will employ
the following procedures. Individual public meetings will be held at
each APR. Public notices will be provided at least 21 days before the
meetings. The technical staff from CZM and EOEA will present information
on why this area is so environmentally critical. Interested citizens
will then have the opportunity to present data, views or arguments.

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE AREAS (SAA's)

Special Assistance Areas are sites which warrant special planning
and funding. The following criteria will be used to designate SAA's:

1) The area contains at least one SRA and

a. the area plays an important role in the economy of more
that one town either through commerce or industry;

b. the area or use of the area affects, is affected by, or
is under the jurisdiction of two of more municipalities;

c. the area is state owned;

d. the impacts, concerns, or conditions associated with the
are a result of state action; or

3-r25

e. state and/or federal monies have been or will be expended
to insure, protect, or aid investments, developments, or
human safety within the area.

While these areas will still be subject to existing environmental
laws, the purpose of designating the SAA's is to insure that public
funds and programs will be used to promote wise use of developed coastal
resources. Chapter 21A requires agencies to encourage the restoration
of degraded areas, including harbors, to assist other state and
regional agencies in appropriate programs and policies relating to land
and water and to provide for planned industrial, commercial, recreational,
and community development. A basic policy of CZM and of the Growth
Policy of the Commonwealth is to encourage development in areas where
the necessary infrastructure exists. In terms of economics, use of an
existing infrasturcture is more efficient, reduces public and private
costs and preserves the vitality of urban core areas. In terms of the
environment, use of existing centers reduces the intrusion of develop-7
ment into open spaces, thus preserving untouched areas in their natural
state and concentrating dsiruptions in areas where alterations from
the natural state have already occurred.

Each SAA will be accompanied by a commentary tailored to that
area. The commentaries will be mimi-plan and will describe the
characteristics of the area and the kinds of development which CZM and
citizens.would welcome and the ways in which state and federal programs
might be used to insure that these mini-plans come to fruition. The
commentary may reflect conflicts between environmental and economic
concerns, or within economic concerns such as between fishing and
recreational boating. A key part of the commentary will be a discussion
of applicable Program Incentives.

PROGRAM INCENTIVES

Meeting the objectives-and policies of the Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management Plan will require more than the coordinated action made
possible by networking with state agencies and federal consistency.

Maximizing the economic development potential of the port and
harbor resources of Massachusetts, for example, will require the
expenditure of public funds for channel improvements, pier and bulkhead
construction, and other navigation works. Ameliorating coastal recreat-
ional opportunities will demand further public disbursements for
improving facilities, acquisition, and construction of access trails
and routes and parking areas. Choosing among future dredge spoil
disposal methods and sites will require costly and sophisticated
environmental assessments and technologically complex solutions.
Enhancing the coastal visual environment will depend largely on assist-
ance extended to communities for establishing procedures for site plan
and design reviews, as well as zoning control.

To support these kinds of affirmative actions, which are essential
to carrying out the policies and objectives of the plan, CZM will offer

3-26

four types of assistance:,

1) assistance in securing federal and state funds needed to carry
out development programs and projects which meet the policies
and objectives of the CZM plan,

2) financing of feasibility studies and field investigations for
waterfront renewal, port and harbor development, and dredge
spoil disposal,

3) technical assistance to communities to provide needed marine
biological, hydrological, geological, recreation, erosion, and
general land use planning, and legal expertise, and

4) energy impact funding.

SECURING STATE AND FEDERAL PROJECT AND PROGRAM FUNDING

State and federal agencies offer a variety of financial assistance
programs to communities for planning, acquisition, and facility improve-
ment and construction. CZM will help communities to identify potential
sources of funding for programs and projects meeting thia policies and
objectives of the plan; will champion such projects and programs before
federal and state agencies to assure that they are given priority
consideration for funding; and will work toward ensuring that eligibility
requirements and funding levels set by federal and state agencies
reflect the needs of coastal communities, inland users, and the
priorities of the CZM Plan.

Federal agencies, because of the federal consistenty provisions,
will pay special attention to review comments submitted by CZM on
applications for federal grants. Where CZM gives special endorsement to
program and project aplications, federal agencies are likely to act
expeditiously in approving funding. Through networking, memoranda of
understanding with state agencies, and the development of working
relationships with the Development Cabinet, the Office of State Planning,
and other state agencies, CZM will also seek to have a positive influence
on allocation of state funds.

The principal federal and state assistance programs which are
relevant to meeting the plan's policies and obJectives are described
in Chapter II. These range from Anadromous Fish Restoration to urban
mass transit. They cover activities from acquisition of recreation and
conservation lands to waterfront renewal.

