July 9, 2007
RIVER TEST RESULTS RELEASED
Seven of eight river sites tested by the Millers River Watershed Council (MRWC) have received a water quality score of “non-impacted,” indicating a high or unimpaired level of water quality, according to biological monitoring results just released by the group. The scores are based on benthic macroinvertebrates (BMI) sampling performed by volunteers in the Fall of 2006. “We are excited to present these results to the community,” said MRWC president David Brule,” and will continue to use the BMI and other monitoring efforts to provide needed information and examine potential problem sites.”
The one impaired site, which scored a borderline “slight/moderate impact,” is the outlet of Lake Rohunta near where it enters the Millers River in Athol. The seven unimpaired sites include one site on the Millers River, close to its confluence with the Connecticut River in Erving and Montague. The other six sites are located on major tributaries, and except for a reference site upstream on Lawrence Brook in Royalston, all are located downstream close to where the tributary enters the Millers mainstem. By sampling as far downstream as possible, most potential pollution sources along the entire length of the tributaries can be accounted for.
The other five unimpaired sites, running from west to east, are: Mormon Hollow Brook in Wendell, Keyup Brook in Erving, Whetstone Brook in Wendell, Moss Brook in Orange and Orcutt Brook in Orange. Several other sites in Worcester and Franklin counties could not be sampled due to heavy rain and high water levels, and will be priorities for the next sampling round in September, 2007.
Brule said the Watershed Council selected the tributary sites in consultation with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Mass DEP) because they lacked biological data. None of the sites had been tested by the state for BMI, such as caddisfly, stonefly and mayfly larvae, whose sensitivity to pollution makes them excellent water quality indicators. The state has other biological data from fish samples at some, but not all, of the sites.
Trained volunteers scraped the benthic macroinvertebrates from the underside of rocks, then sorted and identified them over several sessions, all in accordance with a detailed Quality Assurance Project Plan approved by Mass DEP to ensure the highest accuracy. Dr. Michael Cole, a professional aquatic entomologist who served as MRWC’s technical supervisor, then performed a complex statistical analysis to arrive at the water quality scores.
According to Dr. Cole, the Lake Rohunta stream results are “not surprising.” As the outlet to a relatively large, shallow, eutrophied – nutrient-enriched-- body of water, the stream supports a macroinvertebrate community tolerant to this type of “disturbance.” The Watershed Council will consider performing additional sampling near Lake Rohunta, Brule said.
|
June 23, 2007, Saturday, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm
Otter River/Millers River Paddle
Baldwinville to South Royalston .
A group of kayakers will be paddling from the confluence of Trout Brook and the Otter River in Baldwinville to the Birch Hill Dam in South Royalston on Saturday June 23rd. The group will depart at 10:00 a.m.,
Anyone looking to drop a vehicle at the terminus should be at the launch site by 9:00 a.m. Bring your own kayak or canoe and appropriate safety gear and look forward to a nice downstream paddle through a rural setting.
See map: use east approach from Maple Street as the west side gate is usually closed.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?email=1&mapdat
Millers River Watershed Council 978-248-9491”
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.
·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
May 20, 2007, Sunday,
2:00 - 5:00 pm
Hike Whetstone Brook, in Wendell
Recreational hike along Whetstone Brook, in Wendell.
Join the MRWC for a pleasant forest walk by Wendell State Forest, towards the headwaters of this gorgeous, pristine stream, a tributary of the Millers
.
From the Wendell Depot post office, located just south of Route 2A and the Millers River on Wendell Depot Road, walk or drive in about one mile along Kempfield Road to meet near car/flagging at 2 pm. Those walking in should allow adequate extra time. Bring snacks, water, insect repellent and rain gear if needed. Public welcome.
For more info contact MRWC 978-248-9491
April 10, 2006 – 7 pm at Athol Town Hall:
Athol Planning Board’s Public Hearing opens on the proposed Tully Lake Sub-division.
A 54-unit Subdivision is planned for construction on the southeastern slope of Tully Lake on the Athol-Royalston Line—in the heart of a major network of protected lands and waters. If you are concerned for the future of this beautiful natural region as an unsurpassed center of ecological, recreational and economic activity, attend the hearing on April 10 and future dates. Learn and share your concerns about the proposed sub-division’s impacts on the environment, recreation, the economy, town services, noise, traffic, public safety and more.
January 2006
Deadline for comments below, March 1, 2006
The Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (the “Standards”) serve as the primary yardstick DEP and EPA use to determine if a water body is acceptably clean and capable of supporting the uses people make of it: swimming, fishing, paddling, etc., as well as supporting healthy populations and habitat for fish and native aquatic and other water-dependent organisms that are (or should be) found in and along those water bodies. Mass. DEP has proposed changes to the Standards as part of the “triennial review” process, a public hearing process required under the federal Clean Water Act. The Standards come in two basic parts:
water quality classifications (Class A, Class B, etc.), which establish “designated uses” and set basic acceptable levels (criteria) of parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), acidity (pH), bacteria and so on; and
the second part of the Standards assign specific water bodies (usually defined segments (reaches) of rivers and streams) into specific water quality classifications.
Water bodies not meeting one or more of the standards in their assigned classification are deemed “impaired” and then reparation actions can be required on the part of dischargers (like upgrading wastewater treatment plants) and others to the extent necessary to enable that water body to fully support its assigned classification.
