APPENDIX B: LIST OF COASTAL MUNICIPALITIES INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY AND RESPECTIVE HARBORS WITHIN MASSACHUSETTS Coastal Municipality Harbor Name Amesbury Merrimac River Aquinnah Menemsha Basin Aquinnah Menemsha Pond Barnstable (village of Barnstable Harbor Barnstable) Barnstable (village of Centerville Harbor Centerville) Barnstable (village of Cotuit) Popponesset Bay Barnstable (village of Hyannis) Hyannis Harbor - Lewis Bay Barnstable (village of Marstons Prince Cove Mills) Barnstable (village of Osterville) West Bay Barnstable (village of Osterville) North Bay Barnstable (villages of Cotuit Cotuit Bay and Osterville) Berkley Taunton River Beverly Beverly Harbor Boston Boston Harbor Boston Chelsea River Boston Dorchester Bay Boston Mystic River Boston Neponset River Bourne Eel Pond Bourne Buttermilk Bay Bourne Red Brook Harbor Bourne Hospital Cove Bourne Squeteague Harbor - Cataumet Bourne Hen Cove Bourne Pocasset River Bourne Pocasset Harbor Bourne Phinneys Harbor Bourne Little Bay

1 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Bourne Cape Cod Canal Bourne Gray Gables Bourne Barlows Landing Braintree Weymouth Fore River Brewster Brewster waters of Cape Cod Bay Chatham Stage Harbor Chatham Mill Pond Chatham Little Mill Pond Chatham Nantucket Sound Chatham Chatham Harbor South Chatham Ryder's Cove Chatham Pleasant Bay Chatham Crow's Pond Chatham Taylor's Pond Chatham Chatham Harbor - Aunt Lydia's Cove Chatham Bassing Harbor Chatham Oyster Pond Chelsea Mystic River Chelsea Chelsea River Chelsea Island End River Chilmark Menemsha Basin Chilmark Menemsha Pond Cohasset Cohasset Harbor Cohasset Little Harbor Danvers Danvers Harbor Dartmouth Apponagansett Bay Dartmouth Slocum's River Dennis Sesuit Harbor Dennis Bass River - Grand Cove, Kelley's Bay

Dighton Taunton River

Duxbury Duxbury Harbor Eastham Nauset Harbor and Town Cove Eastham Rock Harbor Edgartown Edgartown Harbor Edgartown Katama Bay Edgartown Cape Poge Bay 2 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Essex Essex River Everett Mystic River Everett Island End River Fairhaven New Bedford Harbor - Acushnet River Fall River Mount Hope Bay

Fall River Taunton River

Falmouth Megansett Harbor Falmouth Falmouth Inner Harbor Falmouth Wild Harbor Inner/Outer Falmouth Seapit River Falmouth Eel Pond Falmouth Waquoit Bay Falmouth Childs River Falmouth Fiddler's Cove Falmouth West Falmouth Harbor Falmouth Little Harbor - Woods Hole Falmouth Green Pond Falmouth Eel River Falmouth Great Harbor - Woods Hole Falmouth Quissett Harbor Falmouth Rand's Canal Falmouth Great Pond Coonamessett River/Mara Freetown Taunton River

Gloucester Gloucester Harbor

Gloucester Smith Cove Gloucester Hodgkins Cove Gloucester Essex Bay Gloucester Lanes Cove Gloucester Annisquam River Gloucester Lobster Cove Gloucester Goose Cove Gloucester Magnolia Harbor Gosnold Cuttyhunk Harbor - Cuttyhunk Pond Harwich Herring River Harwich Wychmere Harbor

3 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Harwich Round Cove (Pleasant Bay) Harwich Allen Harbor Harwich Saquatucket Harbor Haverhill Merrimac River Hingham Weir River Hingham Back River South of 3A Bridge Hingham Hingham Harbor Hingham Weymouth Back River - Hewitts Cove Hull Allerton Harbor Hull Pemberton Point Hull Hull Bay Hull Weir River Ipswich Ipswich River Kingston Jones River Kingston Kingston Bay - Rocky Nook Lynn Lynn Harbor Lynn Saugus River Manchester by-the-Sea Manchester Harbor Manchester by-the-Sea Magnolia Harbor Marblehead Marblehead Harbor Marion Sippican Harbor Marion Wewantic River/East Marion Marion Hammett Cove Marshfield North River Marshfield Green Harbor Marshfield South River Mashpee Ockway Bay Mashpee Popponesset Bay Mashpee Shoestring Bay Mashpee Waquoit Bay Hamblin Pond, John Pond, Great Mashpee River, Little River Mashpee Mashpee River Mattapoisett Mattapoisett Harbor Milton Neponset River Nahant Lynn Harbor Nahant Nahant Harbor 4 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Nantucket Nantucket Harbor Nantucket Polpis Harbor Nantucket Madaket Harbor New Bedford New Bedford Harbor New Bedford Clarks Cove Newbury Parker River Newbury Merrimac River Newburyport Merrimac River Norwell North River Oak Bluffs Oak Bluffs Harbor Oak Bluffs Lagoon Pond Oak Bluffs Sengekontacket Pond Orleans Pleasant Bay Orleans Rock Harbor Orleans The River Orleans Town Cove Orleans Little Pleasant Bay Orleans Nauset Harbor Orleans Mill Pond Plymouth Plymouth Harbor Provincetown Provincetown Harbor Quincy Weymouth Fore River Quincy Town River Bay Quincy Quincy Bay Quincy Dorchester Bay Revere Chelsea River Revere Pines River Rockport Rockport Harbor Rockport Pigeon Cove Rockport White Wharf Rockport Granite Pier Rowley Rowley River Salem Salem Harbor Salem Danvers River Salisbury Merrimac River Sandwich East Boat Basin

5 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Sandwich Cape Cod Canal Sandwich Sandwich Harbor Saugus Saugus River Scituate North River Scituate Scituate Harbor Scituate South River - Hummarock Somerset Taunton River Swampscott Swampscott Bay Swansea Cole River Tisbury Vineyard Haven Harbor Tisbury Lagoon Pond Tisbury Lake Tashmoo Truro Pamet Harbor Wareham Agawam River Wareham Crab Cove Wareham Broad Cove Wareham Butler Cove Wareham Millers Cove - Buttermilk Bay Wareham Onset Bay Wareham Wareham River Wareham Weweantic River Wellfleet Wellfleet Harbor West Newbury Merrimac River Westport Westport Harbor/River Westport Westport River - East Branch Westport Westport River - West Branch Weymouth Weymouth Fore River Weymouth Weymouth Back River Winthrop Winthrop Harbor Yarmouth Bass River Yarmouth Mill Creek - Yarmouthport Yarmouth Lewis Bay - West Yarmouth Yarmouth Bass Hole

