Massachusetts Cleanwater Act Assesment Paper

By:
Lisa Dangutis,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Part I: Abstract
Abstract: (Part 1)
The EPA distributes a state 303d stream list every two years. It is
an indicator list for the water quality of streams, ponds, and river ways in
that state. "In 1998 it was estimated, the state of Massachusetts had 906
water ways on the 303d stream list. The water ways placed on this list are
considered quality limited waters."(CEEI, 1998.) The causes of limitation to
these waterways are from high effluent releases from treatment plants, old
dams, non-point source pollution from industry and farms; and urban sprawl.
Consequently, there are many reasons from a political, economic, and social
perspective as to why these waterways remain on the 303d stream list today
in
Massachusetts.
Part one of this study focuses on the successes and failures. The
study
addresses issues surrounding political laws, and state programs for the 303d
stream list in Massachusetts. By understanding, the underlying mechanisms in
state laws and programs -- we can improve successes, and eliminate failures.
Part one addresses these issues and offers some plausible solutions to
further the efforts along in hope of someday eliminating the 303d stream
list.

-1A-
(Part one:)
I. Introduction:
A. The Mass.303d Stream List
B. Explanation of Project.
II. Politics:
A. Explanation of Ma.Wetland Acts and River Act of 1996:
. 1. Definition of the Wetland Acts.
a. Purpose of the Revised Acts.
B. Explanation of Ma. River Ways Program's (Before River Act of
1996).
River way Program:
a. Goals of the Program
b. Set Up of the Program.
C. Accomplishments of Acts and Programs:
1. Unified way of working under watershed management.
2. A solid program which has the possibility for long term
efficiency.
D. Failures of Programs:
1. No solid strategy for planning river pollution prevention in
high
Population buffer zones.
2. Lacks focus on restoration for polluted rivers on 303d under
305b law.
3 Costs may be inadequate as listed. Clean up is passed to
federal programs such as adopt a stream or onto local org.
4 .Despite strong communication among program, lack of
communication
on local levels.
5. Issues of brown not fields included.
E. Solutions which could help to strengthen the River way Act and
Programs:
1.Implementation of more cost effective restoration plans
2.Focus on cost effective plans for stream management and
restoration.
3.An adequate plan for means of communication between water shed
team
4. Implementation of more cost effective restoration plans.

