Monthly Archives: November 2011

Restoring Rivers in Massachusetts

Posted on by

In connection with the Town-Wide Read program focussing on wildlife and conservation,  Beth Lambert, River Restoration Scientist in the Division of Ecological Restoration, an agency under the auspices of the Mass Department of Fish and Game, spoke at the Haston Library this evening on the subject of “rewilding” rivers in Massachusetts.

Although newly established, the Division has already completed 17 river restoration projects and is currently working on around 75 more. The Division’s goal is simple: revitalize rivers and wetlands and make them healthy again. Healthy rivers are connecting corridors which transport water, sediment, nutrients, and organic material; they serve to sustain populations of fish and wildlife; and they maintain water quality for human communities as well.

Before European settlement in the 17th century, Native Americans used the rivers in New England extensively, particularly for fishing and transportation; however, river flow was not blocked. When colonial towns were established, they all soon had mills, for both grinding flour and cutting timber. As towns developed into cities over the next century, New England became the center of the Industrial Revolution, and the local economies became regional. Rivers were dammed to provide power for the burgeoning textile mills, among other industrial uses. Dams were controversial from the beginning, Ms Lambert emphasized, and gave a short history of the Billerica Dam in Concord as an example. Built in 1710, the first lawsuit about it was filed in 1711. In 1722, the dam was removed, rebuilt, torn down, and rebuilt again. In 1723, an agreement was reached whereby water would flow freely for 2 months out of the year. Another lawsuit was filed in 1798, but in 1828, the dam was built up even higher. Yet another lawsuit was filed in 1860, and today, in 2011, discussions regarding the dam’s fate are ongoing.

Startling as these numbers may seem, there are more than 3000 dams in Massachusetts, of which only 43 serve for flood control, 44 are licensed for hydropower generation, and 164 regulate water supplies. That leaves an awful lot of dams which would be eligible for removal.

So what is the problem with dams and why would you want to remove them? Dams basically block stream flow. One consequence is that ponded water heats up and pours over the top of the dam; cold-water fish such as trout cannot tolerate these warmer water temperatures. Behind dams, sediment builds up and aquatic plants flourish, thus depleting biological dissolved oxygen and negatively impacting the environment for native fish. The dammed streams, with their lowered oxygen levels, higher temperatures, and high nutrient accumulation, also become sinks for toxic chemicals. In contrast to the popular view, most dams do not even control flooding.

In 2005, the state legislature passed a series of laws which upgraded standards for dam safety, which may have caused dam owners to think hard about removal, in that they would now be responsible for both maintenance and safety inspections, and would have legal liabilities for any damages caused by poorly maintained structures. (In Massachusetts, about a third of dams are owned by a municipality, a third are privately-owned, and a third are state or federally-owned.) As communities become more aware of the science behind river restoration and the need for it, they are seeking funding which will help pay for dam removal, some of which is available through state and federal sources.

Dam removal is not easy: sediment testing and engineering studies must be undertaken, and cultural and historical factors must be considered. The process is rigorous, with public conversation and dialogue a necessity. Fortunately, a number of projects have been quite successful. I enjoyed seeing the “before” and “after” photos for projects on the Housic River, the Eel River, Plymouth Town Brook, Yokum Brook, the Jones River, and others. One of the bigger projects now in the works is the State Hospital Dam on the Mill River in Taunton, which is slated for the summer of 2012.

At the end of her talk, Ms Lambert opened the floor to questions. We asked about projects in our area, about the Connecticut River, about beavers (the original dam builders!)  and plant re-seeding, and about her department’s annual budget, which is $250,000 for a director and two staff. I think it’s money well-spent.

Restoring Habitats in Massachusetts

Posted on by

In connection with the Town-Wide Read program focussing on wildlife and conservation,  Tom French, Director of the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, spoke at the Haston Library this evening on the restoration of habitats in Massachusetts and the current conservation status of various species.  Today, species are at risk not because we are shooting or trapping them, which was the situation during the period of colonial settlement.  From the early 1700s to the peak of deforestation in the 1830s, many species were actively persecuted, including such wilderness icons as bobcat, fox, wolf, cougar, owl, raven, and timber rattlesnake, most to the point of complete extirpation.

Far-sighted conservationists fought back with the regulations which comprise the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, first enacted in 1916 between Great Britain (as the governing body of Canada) and the United States.  Slowly, more enlightened policies prevailed in New England, even in the court of public opinion, but it wasn’t until 1972 that the last bounty for a rattlesnake was paid by New Hampshire.  And fortunately, some species — think of crows — have proven to be resilient.  Today, with its 6.5 million people, Massachusetts is one of the most densely populated states, but many species have made remarkable recoveries.  Here are some of the success stories:

  • deer – perhaps because they are not truly forest creatures, we have a lot more of them now than we ever had
  • beaver – the first one returned about 50 years ago, and there were 70,000 individuals in 2000
  • wild turkey – gone in 1851, restored in 1972, there are now 30,000
  • fisher – gone by the 1800s, they are now common state-wide
  • coyote – about 10,000 strong, they are found everywhere except on the Islands; they cause the most alarm (note that our coyotes are bigger than those in California)
  • black bear – now with a population of about 5,000, they are increasing at a rate of 8% per year and are moving across the state from west to east
  • moose – absent from Massachusetts since the 1700s, there are now around 1,000; the population is growing, especially in northern Worcester County

Despite these very visible successes, other species are endangered, threatened, or of special concern.  The top four reasons for the declines are (1) habitat loss, (2) competition from non-native species, (3) fire suppression, and (4) road mortality.  In fact, there are currently 435 state-listed species, of which 176 are animals and 259 are plants.

We can do something about it though.  The State agencies responsible for protecting the environment use a five-pronged approach: they engage in habitat protection and management, in biological and ecological research, in writing and implementing regulations, and in educating the public.  Some notable examples include phragmites removal from Kampoosa Bog in Stockbridge, the restoration of peregrine falcons in urban environments such as the Quincy Shipyard, and the introduction of bald eagles to the Quabbin.  The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program reviews some 2,500 projects per year, of which some 75% are evaluated as “no take,” meaning that the projects will not adversely impact endangered species.

Mr French ended his talk on an optimistic note.  Certainly there are challenges, such as the decline of our bat populations due to White Nose Syndrome, but he believes we should not be discouraged but instead should focus on what we can do to restore and maintain our rich natural heritage.