6 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. APPENDIX C: INTRODUCTORY MAILING AND PRELIMINARY SURVEY 26 January 2015 [name] [address] Re: The State of Our Harbors, 2015 Dear [name]: On behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, the Urban Harbors Institute at the University of Massachusetts Boston is preparing an update of the 1990 The State of Our Harbors report. The purpose of the report is to document the dredging needs of the harbors in Massachusetts as well as capture the nature, extent, and economic value of the activities that depend on our harbors and navigable waterways. We have compiled considerable information about the Commonwealth’s harbors from existing sources, but know that harbormasters and those who operate marine facilities are ultimately the best source of this information. As such, we are asking you to participate in a survey through which you can provide information specific to the harbors within your jurisdiction. To make it as easy as possible for you to provide this data, we have developed a web-based survey tailored to each harbor. We will be sending you an email in a few weeks that provides a secure link to the on-line survey. The survey will ask you for information on current harbor conditions, present and projected dredging needs, the commercial and recreational uses in the harbors, and estimates of the value of these activities. As a preliminary step for the survey, we ask that you provide some spatial information about the harbors in your community. Maps and instructions for doing so are included with this letter. Please don’t skip this step. The information you provide at this stage is critical; it will ensure we have a common understanding of the harbors within your jurisdiction and will allow us to tailor the on-line survey to your specific harbors. Also included is a form for you to confirm your contact information and provide us with some related details. Please return the completed map(s) and questionnaire in the enclosed postage-paid envelope by February 4, 2015. Alternatively, the instructions include steps to provide this information electronically. Please contact me at any time if you have questions or wish to discuss the project further. I can be reached via email at [email protected] or by phone at 617-287-5570. We are grateful to the Massachusetts Harbormaster Association, the Massachusetts Marine Trades Association, and the Massachusetts Boating and Yacht Clubs Association, Inc., for their endorsements of this study and offers of assistance. Sincerely, Jack Wiggin Director

7 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. 2015 State of Our Harbors Survey DCR/CZM Please fill out and return this page in the enclosed envelope. If you opt to use Google Earth instead of drawing on the enclosed maps, the instructions for Google Earth includes instructions for sending us this information via email. 1. Please confirm/complete the following information (by correcting, if necessary): a. Harbormaster b. Address line 1 c. Address line 2 d. City State Zip d. Telephone Number e. Email Address

f. Assistant Harbormaster(s)

2. Please tell us which email address we should use to send you the link to the online survey. Use the email address above to send the link to the on-line survey. Use this email address to send the on-line survey:

3. Please tell us if there are additional harbors in your municipality not identified on the enclosed maps so that we can send you additional maps if necessary. The maps you sent included all of the harbors in my municipality. There are additional harbors that need to be mapped. Name(s):

4. The next phase of the survey will be on-line. If you would prefer to receive a hard copy of the survey instead, please let us know by checking the box below. Yes, please send me a hard copy of the survey instead of a link to the on-line version.

5. Comments or questions?

8 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Instructions: Mapping of Harbors In this initial step of the survey, designed to ensure we have a common understanding of the waters that support recreational and commercial vessels within your jurisdiction, we are asking you to (1) confirm the “harbors” in your community; (2) specify areas that are dredged; and (3) depict existing channels, fairways, boating facilities, mooring basins, anchorages, upland or in-water disposal sites, and any other features important to your harbor(s). We have used several sources to identify harbors throughout the Commonwealth. A “harbor,” for the purposes of this project, is a relatively protected body of water where recreational and/or commercial vessels are docked or moored. A harbor can be located on a sheltered embayment, a coastal pond, or a river. The harbor(s) we have identified for your town are shown on the enclosed map(s). Please provide the information described below using one of the following mapping methods: Method #1: Adding the information by drawing directly on the enclosed map(s) and returning the map(s) to us in the enclosed postage-paid envelope Method #2: Using Google Earth to provide us with this information electronically (see instructions on the next page) No matter which method you choose, the items we would like you to draw and label on the maps are: 1. A line that encompasses what you consider to be the boundary of each harbor. 2. Locations and names of navigation channels, anchorages, mooring areas, and boat basins (both dredged and natural), if appropriate. 3. For channels and other areas that are dredged, indicate (draw and label) portions that have been or are typically dredged as separate projects (e.g., entrance channel, main channel, north end of mooring area). 4. Locations and names of marine-related shoreside facilities (e.g., boat yards, marinas, town docks, boat launches, ferry terminals, restaurants, condos or hotels/motels with slips) that are not already shown on the map. We have enclosed a “Sample Harbor Map” illustrating what is described above. The information you provide in this step is important as it will be used to tailor the on-line survey for each harbor. Please feel free to change anything on the maps that is incorrect. Also, use the enclosed form to let us know if there are other areas that you consider to be “harbors” in your municipality. Alternatively, you can let us know if you have additional harbors by sending an email to the address below. If you have any questions about this phase of the project, please call 617-287-5570 or email Allison Novelly at [email protected].

9 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Instructions for drawing in Google Earth:

1. Open the Google Earth program. If you don’t already have the program, you can download and install it for free at: https://www.google.com/earth/

2. Find your harbor. To navigate to the location of your first harbor, enter your harbor name and town in the “search” tool on the top left of your screen and then use the pan (the little hand that appears when you hover your mouse over the map) and zoom tools on the top right of your screen to adjust the view. Latitudes and longitudes appear on the bottom right of your Google Earth screen and may further help you identify the location for which you are looking.

Search tool

Zoom tool

Lat/Long

3. Draw a harbor boundary and other features. Once you have navigated to the correct location, you’re ready to draw. Click on the “add polygon” feature to draw your harbor boundary, a mooring area, a channel segment, etc. To draw, move your mouse over the map so that it is on the edge of the shape you want to draw, and left click to create that point. Continue to do this for the other points of your polygon until you have completed the polygon. (If your polygon appears as a solid color, you can change the settings so that only the boundary outline is visible, making it easier to see the base map and draw additional polygons. In the pop-up box select the “Style, Color” tab. On that tab, under “Area”, select “Outlined” from the drop-down menu. On the same tab, you can also adjust the thickness and color of your lines to make your polygon more visible.)

4. Name your new polygon and add a description. In the pop-up box, under the description tab, name your new polygon and add a description (name of the harbor, mooring field, or channel segment, for example).

10 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Once you have finished drawing, naming, and describing your first polygon, and making any changes to the settings, click on “OK”. The name of your new polygon will appear in your list of places on the left side of your screen. 1. Add Polygon tool

3. Name your polygon Sample polygon

2. Change line and fill 4. Describe the colors here polygon here (E.g.., “moorings for Harbor Bay Yacht Club”)

5. Continue to map other harbors and features. Repeat steps 2-4 for all remaining harbors, channel segments, anchorages, mooring areas, boat basins, marinas, yacht clubs, boat ramps, etc. To delete a completed harbor feature, find the name in the list on left side of your screen (under “Places”), right click on the name, and select “Delete”. When you’ve finished drawing your polygons for a harbor, your map might look something like this:

11 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways.