FINANCING FEASIBILITY STUDIES AND FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

Massachusetts will receive a substantially increased federal grant
to cover the administrative costs of implementing the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management Plan. A portion of this grant will be set aside
to fund action studies aimed at developing innovative solutions to

3-27

pressing coastal problems and needs,

The intent of such financing is to enable communities to undertake
the studies and preparatory work which usually are necessary before any
major project development proposal can be put together. Typically,
state or federal funding is not available to finance such studies
because their duration is too short and costs too small for agencies to
absorb the:overhead costs of administering a small grants-in-aid program.
The use of the CZM management monies for such study purposes will thus
fill a major gap in existing efedral and state assistance programs.

Once or twice a year municipal governments will be invited to sub---
mit study proposals for funding. The maximum amount to be awarded will
not exceed $20,000; the minimum, $1,000. Grants will be awarded for no
longer than one year. Funding requests will be weighed against one
another, and those which demonstrate-a pressing need and which best meet
the policies and objectives of the CZM Plan will be selected for funding.
Studies eligible for funding will include:

1) waterfront renewal and development studies: preparing harbor-
front plans aimed at improving visual and physical access to
waterfronts; identifying opportunities for waterfront parks;
waterfront pedestrian ways, ramps, and other public access
improvements; conducting feasibility, cost, and preliminary
engineering studies for such waterfront improvement projects.

2) port and harbor development studies: preparing overall port
and harbor development plans; assessing future facility needs
and the economic return from such facilities; conducling
feasibility and preliminary engineering studies for public
marinas, town wharfs, and docks, access ramps, and navigational
improvements.

3) dredge spoil disposal investigations: identifying feasible
land alternatives and sites for dredge spoil disposal;
investigating costs; and preliminary engineering for innovative
dredge spoil disposal practices including creating artificial
salt marshes, using spoil as fill, and building containerized
sites.

Grants for eligible study requests will be awarded to those
applications which:

1) support the policies and objectives of the CZM Plan and which
conform with specific Special Assistance Areas (SAA's)
commentaries in the regional chapter,

2) provide at least one-third of total study costs in local funds,

3) demonstrate that funding is not available from any other federal
or state agency and that reasonable attempts have been made to
solicit assistance from other agencies, and

3-28

4) carry assurances that the study will lead directly to concrete
project development plans and proposals which can be implemented.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITIES

Once the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Plan is approved
by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Massachusetts will receive expanded
federal funding to cover the administrative costs incurred in putting
the plan into action. Some of these funds will be used to staff
personnel in the two coastal regional DEQE offices in the coastal zone.
These regional personnel together with core staff in Boston will include
planning, legal, marine biology, geology, and hydrological experts.
They will be available to communities to identify and solve problems.

What are the economic benefits to be gained from accomodating OCS
supply bases in my community? What can a community expect if it approves
an aquaculture grant? How might anadromous fish runs be improved?
What can our community do to improve its visual environment? How can
dredge spoil disposal costs be minimized? What alternatives are
available? What environmental effects might be expected from raising
the levelof sea dikes, from enlarging salt pond breeches? To answer
these and many other questions, CZM staff will be available to
communities. In some cases, solutions will lie in directing communities
to potential sources of state or federal funding. In other cases,
answers may lie in funding special feasibility studies. In many other
instances, CZM staff will, through its own research capabilities and
field investigations, be able to help communities find needed naswers.

CZM staff will also aid communities in designing innovative zoning
by-laws or ordinances. Municipalities, by taking the initiative them-
selves, can further many of the policies and objectives of the CZM
Plan. The adoption of waterfront zoning districts encouraging water
dependent uses serves to meet CZM's port and harbor policies. Site
plan review and design review procedures can ensure that developments
in developed harbors provide visual and physical access to waterfronts.
The enactment of floodplain zoning and wetland and dune by-@aws help to
meet the marine environment and coastal hazard policies of the CZM Plan.
Sign ordinances and the establishment of historic and scenic districts
can serve to meet the Plan's visual env'ironment objectives and policies.

Impact or performance controls allow communities to move away from
rigid zoning districts and inflexible definitions of permissible uses.
Instead, projects are reviewed against various standards. This review
attempts to measure the impact various types of new development might
have on the land itself and on municipal services required to
accomodate the change. Standards may cover a percentage of impermeable
cover, amount of cut and fill, type of building material, vegetation
removal, and provision of open space. Such controls, if enacted, could
go far to meeting CZM's marine environment, coastal hazards, and
visual environment objectives. Cluster zoning or planned unit develop-
ment procedures allow for more compact development patterns thereby
economizing on municipal service and preserving coastal open space.