-1-
Introduction:
Currently, the government and department of environmental management
in
the
state of Massachusetts have started to work more vigorously toward
addressing the problems of dirty streams, rivers, and ponds. In the past,
the
state had some of the dirtiest rivers since the American industrial
revolution of the 1800s. Even today, with local ambitions of the legislature
-- dirty rivers, streams and ponds are still an important issue which
remains
unresolved for the state of Massachusetts. The EPA distributes the 303d
stream list every two years. It is an indicator list for the water quality
of
streams, ponds, and river ways in each state. " In 1998 it was estimated,
the
state of Massachusetts had 906 water ways on the 303d stream list. The
water ways placed on this list are considered quality limited."(CEEI, 1998.)
The causes of limitation to these waterways are from high effluent releases
from treatment plants, old dams, non-point source pollution from industry
and
farms; and urban sprawl. Consequently, there are many reasons from a
political, economic, and social perspective as to why these waterways remain
on the 303d stream list today. In this study the political, economic, and
social reasons will be investigated as an approach for possible resolution
of
quality limited waters in the state of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Water Laws and Acts:
The Wetland Protection Act was the first major act approved in the
state of Massachusetts. It was created to protect rivers, big ponds,
wetlands and streams in the late 1960's.(EPA,2000) -2-
This occurred during a time, when water quality issues were just coming
into serious perspective for the state. The Wetland Protection Act focused
on
protecting "just the water" in these waterways. The Wetland Act proved to
be
unsuccessful. Throughout the period, water quality was slightly to if at all
improved. The areas and land surrounding the rivers were still highly
polluted. In addition, the ecosystems surrounding these areas still
remained
contaminated. The act did little to protect the water in these areas from
runoff from big industry, farms, or from oils on highways, and roads. Large
amounts of debris and garbage often surrounded the areas of around ponds and
rivers. This was a threat to surrounding wildlife and birds. In this
period,
local Massachusetts organizations did help pick up the slack with clean up
efforts. Clearly, it was apparent. The Wetland Protection Act was failing
Massachusetts waterways. On August 7, 1996, the Massachusetts State
legislature under the leadership of Lieutenant Governor W. Weld signed The
River Act; to address the problem of protecting land areas around waterways.
It was a considerable good law or so it seemed to be. The River Act was
broken down into several criterion, each criterion proposing
a different strategy towards addressing the problems of river and stream
quality. "In the first criterion, the River Act [Chapter 258 of the Acts]
limits development within "river front areas," determined as the area within
200 feet of rivers, and streams that have low population density."(River
Act,
1999.) The 200-foot distance can be defined as a buffer zone. "Buffer zones
are important on rivers. These zones can filter runoff. When kept clean,
and unpolluted they -3-
prove to be healthy habitats for river dependent wild life, and birds."
(University of Texas, 1998.) "By law of the River Act, the river front area
is reduced to twenty-five feet in municipalities with a population greater
than 90,000 -- a population density greater than 9,000 people per square
mile, or in densely developed areas as defined in the act. There is also a
process of appeal claused into the act. The second criterion of the act
authorizes the expenditure of 30 million dollars to acquire land along
rivers
and streams. Lastly, the third criterion of the act creates an advisory
committee of environmentalists, Realtors, developers, and farmers to assist
in writing regulations to implement the act. The fourth criterion requires
that $100,000 per year for five years is given to the Environmental Trust
Fund to be used by the Department of Environmental Protection for technical
assistance, and training for conservation commissions to implement the Act."
(River Act, 1996.)
The storm management Act is the final component of the Acts for river
protection in Massachusetts. It is set up to develop, and handle the
problems of storm water, and runoff for the state.
The major river initiative program for the state is the Massachusetts
River way program. It is running under a collective of Massachusetts
legislation including the Department of Fish and Wildlife and Law
Enforcement, The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, and several
other
state, and federal programs."(River ways program, 1995.) The program is
designed as a mechanism to address the quality of river ways in
Massachusetts. "The primary activity of the River Ways Program is to provide
technical assistance and outreach to communities, citizens groups and others
on various aspects of river, stream and watershed protection, restoration
and
stewardship. The responsibilities included are -4-
assisting the formation/strengthening of watershed associations of
"Adopt-a-Stream" groups, Stream Teams, and other citizen initiatives for the
protection of specific rivers/streams. Another phase of the program
involves
conducting training sessions for citizens on specific river conservation
tools and formulating action plans. The River Way program is responsible
for
disseminating notices of permit reviews, and other pending government
actions
affecting rivers to citizens groups. The program provides guidance on how to
evaluate environmental impact, and participate in government decision
making;
and assisting communities in drafting and adopting river protection bylaws,
ordinances and other local regulatory techniques. In addition, the River
Ways
Program serves as the primary advocate for rivers on a statewide basis, and
seeks to protect their natural integrity through a variety of means, such as
formulating and promoting statewide policies and legislation for river
protection; encouraging increased recognition of the importance and
necessity
for river and watershed protection within other state and federal agencies
and programs. It also encourages the establishment of public/private
partnerships, and other joint ventures for river protection in coordination
with the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs."(River way program,
2000.) The program is a major factor in management of the watershed
ecosystems for the state of Massachusetts. Under the River Way program, each
river area section called a basin area is divided up into areas in the state
of Massachusetts. The set up is similar to the EPA basin regions under the
CWA listings to the state of Massachusetts. A watershed team leader is
chosen to oversee the basin region. The team leader's goal is to work with,
and create management partnerships, and keep contact with the -5-
federal, state, and local organizations, in order to improve the overall
quality of water basin areas.
Three to four times a year the program addresses issues in the Water Ways
news letters. Previous issues include issues of management, new initiatives,
and better ways to address the problems encountered in keeping contact.
Included in the recent newsletters are a list of all watershed team leaders
as contacts. (River way News Letters, 1998, 1999 and ,2000.) The River Way
program falls under an extensive initiative prior to the River Act of 1996.
The program began initial development in 1987. Today, it has the possibility
of becoming a strong program. The goals of the program are rather complex
but
have been a proven success in
management and monitoring. However, the River way's program has little to
do
with river restoration which seems to be a key solution for the someday
elimination of the 303d stream list. Overall, the Massachusetts initiative
has started to scratch the surface for improving the quality of ecosystems
for waterways on the 303d. "The positive outcomes of the River Act have been
some improved areas of Massachusetts rivers, increased budgeting for the
waterways, and the possibility for improved water quality."(Chicopee Basin,
2000.)
The River Ways program has successes as well. Strong volunteer
monitoring systems help track pathogens in rivers, lakes and streams. This
is
a positive success, and key for river restoration. By having the knowledge
of what pathogens, and toxins, or noxious plants are

-6-
present in a river -- restoration cost can be reduced dramatically in clean
up. Also, there is a unified management strategy between the state, and the
team leaders. It is important, to have key
comunication between legislature, federal government, and EOEA, DFWLE, and
local basin team leaders. The program has had some good successes in
strategies on this level.
For every success of the water program, there are still issues
which are not addressed by the Massachusetts legislation, Massachusetts
Water
Acts, and programs. These issues have direct impact on the Massachusetts
ecosystem. The River Act of 1996 has issues which need to be sorted. On the
first criterion of the act, it is stated that buffer zones are reduced in
areas of high population. It is understandable, development along rivers and
water front is highly popular. This poses as an increased risk to the
rivers, streams or ponds, which the law is intended for. "With closer buffer
zones on rivers, there is a highly increased chance for pollution from run
off."(Umass,1998.) Effective storm water management can't guarantee a river
or stream will remain clean with buffer zones of only 25 feet from highly
populated areas. The second problem of the River Acts are the problem of
budgeting, funds are not distributed evenly through the state for land
purchasing. Thirty-million dollars may sound like a lot of money, but
considering Massachusetts is currently investing 324 million dollars for a
new stadium to replace Fenway park--it is not enough investment. Property is
more expensive on waterways, then