6. Move your work into a folder. Once all of your sites have been drawn, right click your mouse while it is on the “Places” portion of your screen. A box will appear. Click on “Add” then on “Folder”. Name your folder. You will see it appear under “Places” on the left side of your screen. Drag and drop each of your polygons into this new folder. (To do this, right click on the name of one of your polygons listed under “Places” and hold the button while you drag that polygon over the name of your newly created folder. When a box appears around the name of your new folder, release the mouse button to move that polygon into the folder. Repeat this for all of your polygons.)

7. Save your work. Right click your mouse on the newly created folder. Select “Save place as” from the pop-up menu. Name your file and save your folder as a kml file (one of the options under “Save as type” at the bottom of the save pop-up box). Make sure you pay attention to where the folder is saving to. You will need to find it when you go to email it to us.

8. Send us your work. Send your saved folder, as an email attachment, to Kristin Uiterwyk at [email protected]. Please also include in the body of your email: (1) The email address we should use to mail the on-line survey – unless you’d rather receive a hard copy. In which case, please let us know the correct mailing address. (2) Any questions/comments you have about the project, including corrections to any of the information we sent you (e.g., address, assistant harbormaster names).

12 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. APPENDIX D: MUNICIPALITIES THAT RESPONDED TO THE PRELIMINARY SURVEY AND STATE OF OUR HARBORS SURVEY State of Our Harbors Survey Preliminary Town Survey Online Paper In-person Phone Amesbury x Aquinnah Barnstable x x Berkley Beverly x x Boston x Bourne x x Braintree x Brewster x x Chatham x x Chelsea x Chilmark x x Cohasset x Danvers x Dartmouth x Dennis x x Dighton x Duxbury x Eastham x x Edgartown x x Essex x Everett x x Fairhaven x Fall River x Falmouth x x

13 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Freetown x Gloucester x x Gosnold x Harwich x x Haverhill x Hingham x x Hull x x Ipswich x x Kingston x x Lynn x x Manchester by-the- Sea x x Marblehead x x Marion x x Marshfield x x Mashpee x x Mattapoisett x Milton x x Nahant x x Nantucket x New Bedford x Newbury x Newburyport x Norwell x Oak Bluffs x x Orleans x Plymouth x x Provincetown x x Quincy x Revere Rockport x x

14 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Rowley x Salem x x Salisbury x x Sandwich x Saugus x x Scituate x x Somerset x x Swampscott Swansea x Tisbury x x Truro x x Wareham x Wellfleet x x West Newbury x Westport x x x Weymouth x x Winthrop x x Yarmouth x x

15 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. 41 (56%) completed or partially completed surveys online, providing data on 75 individual coastal harbors. We also obtained data for an additional 87 harbors through in-person meetings. The table below shows the number of completed harbor surveys obtained through each method.

Number of Individual Harbor Surveys Completed by Method n = 205 100

80 87 75 60

40

20 8 16 18 0 Number of Harbor Surveys Harbor of Number In-person N/A Online Paper Phone Completion Method

Note that N/A indicates that we were not able to contact the harbormaster to collect information on that harbor.

16 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. APPENDIX E: STATE OF OUR HARBORS SURVEY – ONLINE AND PAPER VERSIONS 1. Online Version – Sample Pages

17 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. 2. Paper Version

2015 State of Our Harbors Survey

INSTRUCTIONS: The purpose of this survey is to gather information about each of the harbors in your town. The questions below are designed to capture information about one harbor; therefore, if you have more than one harbor in your town, please complete a copy of this survey for each of your harbors and mail it to: The Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125 If you would prefer to return the survey via email, please scan the survey(s) and return to [email protected]. Completed surveys should be returned by May 10, 2015. If you have any questions about this survey, please call 617-287-5570. Thank you.

1. Please list your name and title (e.g., Harbormaster).

Name: ______Title: ______

2. Please provide the name of the harbor being addressed in this survey:

3. Is there a Harbor Management Plan for this harbor? Please circle one. Yes, date of plan: ______No It is under development

Section 1: Physical Characteristics, Water-dependent Activities in the Harbor

4. Please describe the general physical characteristics of this harbor.

18 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. 5. What types of water-dependent activities take place in this harbor? (Examples include recreational boating, commercial fishing, etc.)

6. Please describe this harbor’s economic and/or cultural importance to the municipality or region.

7. Please describe any current major issues that exist with the harbor.

8. Does this harbor and its associated channels and infrastructure serve essential needs of government agencies, such as USCG, NOAA, MA Environmental Police, or others? Please circle one. Yes, please list the agencies: ______No 9. How many moorings were in this harbor in 2014? a. Municipally-owned/managed ______b. Private individual ______c. Marina or yacht club ______

10. How many slips and moorings in the harbor are available (reserved) for transient vessels during the boating season? a. Number of slips ______b. Number of moorings ______

11. On an average summer weekend day, how many transient vessels would you estimate use the harbor? ______

19 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. 12. For each category of vessel length below, please indicate the approximate PERCENT of recreational and commercial vessels in this harbor that are at both slips and moorings during the boating season. Note that each column below should sum to 100%, except for cases where there are no vessels at slips or moorings in the harbor.

RECREATIONAL Vessels COMMERCIAL Vessels

Vessel Length Slips Moorings Vessel Length Slips Moorings a. Less than 16’ a. Less than 16’ b. 16’-25’ b. 16’-25’ c. 26’-40’ c. 26’-40’ d. 41’-55’ d. 41’-55’ e. 56’-75’ e. 56’-75’ f. 76’-90’ f. 76’-90’ g. Longer than 90’ g. Longer than 90’

20 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Section 2: Dredging in the Harbor

13. Please complete the following table for any areas that have been dredged within this harbor. Dredged areas could include entrance channels, anchorage areas, mooring areas, marina basins, etc. Is dredging Lead currently Estimated Frequency of past dredging Current responsible needed? volume of Estimated at this site draft limit party (e.g., needed cost of Date of last Volume Total a. No Design of vessels Federal, dredging needed a. Annual Name of dredged dredging of last cost of Disposal depth (in able to State, b. Y, immediate within the dredging area in harbor dredging last location b. Biannual feet) access the (starting County, next 5 within the dredging c. Y, within 5 yrs harbor at MM/YYYY) Municipal, (in cubic years next 5 c. In 3-5 yrs Private) d. Y, in more low tide yards) (in cubic years than 5 yrs d. In more than yards) 10 yrs

21 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. 14. If any of the dredging identified above (in question 13) as being needed “immediately” or “within 5 years” is NOT done, please indicate which of the following impacts likely would or would not result. If there are no immediate or within 5 years dredging needs, please skip to question 16. If loss of If loss of If loss of d. Limit on If draft is f. Loss of direct slips, c. Loss of moorings, draft of limited, b. Loss of direct revenue, a. Name of dredged area estimate usage of estimate vessels able maximum usage of revenue estimate g. Describe any other impacts in harbor number moorings number to access draft if slips (Y/N) (Y/N) amount of of lost (Y/N) of lost the harbor dredging is lost slips moorings (Y/N) not done revenue ($)