3-29

Legal research and planning skills will be offered to communities
willing to take advantage of these innovative zoning techniques, and,
in providing such services, CZM will work in close conjunction with the
Office of Local Affairs in the Department of Community Affairs and
regional planning agencies.

The 1976 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act extend and
increase funding to CZM programs specifically for erosion and coastal
recreational planning. The Massachusetts CZM Program will be using
.these funds to work with state agencies to coordinate management of
erosion hazard areas and with communities in developing specific erosion
control and protection measures, and in analyzing specific coastal
recreation problems and opportunities.

CZM will provide specific help to communities in developing
alternative ways to mitigate the adverse impacts of erosion problems.
Analysing beach over-crowding problems and recommending solutions,
designing better access ramps and trails to coastal recreaticnsites,
examining how alternative boat mooring patterns can relieve congestion
in crowded harbors, designing and implementing ways of reducing
dependence on the automobile in getting to coastal recreation sites,
and investigating and recommending possibilities for multiple use of
recreation facilities are among the field studies CZM will carry out to
assist communities in accomodating recreation seekers. (See Recreation
policy section for further detail.)

ENERGY IMPACT FUNDING

The 1976 amandments to the Coastal Zone Management Act establish
a new federal loan and grant program to assist coastal communities and
states to shoulder the financial costs incurred by accomodating coastal
energy facilities. Under this new program, coastal communities hosting
new coastal energy facilities will be eligible to receive:

1) loans and loan guarantees to help cover the costs of both
providing additional public services and constructing new
public fac-ilities (roads, water supply-- sewage treatment works)
made necessary by new coastal energy facilities;

2) refinancing and other financial assistance, including grants
in extreme cases of hardship, to repay the above loans if the
financial burden imposed on a community accomodating new
coastal energy facilities is so severe as to cause substantial
hardship; and

3) grants covering the full costs of environmental losses and
damages sustained by the siting of a coastal energy facility.

This new program of federal assistance is only made available once
the U.S. Secretary of Commerce either approves a state's coastal zone
management program or determines that substantial progress has been

3-30

made to meet the planning and program approval requirements of the
Coastal Zone Management Act.

The MassachuseLts Coastal Zone Management Program will help affected
coastal communities take advantage of this new program and will
facilitate approval of eligible applications by establishing a continuing
working relationship with the U.S. Department of Commerce.

FEDERAL CONSISTENCY

Concern for the future of the Massachusetts coast is by no means
peculiar to the Massachusetts community. Federal, as well as state and
local agencies help make those development and preservation decisions
which ultimately impact our lands and waters. Because effective
management of coastal resources demands a significant level of govern-
mental coordination as well as a focus of control, the Coastal Zone
Management Act provides that:

"Each federal agency conducting or supporting activities
directly affecting the coastal zone shall conduct or
support those activities in a manner which is, to the
maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved
state management programs."

Requirements within the Act which define the federal/state relat-
ionship are referred to as the federal consistency provisions. Under
these provisions, the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program has
been authorized to work with federal agencies to delineate how federal
activities must proceed to realize State objectives. While such
authority is necessary to give management focus to the Plan, governmental
coordination itself mandates consideration of local priorities, state
goals and federal interests. As such, the disparate and common concerns
of all participants must be resolved and accomodated.

This consistency process begins with the identification of all
federal agencies which have or potentially hold direct interest in the
coastal zone. Those agencies must be provided with the opportunity for
ongoing participation in the development of the Plan. CZM, in turn, is
required to acknowledge these views, consider the national interest, and
establish a means for continuing coordination and consultation with
these agencies.

The Act's consistency language is often vague, and formal federal
regulations defining precisely the meaning of consistency have not yet
been promulgated. The explication below is based upon draft regulations which
have been issued by the Office of Coastal Zoee Management (OCZM) in
Washington as interim guidelines for federal participation. It should
be noted that as these are subject to change, CZM's position on
consistency is not fixed. Following is a synopsis of these requirements
their implications, and CZM's response to them.

3-31

CZM must provide the opportunity for full participation by.relevant
federal agencies in the development and review of the [email protected]
and demonstrate that the views of agencies principally affected have
been adequately considered (306(c)(l),(b)).