As stated in River Network’s excellent guidebook, The Clean Water Act Owner’s Manual (second edition available at RiverNetwork.org, the triennial review represents “the public’s best chance to comment on individual pieces of the Standards, including: the state’s designated uses; the criteria associated with designated uses; the segments into which water bodies are divided for classification; the uses designated and criteria developed for each water body segment; the “anti-degradation” policy and implementation procedures [for preventing the more pristine streams from being degraded]; and any other “general policies” (including narrative criteria, variances and mixing zone rules).”
Here is a great example of the value of knowledgeable citizens weighing in on the proposed Standards: Roger Frymire, (see Click here to view) a celebrated kayaker/volunteer water quality monitor, participated in the public hearings for the proposed revised standards this week at DEP’s office in Boston. Roger has taken over 2000 water quality samples on behalf of the Charles River and Mystic River Watershed Associations and the EPA and pays particular attention to bacteria as an indicator of pathogens in the water that might harm the health of people recreating on (and in) it. Roger’s testimony presented at the hearing thanked the DEP for switching from a fecal coliform to an e. coli bacteria standard, as he feels that e.coli is a much better indicator of pathogen levels than fecal coliform, which can produce false positives (i.e., make the water seem more hazardous to human health than it actually is).
That said, Roger added his concern that other language in the proposed new bacteria standard will weaken the existing standard, as tighter standards only apply to water quality samples taken at swimming beaches during swimming season, with weaker standards (i.e. higher allowable bacteria concentrations) the remainder of the time. Roger pointed out that recreational contact with the water routinely occurs at other locations than public swimming beaches (neighborhood and river “rope swing” swimming holes, off private docks and so on) and other times than the summer (kayakers running spring whitewater runs, for example). Roger also expressed his concern that the Standards do not allow the admissibility of a single elevated bacteria sample and require a mean of five samples – that makes it a lot harder for volunteer water quality monitors to document (and for the public to be effectively alerted to the risk of exposure to, and the ability to force reductions in) dangerous levels of pathogens in our waterways.
Roger’s testimony shows how critical it is for river advocates – volunteer water quality monitors, watershed association and Stream Team members, anglers, paddlers and others – to review the proposed Standards to make sure they are sufficiently protective of the water bodies you know and care about. You are the people with the greatest familiarity and knowledge of the uses, health and condition of the rivers and other waterways you spend time in, on or along, and your observations and perspective are extremely valuable in evaluating whether the proposed Standards are strong enough to ensure that these waterways meet (or, through required reparative actions, can be restored to meet) the Clean Water Act’s goal of restoring and maintaining their chemical, physical and biological integrity. You/your group may share Roger’s concerns, or you may have others.
For example: we have already heard from some of you concerned that: the proposed Standards do not make more explicit acknowledgement of viruses in the discussion of pathogens; the current Standards retain the less protective narrative criteria and do not adopt numeric criteria for nutrients, such as the “eco-region” criteria developed by the EPA; the Standards use of temperature limits is mostly keyed to discharges whereas other human activities such as removal of shoreline vegetation, and streamflow-depleting water withdrawals, can reduce volume and make waters more vulnerable to excessive thermal loading; and that the proposed Standards fail to include even narrative criteria establishing the need to maintain adequate levels of instream flow to support aquatic life and other existing and designated uses.
Here (http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/wqssum.htm) is a link to DEP’s summary of the proposed changes; http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/314cmr4.htm is the link to the existing Standards; and http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/regulati.htm#wqual (scroll down) will take you to the “Text of Proposed Revisions and Maps”) for the text of the proposed revisions to the Standards. This is where you can see if there are any proposed changes in water quality classification for any of the classified water bodies in your watershed.
Submit your comments by Wednesday, March 1, 2006 to:
Marcia Sherman,
Mass. DEP,
One Winter St.,
Boston, MA 02108,
Marcia.sherman@state.ma.us,
In the meantime, Kerry Mackin of the Ipswich River Watershed Association [(978) 887-2313, kmackin@ipswichriver.org] has offered to assist (or suggest who else can provide assistance to) anyone seeking help in understanding the Standards and/or drafting and submitting comments.
December 21, 2005
A macro-invertebrate sampling program is currently being designed for use by volunteers in the Millers River Watershed in 2006. Macro-invertebrates are aquatic organisms whose presence or absence provides a useful indication of watershed and stream quality. Such volunteer sampling programs are increasingly being used to augment the efforts of state environmental agencies.
To view the Millers River 2005 Macroinvertebrate Assessment prepared by Dr. Michael Cole, click here PDF file, 1.7MB.
Notice: Sept. 20, 2005
IMPACTS OF PROPOSED TULLY LAKE DEVELOPMENT highlighted in Management Plan;
COMMENTS REQUESTED by Sept 26th, 2005
The Trustees of Reservations is developing a management plan for Doane's Falls Reservation and Tully Lake Campground in Royalston. The draft is now available for public comment; comments received by TTOR (to rhopping@ttor.org) will be considered in the final version of the plan.
Of potential interest to local residents are: the permanent ban on swimming at Doane's Falls and the "change in use from swimming as a primary visitor activity to hiking and the appreciation of nature". The relationship between this change in use and the Royalston Open Space plan should be commented upon.
The plan discusses conservation value of abutting properties in Royalston, which are of interest to the Royalston Open Space Committee.
The plan specifically addresses the negative impact of the proposed Duquette subdivision (page 91, section 8.2.5) and the work of the Friends of Tully Lake.
If you want to weigh in on the plan, now is the time. Comments are requested by Sept. 26th. The plan is available on-line at http://www.thetrustees.org/pages/299_doane_s_falls.cfm
It is a 4.3 Mb PDF file (120 pages long), so downloading it may take some time.
|