22 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. 15. If the dredging identified above as being needed “immediately” or “within 5 years” IS performed within the next 5 years, would you predict an INCREASE in commercial and/or recreational boating activity over current conditions? Please circle one. Yes No increase in activity, just better/safer conditions a. If yes, please describe the type and amount of increased recreational and/or commercial vessel-related activity (e.g., number of additional vessels, increased size of vessels, increase in transient visits, potential new types of water-dependent activities, potential increase in economic benefits):

16. Considering the dredging needs of all areas within this harbor, are any OTHER shore-side businesses and/or activities within this harbor impacted by the need for dredging (other than the loss of slips and/or moorings)? Please circle one. Yes No a. If yes, please describe the shore-side businesses and/or activities that are impacted:

17. In your opinion, what is/are the most essential dredging project(s) for the functioning of this harbor (regardless of current dredging needs)?

a. What benefits will be derived as a result of this dredging (e.g., amount of increased revenue, environmental improvement)?

23 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Section 3: Harbor Uses and Facilities 18. Please complete the following table for the boating facilities in this harbor (e.g., marinas, yacht clubs, boat ramps, mooring areas).

c. Number of commercial d. Number of commercial e. # of f. Is there a g. Is there gas or b. Public or launch a. Name of boating facility and recreational slips and recreational moorings pump-out? diesel fuel? private? ramp (Y/N) (G/D) Commercial Recreational Commercial Recreational lanes

24 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways.

Section 4: Municipal Revenue for the Harbor

19. How much annual revenue did the municipality collect from: a. Mooring PERMIT fees in this harbor in 2014? $ ______b. Renting municipally-managed MOORINGS in this harbor in 2014? $ ______c. Renting municipally-managed SLIPS in this harbor in 2014? $ ______

20. Do you have any additional information about this harbor that you feel would be important or helpful for us to know to have a more complete picture of this harbor? Please circle one. Yes No a. If yes, please describe:

21. For this question, please consider the revenue generated from ALL harbors within the municipality, not just the one described. How much annual revenue did the municipality collect from boat excise taxes in 2014?

$ ______

Thank you for completing this survey. If there is only one harbor in your municipality, then you are finished. If there are more harbors in your municipality, please print out additional copies of this survey and complete them for each harbor. Again, we thank you for your time and effort in participating in this important survey.

25 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. APPENDIX F: FINAL METHODOLOGY REPORT COMPLETED BY THE CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH, UMASS BOSTON

2015 State of Our Harbors Survey

Final Methodology Report

By:

Anthony M. Roman And Kirk Larsen

Center for Survey Research University of Massachusetts-Boston

For:

The Urban Harbors Institute University of Massachusetts-Boston

August 2015

26 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. I. Background

The state of Massachusetts has a long seacoast and with it a long history of boating activity, both commercial and recreational. This boating activity is an important component of the Massachusetts economy as it provides jobs, influences trade and brings people into the state. In order to thrive, this boating activity requires healthy and well-maintained harbors. Unfortunately, there is no single place to locate consistent information on the current state of Massachusetts harbors. Instead, only harbormasters responsible for locally administering each harbor are in a position to know about the state of their harbors.

In the 1990’s, a study was conducted which attempted to get information from harbormasters about such things as the need for dredging and other required harbor upkeep. However, no information exists that is more recent. With this in mind, with funding through the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Urban Harbors Institute of the University of Massachusetts-Boston (UHI) contacted the Center for Survey Research (CSR) of that same university in 2014 about updating not only this information about Massachusetts harbors, but also the methodology for collecting this type of information.

This report describes the development effort for this study as well as the data collection effort. Results from the information collected from harbormasters will be released in additional reports.

II. Questionnaire Development

Deciding what questions to ask harbormasters was not an easy task. Updating information from the last study as well as gathering new information on more current topics were both considered important. This led to a large amount of information desired for each harbor. Since frequently a single harbormaster, generally located in a single town or city, was responsible for all harbors within that town, it meant asking many detailed questions about each harbor for numerous harbors. This meant asking for a substantial amount of their time and effort.

It was realized that probably the most important information to be obtained concerned dredging. The information needed included dates, costs and volumes of the most recent dredging, the perceived need for current and future dredging and the potential impacts of delaying any currently needed dredging. This was already a lot of detailed information. In addition, it was recognized that dredging could have been done or could be needed in not just one area of a harbor, but possibly several different areas. This meant even more time and effort required for harbormasters to complete the survey. Add to this that information was also needed about facilities located in the harbor such as marinas, boat ramps and mooring areas and the number of questions quickly grew even greater.

UHI and CSR worked together to both limit the number of questions being asked and also methods to present the questions to harbormasters in a way that made it easiest to respond. Several months of work was required to get the survey to its final form. Although still longer than desired, it was considered as manageable as possible. A copy of the survey questions is attached. 27 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways.

III. Data Collection Methodology

UHI initially gathered data on all harbormasters in Massachusetts. This included their name, address, telephone number and email address as well as the names of the harbors they managed. There were a total of 70 harbormasters in the state. During the compilation of all this information, it became apparent that the list of harbors for each harbormaster as well as potential identified areas within each harbor may contain errors. These errors may be as simple as the name of a harbor, an area within the harbor or a facility at the harbor or it may be that areas or facilities within harbors might be missing or even harbors themselves might be missing.

Due to this uncertainty, it was decided that a survey could not simply be sent to each harbormaster asking for information on what we believed they managed. Confirmation on what they managed was a required first step. Therefore in January of 2015, each harbormaster was sent a packet of material. Within this packet was documentation describing the study being undertaken as well as the benefits of the study to the state and the benefits to each harbormaster. Finally, a map of each of their harbors was sent to them. They were then asked to correct the name of the harbor if needed, and then to identify and name each area of the harbor (e.g., entrance channels, inlet channels, main channels, mooring areas, anchorages and fairways) and additionally each facility at the harbor (e.g., marinas, boat ramps, etc.). Harbormasters were also given instructions on how to perform these mapping requests online in Google Earth, if this was the method they would prefer to use. Finally, they were asked to confirm that we did not leave out any harbors under their management.

The results of this effort were then used to populate the survey that would be sent to them as the next step in the process. We could pre-populate the survey with correct harbor names and names of areas within each harbor so that no confusion could exist concerning what was being asked to be reported. This was considered a very important step in assuring the highest level of accuracy for reported data.