Prior to initiating policy formulation within the Plan, CZM
contacted some thirty-f ive agencies to solicit their views and concerns
with respect to the coastal zone. Most requested some substantive
information from CZM which would inform them of our intentions and
thus structure their responses. This request will be met through sub-
mission of this document to federal agencies. In the interim, CZM has
held interviews with each agency to acquire such policy statements and
regulations as would enable us to infer federal interest and thus
provide for these in the Program Preview. The intersections of state
and federal interests are detailed primarily in the Implementation
Measures discussed at the end of each policy in Chapter II.

Once federal agencies have had the opportunity to respond to this
document, individual meetings with those agencies raising concerns will
be held. Attempts to resolve any severe conflicts,of interest will be
an ongoing informal process between the affected agency and CZM.
Should formal intervention be necessary, CZM will rely on mediation by
the Secretary of Commerce as provided for within the Act. Under this
provision, the Secretary may be called upon to settle those state and
federal differences which appear irresolvable through independent
processes..

Federal agencies must conduct and support their activities in a manner
which is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with CZM's
approved management plan (307(c)(I),(2),(3),3070)).

Perhaps of greatest concern are the substantive regulations which
define the level of state influence over federal investment and
regulatory activities. OCZM has been particularly attentive to the
focus of this authority and precise in its interpretation of these
consistency sections. Implicit in the consistency procedures discussed
below is OCZM's narrow construction of the term "to the maximum extent
practicable." CZM will for all intents and pruposes, determine the
extent of compliance.

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE (grants, loans, guarantees, insurance)

Federal agencies shall not approve any application for assistance
in the coastal zone which CZM determines to be inconsistent with
the management plan. The only exception is through an override
by the Secretary of Commerce.

Mechanics:

The Intergovenmental Coordination Act of 1968 established state
and regional clearinghouses to review applications for federal fundi-.1-,.
In Massachusetts, the state clearinghouse is the Office of State

3-32

Planning and the regional clearinghouses are the regional planning
agencies. The review procedure is known as A-95 and is aimed at
ensuring that federal agencies are made aware of state, regional,
and local concerns about the application's compatability with other
state or federal programs and objectives. Under the draft federal
consistency regulations, the A-95 review procedure will serve as
the venue through which determination of CZM consistency on federal
assistance will be made.

Any applicant seeking federal assistance for a project located in
the coastal zone must receive a CZM consistency determination
(referred to as a certification statement). This certification,
which includes reasons for CZM's determination, will accompany an
application through the A-95 process as a part of the application.
If CZM finds a project consistent, the applicant may proceed with
the processing of an application and the federal funding agency
may approve it.

If CZM determines that the proposal is inconsistent with the CZM
Plan, the applicant must attempt to informally resolve any issues
with CZM and the appropriate federal agency. It is hoped that such
informal processes will resolve all such conflicts. If no such
resolution appears possible, and the application is made to the
federal agency with an inconsistent finding, an appeal to the
Secretary of Commerce may be made by federal agency, CZM or the
applicant.

Appellate Procedure:

Either the federal agency, CZM or the applicant may submit a request
to OCZM for a Secretarial decision. Each party must then forward
its findings and arguments to the Secretary of Commerce for his/her
decision.

Secretarial override of a state's determination of inconsistency
may only be based upon a finding that: (a) the proposal is consist-
ent with the purposes of the Coastal Zone Management Act (meaning
that the rxoposed activity is compatible with the requirements of
the CZMA, and not Massachusetts' CZM Plan. The applicant is
required, in this instance, to demonstrate that "complete adherence
to the state program would cause the applicant to suffer a sub-
stantial burden and that the deviation, if permitted, would cause
no more than a minor impact on the integrity of the state program")
or; (b) that the proposal is necessary in the interest of national
security. (This will be independently determined by the Secretary
based on information supplied by the relevant federal agency.)

If neither (a) nor (b) can be argued persuasively, a proposal will
not be approved.

3-33

FEDERAL LICENSES AND PERMITS

Federal agencies shall not-appr6ve any.request for a federal license
or permit in the coastal zone which CZM determines to be inconsist-
ent with the management plan. The only exception is through an
Override by the Secretary of Commerce.

Mechanics:

CZM and federal agencies must identify all federal licenses and
Permits which are specifically to be reviewed by the state. This
list will then be made availableto federal agencies, OCZM and the
Massachusetts public. Assessment criteria for every such permit or
license must then be developed by CZM. These criteria, as outlined
p
in CZM's policy-statements, are necessary to give definition and
justification to our interest in a given activity.