-7-
property not placed along water ways. Thirty-million dollars doesn't go as
far as it needs it too when it comes to acquiring land along waterways.
Often in Massachusetts land is not acquired where it is nessacary or will be
useful. Some purchases have been in riparian buffer zones, rather then in
areas where roads, or other developments which could prove hazardous to a
clean river. The land acquirement program needs a major overhaul, to be more
efficient.
The third problem is the state and EPA, focus on strict monitoring of
the rivers. There are no restoration plans that are included under the River
Acts and River Ways Program, or Storm Water Management plans. This places an
initial failure in the program -- the responsibility is purposely passed on
to other programs, such as federal programs like Adopt a Stream and
Americorps, and to local organizations and businesses in Massachusetts who
work in the clean up sectors.
"The most recent organizations to join in on the effort of river
restoration was the girl scouts."(GSC, 2000.) "The EPA has distributed
restoration plans and they are available to groups on line. However, some
recent studies have shown there is more cost effective ways of managing
stream clean-ups, that are sometimes missed by a general clean up
restoration
projects. This in the long term can hurt organizations funding in the clean
up process. Other problems fall under

-8-
the River Ways communication system. Frequently, it has been stated there
has
been a lack of support between the organizations, local towns, Watershed
Team
Leaders, and the state. This sometimes makes it difficult for action of
local
projects to go through. Frequently, on the local level there is inadequate
communication between the local orginizations working on restoration
efforts.
Projects in Central Massachusetts have been stalled due to the barriers of
communication.
"The last problem is intertwined with the EPA, it is the issues of
brown fields. A brown field is considered an area where a company has left,
and left its pollution on site. The EPA commonly cites these as "dead
zones."(EPA,2000.) These are a problem in New England in general, many old
factories exist, and many are near rivers, due to the industries they were
involved in. Frequently, chemical pollution is left in the soils and near
the
rivers-- generally these areas are devalued property. Brown fields pollute
the environment, and they are also an economic burden to the cities. The
costs of clean up can run into millions of dollars on each site. There is a
plan to address brown fields, but the initiatives are slow, and private
organizations roles in the brownfields are not strong. It is mainly a state
and federal issue.

-9-
By no means are clean up efforts failing completely on local or
federal government levels, just the process is slow, and budgeting is weak.
Overall, there has been some improvements to the Massachusetts waterways on
the 303d list. A point of fact on budgeting-- in areas of Massachusetts
where
EPA ratings are listed as water quality 5, budgeting is less.
Solutions are not always easy when it comes to state laws. Passing
bills through legislature is often tricky. Some simple solutions could
certainly help speed up restoration, and further help the 303d list from the
political front. Increasing the buffer zones in municipal areas from 25 to
100 feet in feasible areas would make some rivers further from civilization.
Other reasonable techniques could be implemented within the restoration to
guarantee cleaner river ways in those regions.
A solid communication plan between organizations, government, and
local legislation in towns under the RiverWays program would certainly also
shorten the time between filing for restoration plans, permitting, and
beginning the plans, and there would be a stronger support system for
carrying through on the restoration efforts.
Perhaps a stronger approach is even more so required. Massachusetts
legislation and the Department of Environmental Management, and Department
of
Environmental Protection could help mandate a law for river restoration
efforts. In this law, they could include tax breaks for
- 10-
corporations helping clean the waterways, or offer an incentive program to
organizations. Having this added program for restoration would be a very
positive step for Massachusetts. Including that extra initiative to include
a solid plan for river restoration-- would certainly help further reduce the
303d stream list.
Certainly, politics play a huge role in the restoration of rivers.
However, we must not forget Legislation, and the state departments are not
the only ones responsible for the 303d stream list in Massachusetts. Also,
federal law, economics, and social factors play a role in 303d management.
These factors must also be incorporated into the plan. Each is an essential
component for solving the issues of Massachusetts water quality, and the
303d
stream list.

Bibliography:
Bibliography:(Hyper linked: Sources)
EPA:
1. Brown Field information
2. Federal Water Act and Region 1--maps.
Mass Laws Interpertated:
3. DEM
4 . Federal Wetland Laws:
5.River Act of 1996
6. River Ways News letters
7.River Ways Program 1995-2000
8.Storm Water Management Act
Orginizations:
9. Chicopee Watershed: information/ Basin , 2000.
10. Mashapee River Orginization , 1999.
11. The National Girl Scout Council.
12. APSRS (Center for Environmental Education and Information), "303 D Stream
list
Mass." 1998.
University Research:
13.University of Texas, "Research on Plants being used to increase
buffers"
1999.