It was also decided that the survey would need to exist in two modes. The first was a booklet format that could be mailed to harbormasters so that they could complete it and return it. This was the methodology used in the earlier 1990’s study. In an effort to make responding easier and to update the methodology, a web version of the survey was developed that could be administered online. For this version, an email would be sent to each harbormaster with links to a survey pre- populated with information on their own harbors. Due to the amount of information required for pre-population and the variable number of areas within each harbor, a single web survey could ask about two separate harbors, but no more. For harbormasters with more than two harbors, this required more than one link to complete the entire survey. Although not ideal, this was still considered an improvement of many separate mail surveys, one for each harbor.

A great deal of effort was spent in designing and testing the web survey, as it was quite complicated and needed to get each pre-populated name correctly installed in the correct place. When finally complete, it was considered a template for any future efforts that may want to update this type of information. 28 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. IV. Data Collection Results:

As stated earlier, the first phase of data collection was to send a packet of information and maps to each of the 70 harbormasters in Massachusetts so that they could update information about the names, areas and facilities within each harbor they managed. This began in January 2015. From this mailing, and additional phone calls to try to get cooperation, a total of 39 harbormasters returned completed packets (55.7%). For those with completed packets, the information was used to pre- populate individualized web surveys. If a packet was not returned, then we used the names of the harbors and areas within harbors we originally had which came from other sources. We realized this may contain some errors, but it was the best that could be done.

All information obtained was programmed into the web survey. A serious amount of testing was then conducted to make sure all information was correct and that the survey worked as expected with ease of use and clarity for the respondent being the major goals. An initial email was sent to all 70 harbormasters on May 1, 2015. If any harbormaster had previously requested a hard copy of the survey, then this was mailed to them as well at that time. CSR was responsible for distributing the web surveys while UHI took responsibility for the paper versions. A total of 124 emails were sent as numerous harbormasters had more than two harbors to report about and therefore required more than a single email. On May 11, reminder emails were sent to all harbormasters that had not yet responded. A total of 111 reminder emails were sent. On May 18, a second set of reminder emails was sent to all non-respondents as of that time. For this second reminder, a total of 93 emails were sent. The web survey was kept active on the web so that harbormasters could respond until June 30. UHI contacted many harbormasters throughout this field period in order to try to increase participation.

So overall, 70 harbormasters were sent 124 emails that asked about 208 separate harbors in this process. 41 of the 70 harbormasters responded (58.6%) with data for at least some of their harbors. Of the 124 emails originally sent, 57 were returned with data (46.0%). Finally, of the 208 harbors asked about, at least partial data was obtained for 91 (43.8%). These returns broke out in the following manner:

71 harbors with complete data from web survey responses 12 harbors with complete data from paper survey responses 8 harbors with partial data from web responses

Although it is always desired to get as many completed returns as possible, getting information on almost half of the 208 Massachusetts harbors was considered successful. It is hoped that once harbormasters and others see how worthwhile information from this survey is, that more they will want to participate in the future.

It is interesting to examine how harbormasters responded based on how many harbors they were asked to report about, realizing that more harbors required more effort and more time. Following is a breakdown on these results:

29 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Table 1: Responses for Harbormasters by Number of Emails Received

Number of Percent of Number of Number of Harbormasters Harbormasters Emails Received Harbormasters who Responded who Responded

1 44 25 56.8% 2 17 11 64.7 3 – 11 9 5 55.6 Total 70 41 58.6

This table can be read in the following manner. Of the 70 total harbormasters in the state, 44 of them received only one email to complete. This meant they were asked to respond about either one or two harbors under their administration. Of the 44 who received a single email, 25 of them, or 56.8%, responded to that email with at least partial data for their harbors. The row for two emails received can be interpreted in the same way, except these harbormasters were asked to respond about three or four harbors. The row for 3-11 emails was for the 9 harbormasters in the state with the largest numbers of harbors to administer. These people were asked to report on between 5 and 22 harbors.

It is easily seen how more emails received translated into significantly more time and effort for the harbormasters. Still, the percentage responding for each category of the breakdown did not vary by any large degree. The harbormasters who received only one email were only slightly more likely to respond than those who received 3-11 emails (56.8% vs. 55.6%). The ones who received two emails were only a little more likely (64.7%) to respond than the other two groups. This may appear to be an unexpected result as it suggests that the amount of effort a harbormaster was asked to do did not affect the likelihood of response. This is true. However, the following table offers a different perspective.

Table 2: Responses for Harbors by Number of Emails Received

Total Number Total Number of Percent of Number of of Harbors Harbors for which Harbors for which Emails Received Asked About Data Was Received Data Was Received

1 60 32 53.3% 2 60 27 45.0 3 – 11 88 32 36.4 Total 208 91 43.8

The above table can be interpreted in the following manner. The harbormasters who received one email were asked to respond about a total of 60 harbors. Of those 60 harbors, data were received for 32 harbors or 53.3%. The harbormasters who received two emails were also asked to respond 30 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. about a total of 60 harbors. Of these 60 harbors, data were received for 27 harbors or 45.0%. Finally, the harbormasters who received 3 – 11 emails were asked to respond about a total of 88 harbors. Of these, data were received for 32 harbors or 36.4%. Here it becomes evident that the more harbors a harbormaster was asked to respond about, the less likely he\she was to respond about all harbors.

The conclusion here is that although the percentage of harbormasters who respond to some extent is not much affected by the number of harbors they administer, those asked to provide data about more harbors are likely to respond about only a few. This is not surprising at all. Responding about a harbor does take time and effort. The harbormasters seem to have a point at which the effort feels to burdensome and they stop.

V. Conclusions and Recommendations

Getting current information about the state of Massachusetts harbors is a very important task. The fact that information on dredging and facilities at harbors is not available from any single source, but requires getting information individually from 70 different harbormasters makes getting access to this information a difficult and costly task. Add to this, the fact that the last effort to get statewide level information from harbormasters was undertaken about 20 years ago, and the need to conduct a study such as this becomes evident. The only way to effectively plan for the future of Massachusetts harbors is to understand the current state of affairs.

This study was able to produce current information for nearly half of Massachusetts harbors. This is a significant improvement from what existed previously. Certainly, it was hoped to get information on a higher percentage of harbors, but conducting the study still led to an important increase in available information.

Another important aspect of this study was to create a set of consistent questions that could be answered by harbormasters and also to create a methodology through which these questions could be administered in the future in a cost-effective manner. From this standpoint, the study was highly successful. Almost 60% of harbormasters used the current methodology with little or no difficulty and provided valuable information. This indicated a successful method for obtaining a vast amount of detailed information.

To make the most of the development effort of this study, the following recommendations are suggested:

1) Summary reports of information gained from the study are created and made available to harbormasters so they can see the importance and the utility of the information gained from the study. 2) A cost effective method of dropping data from the completed surveys and moving them directly into a database available for easy use and analysis is constructed. 3) The online survey is made available to harbormasters on either a continuous or periodic basis so that harbormasters can enter data when it is convenient for them to do so. 31 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways.

The creation of these steps may make the gathering of these important data both consistent and systematic over time. It could also be quite cost-effective as the development is now complete.