When an applicant intends to apply for any of these listed permits
or licenses, he/she is encouraged to first consult with CZM for an
initial consistency determination. While this is optional, it is
clearly advisable. When submitting the request to CZM and the
federal agency, the applicant must include a self-developed
certification statement (based on CZM's permit criteria) which
indicates- that the proposed activity "will be conducted in a manner
consistent with the management program" This statement will be
accompanied by sufficient information to support the applicant's
consistency determination.

CZM must then notify the public (relevant state and local bodies) of
both the request and the certification statement, and invite public
comment on the proposal. Based on this review, as well as its own
review, CZM will make its consistency determination. if it is
favorable, CZM, the federal agency, and the public will be informed
of the decision and the permit or license may be processed. Alter-
natively, if CZM does not comment within a six month period, it is
presumed that no objection exists and the request may be processed.

For those permits and licenses not listed, the federal agency will
determine if a proposed activity is within the coastal zone and, if
so, will direct the applicant to submit acertification statement for
dZM comment. A waiting period of thirty days is observed before the
federal agency presume@ concurrance.

If a given application is found to be 'inconsistent with the CZM Plan
an informal resolution may be sought. An issue which is clearly
irresolvable may then be referred by any of the involved parties to
the Secretary of Commerce.

Appellate Procedure:

As with issues of federal assistance, the Secretary, based on

3-34

information from all parties, may override the state's deter-
mination. Again, there are two bases for override: proposal's
consistency with CZMA purposes or necessary for national security.

FEDERAL ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENT (federal policies and regulations,
direct federal development)

No directive, similar to that of permits and grants, is provided with
respect to federal activities and developments under dispute.
Cessation therefore, cannot be required. However, continued action
which is inconsistent with the CZM plan may invite judicial action
or intervention by the Secretary.

Mechanics:

CZM, together with federal agencies, must identify those types of
activities which will come under review. While some types of
activities may seem individually insignificant, it is important to
capture those which incremeatally may produce significant effects.
These must be delineated during the planning period, but may be
appended during the 306 implementation period.

For identified activities, the relevant federal agency must notify
CZM of the proposed activity sixtydays in advance of project start.
If a positive or no response from CZM is submitted within forty-
five days, the agency may proceed with the project.

An inconsistent finding by CZM may be presented to OCZM for mediation
assistance. It is important to note, that this does not prevent an
agency from proceding: It may, as noted above, discourage continued
action given the liklihood of legal action or Secretarial inter-
vnetion. If an appeal to OCZM is inadequate, OCZM may refer the
issue to the Secretary of Commerce for resolution.

Appellate Procedure:

Upon OCZM request for Secretarial assistance, a hearing officer for
the area is appointed by the Secretary. Presentations are made by
CZM and the federal agency to the hearing officer who makes a
recommended decision. It this is unsatisfactory, by virtue of state
or federal rejection, the Office of the Secretary intervenes and
hosts an additional mediation conference. A decision by the Secretary
is then made which may again be argued by the state or the federal
agency. If such a decision is rejected by either CZM or the
federal agency, the Secretary makes a final determination together
with OMB on the activity's inconsistency with the Massachusetts
Plan. A Secretarial final determination of inconsistency mandates
transmittal of the issue to Congress to uphold the decision and,
thus, deny the activity.

When completed, Massachusetts' Coastal Zone Management Plan will be

3-35

distri,buted to all affected federal agencies for conflict identification-
Maps, guidelines and policies will initially alert federal agencies to
any concerns within CZM's jurisdiction,

While all federal activities within the coastal zone are encouraged
to optimally conform to CZM objectives, the status of federally owned
lands with respect to he coastal zone has been in question. The U.S.
Attorn:ey General's Office was asked what federal lands are in-
cluded@.. An initial legal interpretation from that Office holdd that
11all lands owned by the United States", in whatever capacity,are
excluded from a state's coastal zone. This includes the following
categories of federal lands: exclusive legislative jurisdiction, con-
currant jurisdiction, proprietary and trust lands.

CZM must give adequate consideration to the national interest in siting
of facilities (306 (c)(8).

Definition of the national interest has been highly disputed among
various federal agencies. The national interest can be defined to
encompass a wealth of activities -- ranging from nationally important
energy facilities to the protection of individual wildlife habitats. It
is therefore imcumbent upon CZM to establish a process for determining
where the national interest is clearly at issue while ensuring that
federal activities are neither arbitrarily excluded nor unreasonably
restricted. As indicated above, in specific instances the Secretary of
Commerce may be called upon to determine national security interest.
The national interest, however, extends beyond security concerns.