VI. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of Jack Wiggin, Kim Starbuck and Kristen Uiterwyk of the Urban Harbors Institute of UMass-Boston for all their efforts in this study. Their dedication to developing a methodology that could be sustainable into the future is greatly appreciated. Also, their ability to work on developing a set of questions that took the efforts of respondents into consideration was a crucial aspect of the success of the study. Throughout the entire development process, their ability to blend the needs of the information required with their understanding of not overtaxing respondents helped create a final product that serves to accomplish both goals as successfully as possible.

As lead author of this methodology report, I would also like to thank Kirk Larsen who was able to take a very complicated survey questionnaire and make it into a web survey that was as easy for respondents to complete as possible. The fact that about 60% of harbormasters were able to use this survey with little or no difficulty attests to the success of his programming.

The success of this study is due to all people cited above and many others. Any errors in this report are the responsibility of the authors alone.

32 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. APPENDIX G: METHODOLOGY TO CALCULATE SALES TAX GENERATED BY MASSACHUSETTS FROM THE OCEAN ECONOMY IN 2012 In Massachusetts, consumers pay a 6.25% sales tax on the sale or rental price of tangible personal property. In order to estimate the amount of sales tax generated by the Massachusetts Ocean Economy, vales of sales, shipments, receipts, revenue, and business conducted were obtained from the US Economic Census, online at: http://www.census.gov/econ/census/. The US Census Bureau’s American Fact Finder tool was used to build tables showing these values for each sector of businesses in the Massachusetts Ocean Economy, by coastal county, for the year 2012. Businesses were identified by NAICS code, consistent with the methodology identified in Appendix G. (See Appendix G for more detail on the Ocean Economy and NAICS codes.) In some cases, data could not be disclosed at the county level for privacy reasons. In these cases, efforts were made to estimate values by taking the State-wide value and dividing that by the total number of establishments in the State. That State-wide average was then applied to the number of establishments in each coastal county. For some business types, data was also lacking at the State- level. In those cases, where possible, estimates were made by taking the average from a less specific grouping of the sector, and applying that number to the number of establishments in the coastal county. For example, State-wide data were not available for businesses classified as “Coastal and great lakes passenger transportation” (NAICS code: 483114), but data were available for businesses in the more general class of “Deep sea, coastal, and great lakes water transportation” (NAICS code: 48311), which included the more specific category; therefore, estimates were calculated using the less specific classification of businesses. Lastly, some values did not even exist for the more broad classifications. In those cases, they were not included in the final calculation. Those businesses included drilling oil and gas wells (NAICS code: 213111), farm product warehousing and storage (NAICS code: 493130), marine cargo handling (NAICS code: 488320), other support activities for water transportation (NAICS code: 488390), port and harbor operations (NAICS code: 488310), oil and gas pipeline and related structures construction (NAICS code: 237120), other heavy and civil engineering construction (NAICS code: 237990), refrigerated warehousing and storage (NAICS code: 493120), and support activities for oil and gas operations (213112). Even without the sales from those missing industries, the estimated sales from the Ocean Economy for 2012 were $2,171,749,226.66, and total sales taxes were $135,734,326.67. It is unclear what the sales taxes would have been if those other industries had been included. Furthermore, it is unlikely that all sales generated by the Ocean Economy are directly attributable to dredging and adequate navigation. Even with those limitations, these numbers provide a rough estimate of a least a portion of the sales tax generated by the Ocean Economy in Massachusetts.

33 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. APPENDIX H: METHODOLOGY TO CALCULATE FUEL TAX GENERATED BY MASSACHUSETTS FROM MARINE RECREATIONAL BOATING IN 2012 Massachusetts taxes each gallon of gas and diesel sold to boaters at the same rate as it taxes the fuel sold to drivers using roadside gas stations. The State sales tax on fuel is used to conduct maintenance and repairs on State roadways. Because boaters use their fuel on the water, as opposed to roads, they are eligible for a complete tax refund—though they are still required to pay a use tax of 6.25% of the total purchase price of their fuel. Unfortunately, the State Department of Revenue does not have records on the amount of money they collect on the sale of marine fuel1, nor do they have records for how many boaters submit paperwork to receive the rebate—though anecdotal reports indicate that recreational boaters rarely apply for the rebate. Data on commercial fuel spending was unavailable, but data on recreational fuel spending can be calculated by using information from the Northeast Recreational Boater Study2, which found that, in 2012, recreational boaters spent an average of $368/season on trip-related fuel purchases, and $158.27/season on fuel purchases related to visiting their vessels. The total spending on fuel—trips and visits combined—was $ 526.27/boat/season. Approximately 100,168 vessels met the participation criteria for the Northeast Recreational Boater study, so it can be said that, together, these vessels spent a total of $52,715,413.36 on fuel in 2012 (100,168 vessels x $526.27/vessel/season). The total spending on fuel needed to be converted into number of gallons of gas and diesel purchased. In order to do this, first the total value of fuel sales was separated into the amount spent on gas ($51,661,105.09) and the amount spent on diesel ($1,054,308.27), based on a review of registered and documented vessel databases from 2012, which showed that approximately 98% of vessels greater than ten feet (a requirement to qualify for the Northeast Recreational Boater study) were gas powered, while only approximately 2% were diesel poweredi. Second, marine fuel price records are not kept, but archives of the Waterway Guide’s website3, which does list the prices of gas and diesel at a select group of shore-side facilities in Massachusetts, were used in conjunction with other online records of fuel prices, to obtain a rough average of fuel prices for the 2012 recreational boating season. With these pieces of information, the percentages of spending on gas versus diesel were calculated, and those totals were divided by the average prices in order to calculate the number of gallons of each type of fuel purchased. Once the number of gallons had

1 Fox, J.Y. September, 2015. Personal Communication with the Department of Revenue regarding the availability of marine fuel tax information. 2 Starbuck K, Lipsky A. SeaPlan. 2012 Northeast Recreational Boater Survey: A Socioeconomic and Spatial Characterization of Recreational Boating in Coastal and Ocean Waters of the Northeast United States. Technical Report Dec 2013. Online at: http://www.seaplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2012-NE-Survey-tech- report121.13.101.pdf. 3 Stehle, T. October 2015. Personal communication with Senior Advisor and Skipper Bob Editor for Waterway Guide Media, LLC regarding records of fuel prices listed on their website.