Ideally, those activities of national interest which are unquestion-
ably coastally dependent will be facilitated by CZM. Their precise
coastal location would, of course, be of concern to both lo-cal and
state participants, and those affected will be involved in siting
decisions when such instances arise. Other activities of national
interest may be determined by CZM together with the locality as not being
coastally dependent, but rather those which opt for a coastal location
for reasons of economy or convenience. In these cases, CZM will present
its findings to the appropriate federal agency and all attempts to
resolve the issue will be made. Finally, CZM may assert that the
national interest has been argued inappropriately. In such instances,
CZM will provide opportunity for discussion and resolution with the
involved federal agency, again relying upon all informal mechanisms
before inviting Secretarial mediation.

CZM must incorporate the requirements of the national air and water
pollution control acts (307 (f)).

The right to clean air and water must be ensured for all Massachusetts
residents. Any activity under the Plan which might joepardize these
standards is not acceptable. The responsibility for conforming to federal
requirements reats with the state's Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, described earlier in this Chapter. To ensure that

3-36

requirements are met, CZM. has established an Qngoing working relation-
,ship with both DEQE and those federal and areawide programs involved in
air and water pollution control. It is a firm CZM policy that no
activity will be permittedwhich would degrade air or water quality below
federal standards and that for critical areas, adequate protection may
well require adherence to far higher standards.

CZM must establish an ongoing mechanism for continuing consultation and
6oordination with federal agencies (306)2)(b)).

Federal agencies' interest and involvement in the coastal zone
clearly will not cease with the approval of the Management Plan. It has
already been argued that federal participation in certain decision-making
processes is mandatory and, in fact, essential to the state's effective
administration of the CZM Plan. Not all activities and their implications
however, can be defined and assessed within the state's Plan, nor can
every instance of federal activity be predicted. Federal programs and
activities, as much as state programs and activities, are not absolute.
The relative impact of new or amended federal programs and policies will
continue to be a priority concern to CZM in effecting a management plan
which is accountable to both state and national interests.

As discussed within each of the policy chapters, there are several
established mechanisms for review and comment of federal activities.
These include the A-95 and A-85 (review of proposed federal regulations)
process.es at state and regional levels; the Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act, which requires an environmental assessment for any develop-
ment requiring a state permit or involving state finance; and the
National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal environmental
assessment for federally sponsored activities. In addition to these
review mechanisms, the permitting, grant allocation, and development
procedures outlined earlier will be utilized to stimulate an ongoing
dialogue among local, state and federal participants.

The clear intent of the consistency provisions is to ensure a
coordinated governmental network which will avert duplication or
conflict of effort. At the same time, the Act encourages CZM to
exercize its full authority over lands and water and thus, those agencies
whose programs play a vital role in the coastal zone. The success of
the management network will d1timately depend upon the continuing
efforts of CZM, coastal communities, and federal agencies to render
decisions which are responsive to present problems and accountable to
future needs.

THE MECHANICS OF NETWORKING: DEQE COORDINATED
PERMITTING AND REGIONAL OFFICES

IV the fall of 1976 the Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering instituted a significant change in their permit issuance

3-37

procedures. Since a [email protected] DEQE authorities are relevant to CZM
I
implemefitation, CZM.staff and procedures will be closely tied to the
DEQE programs.

There will be four regional offices in the Commonwealth, two in the
coastal@zone, One office will include Boston and the North Shore, the
other, located in Middleboro, will cover the South Shore, the Cape, and
the Buzzards Bay area. For a routine permit all DEQE decisions will be
made in;the regional office. The applicant will be received by the
District Engineers who will determine which DEQE authorities apply and
the relevant staff people to evaluate the application for the region.
Since all the staff will be housed together and located closer to the
sties, the opportunity for integrated review and for streamlined decision-
making is greatly increased. The MEPA review process and the water
quality determination will continue to be performed in the Boston
office.

Until 306 monies are received, the Coastal Review Center in CZM
will continue to review proposals following MEPA procedures. Once
implementation monies are:)available, CZM will provide staff in each of
the two coastal regions. They will assist the agencies in their on-
going review of permits in order to insure that the programs have the
staff capability to conduct an adequate review of coastal areas. They
will perform an informal informational and assistance role in helping
agency personnel carry-out their new Chapter 21A responsibilities in
addressing criteria beyond their traditional pre-organization roles.
They will specifically assist the DEQE staff in their new responsibilities
to integrate CZM maps and regulations into their on-going review of
permits for SRA's. Permit applications in APR's will certainly be
reviewed by the regional offices, but as with all no'n-DEQE EOEA agencies,
CZM-Boston will also review the applications. If a project is consistent
with the CZM Plan, then the regional CZM staff person will also issue the
Certificate of Federal Consistency so that the applicant cah proceed
in the necessary federal reviews * Is short, for most small-scale
projects, all necessary reviews will be conducted in the same office.
CZM-Boston will house a reltively small staff who will continue, through
A-95, MEPA and NEPA processes, to review other state and federal
projects. Applications for grant assistance will be processed in
.Boston. The general "ombudsmen" staff people who will be promoting
particular projects before other state and federal agencies will
probably be in Boston although they may "float" in the regions. A few
technical people may remain in Boston, but they will be primarily
assigned to the regions.