34 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. been calculated, they were multiplied by $0.21, the State’s tax rate/gallon of fuel in 2012. A breakdown of the numbers in the above calculations can be found in Table 1, below. Table 1. A breakdown of recreational boater fuel spending and associated taxes collected in Massachusetts in 2012. “Average” Total Recreational Fuel Price Number of Gallons Spending on Fuel Fuel Tax in 2012 in of Fuel Purchased in 2012 MA

Gas $51,661,105.09 $4.34 11,901,913.36 $2,499,401.81

Diesel $1,054,308.27 $4.19 251,489.05 $52,812.70

Total $52,715,413.36 - 12,153,402.41 $2,552,214.51

Though these numbers do not account for any boaters applying for their tax rebate, these numbers still provide an underestimation of the total fuel taxes collected by the State in 2012 due to the facts that:  These numbers do not reflect commercial marine fuel purchases  These numbers do not include all recreational boaters in MA (the number of boaters was determined based on guidelines set forth in the Northeast Recreational Boater study, which focused on boats at least ten feet in length, registered near coastal waters)

35 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. APPENDIX I: ECONOMIC DATA METHODOLOGY The National Ocean Economics Program (NOEP) compiles and distributes estimated economic data on business establishments, employment, annual wages, and gross domestic product for the Ocean Economy of the US at the national, regional, State, and county level.4 NOEP works in cooperation with Economics: National Ocean Watch (ENOW)5 program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center (CSC), now reorganized as the NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM). From 1990 to 2004 data was prepared by NOEP. From 2005 to the present, data was prepared by the NOAA CSC/OCM. The specific economic data we collected were (1) employment, i.e., the average annual number of jobs, including full-time, part-time, seasonal, and year-round; (2) wages; and (3) GDP, or value- added; as well as the number of establishments, or locations of work and economic activity, in a given industry.6 An industry is a group of establishments that produce similar products or provide similar services.7 Data on the establishments, employment, and wages data are derived from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These data are obtained from data reported by employers in accordance with Federal and State unemployment insurance laws. As a result, these data do not include the self-employed, which is often a majority of the fish harvesting industry. GDP data are derived from various sources by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). For this project we collected 2012 data on the Massachusetts Ocean Economy, comprised of economic activity that directly or indirectly uses the ocean as an input, as opposed to the Coastal Economy, comprised of all economic activity located in coastal areas regardless of whether that activity depends on the ocean. Specifically, the Ocean Economy includes a business establishment “when it either (1) is included in an industry whose definition ties the activity to the ocean, or (2) is located in an industry which is partially related to the ocean and is located in a shore-adjacent zip code.”8 The Ocean Economy is comprised of six sectors: Marine Construction, Living Resources, Minerals, Ship & Boat Building, Tourism & Recreation, and Transportation.9 Each sector is defined by specific NAICS industry codes. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), developed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is a method for classifying business establishments into

4 National Ocean Economics Program. 2015. Online at: http://www.oceaneconomics.org 5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Economics: National Ocean Watch. 2015. Online at: https://coast.noaa.gov/dataregistry/search/collection/info/enow 6 NOEP, 2015 7 US Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment Statistics. Frequently Asked Questions. Online at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_ques.htm 8 Colgan, C.S. 2007. A Guide to the Measurement of the Market Data for the Ocean and Coastal Economy in the National Ocean Economics Program. 9 Colgan, 2007 36 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. industries by their primary type of economic activity.10 This uniform system facilitates the collection, analysis, and publication of data on the US economy.11 The table below presents the six ocean sectors and their associated NAICS industry codes. With the exception of the Tourism & Recreation sector, this table reflects the same ocean sectors and NAICS codes as reported by NOEP and ENOW.

10 US Census Bureau. 2015. North American Industry Classification System. Introduction to NAICS. Online at: http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ 11 US Census Bureau, 2015. 37 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Ocean Economy Sectors and Industries Defined By NAICS Codes. NAICS Sector Industry NAICS Industry Code 112511 Finfish Farming and Fish Hatcheries Fish Hatcheries and 112512 Shellfish Farming Aquaculture 112519 Other Aquaculture Living 114111 Finfish Fishing Resources Fishing 114112 Shellfish Fishing 114119 Other Marine Fishing Seafood Processing 311710 Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging Seafood Markets 445220 Fish and Seafood Markets Oil & Gas Pipeline & Related Structures Marine Marine Related 237120 Construction Construction Construction 237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 483111 Deep Sea Freight Transportation Deep Sea Freight 483113 Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation 483112 Deep Sea Passenger Transportation Marine Passenger Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger Transportation 483114 Transportation 488310 Port and Harbor Operations 488320 Marine Cargo Handling Marine Transportation Marine Services 488330 Navigational Services to Shipping Transportation Other Support Activities for Water 488390 Transportation Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Search and Navigation 334511 Aeronautical and Nautical System and Instrument Equipment Manufacturing 493110 General Warehousing and Storage Warehousing 493120 Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage 493130 Farm Product Warehousing and Storage Limestone, Sand and 212321 Construction Sand and Gravel Mining Gravel 212322 Industrial Sand Mining Offshore 211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction Mineral 211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction Oil and Gas Exploration Resources 213111 Drilling Oil and Gas Wells and Production 213112 Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations 541360 Geophysical Exploration and Mapping Services Ship and Boat Boat Building and Repair 336612 Boat Building and Repair Building Ship Building and Repair 336611 Ship Building and Repair Tourism and Boat Dealers 441222 Boat Dealers Recreation Marinas 713930 Marinas 38 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Scenic Water Tours 487210 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water In this report we focused our analysis on economic activity as it relates to dredging. We removed the following 14 industries from the Tourism & Recreation sector as defined by NOEP and ENOW: 722511 Full Service Restaurants 722513 Limited Service Eating Places 722514 Cafeterias 722515 Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars 721110 Hotels and Motels 721191 Bed and Breakfast Inns 721211 RV Parks and Recreational Camos 339920 Sports and Athletic Goods Manufacturing 487990 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Other 611620 Sports and Recreation Instruction 532292 Recreation Goods Rental 713990 Amusement and Recreation Services Not Elsewhere 712130 Zoo and Botanical Gardens 712190 Nature Parks and Other Similar Institutions These industries are not included in the calculations because in general they are not directly impacted by dredging. In addition, the data for these industries, particularly for hotels and restaurants, is so large relative to the sector that if they were included they would significantly skew the overall results for the sector. Although our edited list of industries in the Tourism & Recreation sector may omit a limited number of establishments impacted by dredging, the risk of underreporting is small relative to much greater and more certain over-reporting that would occur otherwise.

39 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways.

Establishments, Employment, Wages, and Gross Domestic Product, With and Without Multipliers, for ocean economic activities in Massachusetts in 2012.