For it will be through the regional offices that the Plan will
come to the coastal zone. Through wide distribution of the Plan, people
will be able to determine, when they are still just forming an idea,
whether or not they fall within a.significant coastal area. They will
be able to learn what the special concerns for that area are. They-will
be able to go to a nearby office and get an estimate of their chances.-

3-38

of success for permit approval. They will be able to receive technical
assistance about modifying the puoposal if advisable. If it is located
in an area which could benefit by further development, they will be able
to learn about the financial assistance, agency know-how, or the other
incentives that CZM will be using to encourage coastal-dependent
development.

The essential purpose of the DEQE regionalization is to provide
swift&r and more responsive decisions by the state. The essential
purpose of CZM networking is to provide heightened awareness and insti-
tutionalization of CZM concerns in coastal decision-making. Not soley
state decision-making; but the decisions that are made by individuals
and communities before firm design plans ever reach the state.

3-39

I C ZA
so A
40* L
m

---

COASTAL REGIONS

The Coastal Resources Chapter represents an opportunity for
citizen involvement. It has not been written by the CZM staff.
However, the chapter will be prepared in the coming months by the
Citizens' Advisory Committees of each coastal region in conjunc-
.tion with CZM staff to ensure that the variety of interests along
the coast have an opportunity to shape the development of the
plan. When completed, this chapter will discuss the application
of state CZM policies to each of the ten coastal regions.

The Advisory Committees, comprised of representatives of
community officials, fishermen, commercial interests, environ-
mental interests and citizen groups, have been meeting over the
past year to discuss regional concerns and interests in the CZM
Program Preview. The knowledge and experience of Citizen Advis-
ory Committee members will be called upon in the coming months
as the regional chapters are prepared. The Advisory Committees,
and other interested citizens, will translate CZM policies into
viable, constructive action plans for the region. All interested
citizens are invited to participate in the development of the
policy,application for their region and may do so by attending
the Advisory Committee meetings which are held at least once a
month, or by contacting the local CZM staff person. (A list of
CZM contact people is at the end of Chapter 1 - Introduction).

The regional chapter will be divided into ten sections
corresponding to the ten coastal regions. Each section will
begin with a description of the region's natural and man-made
features. The description will be followed by a discussion of
citizens' desires for future use of the region's resources
based on each community's Growth Policy Statement, the results
of the CZM public opinion survey, and comments of citizens at
CZM meetings. Finally, the application of state policies to
the region's opportunities and problem areas will be detailed.
The discussion will include how economically and environmentally
important areas will be affected by the policies.

Eventually, the regional sections will include detailed
maps of major coastal resources and areas, as a part of the
management program.

4-1

CZAA
ot

5
DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF POLICIES

A. The Premise 1-1

B. CZM Objectives and Policies and Program
Recommendations 1-3

C. The Situation 1-10

D. The Massachusetts Coast 1-11

E. National Coastal Ethic 1-13

F. Massachusetts Coastal Ethic 1-14

G. Citizen Values 1-16

1. Governor's Task Force 1-16
2. CZM Survey 1-17
3. Citizen Advisory Committees 1-19
4. Past Planning and CZM 1-19

H. Management 1-20

I. The Program Preview 1-21

II. COASTAL POLICIES

A. Introduction 2-A/1

B. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Boundary 2-A/1

C. Marine Environment

1. Summary of Findings 2-B/1
2. Coastal Environments, Their Value and Importance 2-B/2
a. Salt Marshes 2-B/2
b. Barrier Beaches 2-B/4
C. Estuaries 2-B/4
d. Salt Ponds 2-B/7
e. Coastal Embayments 2-B/8
f. Open Coastal Waters 2-B/8
g. Rocky Shores 2-B/11
3. Major Activities Impacting Coastal Environments 2-B/11A
a. Physical Alteration 2-B/11A
b. Sewage Treatment Facilities 2-B/14
c. Power Plant Siting 2-B/16
d. Hazardous Substances (PCB's,Heavy Metals,
Chlorine, Oil in the Marine Environment) 2-B/17

5-1

Page

e. Pesticides 2-B/21
f. Septic Systems/Cesspools 2-B/23
g. Recreational Boating 2-B/25
h. Dredging/Dredge Disposal 2-B/26
i. Sand and Gravel Mining 2-B/30
4. Objectives 2-B/33
5. CZM Policies and Program Recommendations 2-B/33
6. Technical Notes and Sources 2-B/51

D. Coastal Hazards

1. Summary of Findings 2-C/1
2. Natural Processes Relating to Flooding and
Erosion of Coastal Areas 2-C/3
3. Adverse Effects of Development of Flood and
Erosion Prone Areas 2-C/5
4. State and Federal Structural Programs 2-C/7
5. The National Flood Insurance Program and Other
Non-structural Programs 2-C/7
6. Objectives 2-C/10
7. CZM Policy and Program Recommendations 2-C/10
8. Technical Notes and Sources 2-C/19

E. Visual Environment

1. Summary of Findings 2-D/1
2. The Coastal Viewshed 2-D/2
3. Visual Attributes of Natural Coastal Features 2-D/3
4. Man-made Features of Historical, Architectural,
or Cultural Importance 2-D/6
5. Contemporary Development Impacts and Visual Access 2-D/7
6. Visual Corridors 2-D/9
7. Objectives 2-D/10
8. CZM Policies and Program Recommendations 2-D/10
9. Technical Notes and Sources 2-D/21

F. Ports and Harbors

1. Summary of Findings 2-E/1
2. Demand Pressures and Development Opportunities 2-E/2
a. The Fishing Industry 2-E/2
b. Maritime Shipping 2-E/4
c. Ferry and Cruise Service 2-E/6
d.. Other Marine Industry and Services 2-E/7
e. Recreational Boating 2-E/9
f. Urban Waterfront Renewal 2-E/10
3. Supply Considerations, Site Suitability, and
Environmental Constraints 2-E/11
4. Objectives 2-E/15
5. CZM Policies and Program Recommendations 2-E/15
6. Technical Notes and Sources 2-E/26

G. Recreation
1. Summary of Findings 2-F/1
2. Access: Distribution and Transportation 2-F/3

5-2

Page

3. Meeting Coastal Recreation Needs: Space and
Services 2-F/5
a. Boating 2-F/5
b. Swimming and Beach Use 2-F/6
C. Salt Water Fishing 2-F/7
4. Other Opportunities and Constraints 2-F/8
a. Complementary/Multiple Uses 2-F/8
b. Conflicting Uses and Environmental Impact 2-F/9
5. Maintenance and Pricing 2-F/10
6. Objectives 2-F/12
7. CZM Policies and Program Recommendations 2-F/12
8. Technical Notes and Sources 2-F/22

H. Energy

1. Summary of Findings 2-G/1
2. Energy Facility Needs and Impacts 2-G/3
a. Oil Terminals 2-G/3
b. Tank Farms 2-G/6
C. Gas Facilities 2-G/10
d. Electric Generating Facilities 2-G/12
e. Refineries and Deepwater Ports 2-G/16
3. Objectives 2-G/22
4. CZM Policies and Program Recommendations 2-G/22
5. Technical Notes and Sources 2-G/30

III. MANAGEMENT

A. Introduction: Considerations in the Design of a
Management System 3-1

1. A Management System that Fits with the Times of
Massachusetts 3-1
2. A Management System that is Useful and Used 3-2
3. A Management System that Survives the Tenure of
State Administrators 3-4

B. The Networking System 3-5

C. The Creation of the Office of Environmental Affairs
and the Environmental Policy for Massachusetts 3-8

D. EOEA Agencies and Responsibilities 3-12

E. The Memoranda of Understanding, Regulations, and
Guidelines 3-14

F. Conflict Resolution Mechanisms 3-15

G. The CZM Maps -- Definitions of Special Areas 3-17

1. Significant Resource Areas -- SRA's 3-17
2. Areas for Preservation.or Restoration -- APR's 3-23
3. Special Assistance Areas -- SAA's 3-25

5-3

Page

H. Program Incentives 3-26
I. Federal Consistency 3-31

J. The Mechanics of Networking: DEQE's Coordinated
Permitting and Regional Offices 3-37
IV. COASTAL REGIONS 4-1

V. DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS 5-1

5-4

Massadiusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs

3 6668 00002 1412