Employment Wages with GDP with Sector Industry Establishments Employment Wages GDP with Multiplier Multiplier multiplier Fish Hatcheries and 18 154 191 $10,066,276 $40,069,818 $23,558,772 $67,388,038 Aquaculture Living Fishing 368 1,466 3,215 $160,625,119 $497,407,806 $435,109,556 $1,333,262,701 Resources Seafood Processing 52 2,336 10,239 $125,904,957 $561,863,461 $248,404,476 $1,481,633,338 Seafood Markets 141 1,012 1,862 $27,202,199 $73,660,835 $50,734,352 $150,376,619 Living Resources Sector Total 579 4,968 15,507 $323,798,551 $1,173,001,920 $757,807,156 $3,032,610,696 Marine Related Marine Construction 85 1,123 3,217 $50,422,992 $155,993,610 $84,712,177 $280,990,291 Construction Marine Related Construction Marine Construction Sector Total 85 1,123 3,217 $50,422,992 $155,933,610 $84,712,177 $280,990,291 Deep Sea Freight 20 180 1,174 $18,652,372 $51,385,420 $50,039,463 $165,580,583 Transportation Marine Passenger 18 345 2,250 $10,673,406 $29,404,166 $28,633,972 $94,749,813 Transportation Marine Marine Transportation Transportation 44 384 1,054 $20,211,523 $54,168,903 $38,489,053 $120,497,678 Services Search and Navigation 34 5,252 30,760 $732,907,884 $2,415,444,513 $1,522,625,984 $6,075,429,939 Equipment Warehousing 147 4,686 10,257 $310,401,377 $771,285,342 $497,050,003 $1,514,362,244 Marine Transportation Sector Total 263 10,847 45,495 $1,092,846,562 $3,321,688,343 $2,136,838,477 $7,970,620,258 Limestone, Sand and Offshore 22 116 323 $6,460,226 $21,393,038 $23,617,297 $75,140,792 Gravel Mineral Oil & Gas Exploration Resources 22 10 29 $535,958 $1,429,078 $886,240 $2,438,046 and Production Offshore Mineral Resources Sector 44 126 352 $6,996,184 $22,822,117 $24,503,538 $77,578,838 Boat Building & Repair 30 171 484 $8,056,823 $23,199,622 $11,877,505 $46,135,793 Ship and Boat Building Ship Building & Repair 9 247 940 $16,848,992 $46,081,993 $24,839,071 $86,867,199 Ship and Boat Building Sector Total 39 418 1,424 $24,905,815 $69,281,615 $36,716,577 $133,002,992 Boat Dealers 74 402 1,044 $19,944,502 $52,166,839 $37,198,147 $129,047,812 Tourism and Marinas 162 1,443 2,945 $58,479,028 $161,752,991 $107,387,765 $345,101,322 Recreation Scenic Water Tours 65 437 1,200 $12,174,643 $32,629,261 $23,184,325 $72,583,166 Tourism and Recreation Sector Total 301 2,282 5,189 $90,598,173 $246,549,092 $167,770,237 $546,732,299 All Ocean Sectors 1,311 19,764 71,184 $1,589,568,277 $4,989,336,697 $3,208,348,162 $12,041,535,375 40 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. In rare cases, some economic data for certain industries, such as fish hatcheries and aquaculture, was not available at the State level. In that situation, we calculated an average value per establishment for the sector at the State level and then applied that average to the number of establishments in the industry with missing economic data. By using the per establishment average based on other similar industries in the sector, this method gives an imperfect but reasonable estimate of missing economic data. The total economic impact of an industry is the sum of the direct, indirect, and induced economic activity.12 After obtaining data on direct economic activities (employment, wages, GDP), we used corresponding industry and regional specific multipliers from the Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) model to estimate the secondary (indirect and induced) impacts of these direct activities.13 See the table below for the multipliers used for ocean economic activities in Massachusetts. Multipliers for ocean economic activities in the Atlantic North coastal region14 IMPLAN Employee Employment Value Added Sector IMPLAN Sector Description Compensation Multiplier Multiplier Number Multiplier Animal production, except cattle and 14 1.2398 3.9806 2.8583 poultry and eggs 17 Commercial Fishing 2.1932 3.0967 3.0642 20 Extraction of oil and natural gas 7.0289 422.5801 2.751 Mining and quarrying sand, gravel, clay, 26 2.7815 3.3115 3.1816 and ceramic and refractory minerals 28 Drilling oil and gas wells 2.8042 14.0302 4.543 Support activities for oil and gas 29 2.919 5.0639 5.3429 operations Construction of other new nonresidential 36 2.865 3.0937 3.317 structures Seafood product preparation and 61 4.3831 4.4626 5.9646 packaging Search, detection, and navigation 249 5.8569 3.2957 3.9901 instruments manufacturing 290 Ship building and repairing 3.8042 2.735 3.4972 291 Boat building 2.8328 2.8795 3.8843 320 Retail Stores - Motor vehicle and parts 2.5973 2.6156 3.4692

12 National Ocean Economics Program. 2015. Online at: http://www.oceaneconomics.org 13 Hodges, A.W., Stevens, T.J., Rahmani, M., and R. Swett. 2013. Economic Analysis of Working Waterfronts in the United States. Online at: http://www.wateraccessus.com/econ/economicsfinalreport.pdf 14 Hodges, et al., 2013 41 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. IMPLAN Employee Employment Value Added Sector IMPLAN Sector Description Compensation Multiplier Multiplier Number Multiplier 324 Retail Stores - Food and beverage 1.8396 2.7079 2.964 334 Transport by water 6.5206 2.7549 3.309 Scenic and sightseeing transportation and 338 2.7453 2.6801 3.1307 support activities for transportation 340 Warehousing and storage 2.1889 2.4848 3.0467 Architectural, engineering, and related 369 2.9482 2.6664 3.2334 services Amusement parks, arcades, and gambling 409 2.0408 2.766 3.2136 industries

Note: Within the Offshore Mineral Resources Ocean Sector, one of the industries is Oil and Gas Exploration and Production. That broad industry category is comprised of five NAICS industries. Each of these NAICS industries falls into a different IMPLAN sector with different multipliers that varied and in some cases were very large. The way the economic data is reported, however, there is only one data value given for Oil and Gas Exploration and Production. To be conservative, when determining the multiplier for Oil and Gas Exploration and Production we selected the lowest multiplier available from the five NAICS industries within each category of data (Employment, Wages, and GDP). Overall, Employment multipliers used range from 1.24 to 6.52 a median of 2.78. Employee Compensation multipliers used range from 2.48 to 4.46 with a median of 2.75. Value Added multipliers used ranged from 2.75 to 5.96 with a median of 3.21. For a detailed discussion of ocean economy analysis and use of multipliers, as well as a table of the NAICS industries included in each IMPLAN sector, see the above referenced Hodges, A.W., Stevens, T.J., Rahmani, M., and R. Swett. 2013. Economic Analysis of Working Waterfronts in the United States by Hodges, et al. (2013).

42 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. APPENDIX J: STATE OF OUR HARBORS DATA CLEANING GUIDELINES The team used the following guidelines while cleaning the data:  Change any coding number ( e.g., 1, 2, 3) to its actual response; For Yes, No – put Y or N  Remove any facilities/dredged areas that harbormasters note are not actually facilities/dredged areas.  Remove any unnecessary words after a number (e.g., if asked number of slips in harbor and they respond 250 slips, remove word “slips”)  Change any “unknown” to “Don’t know”, which should be considered the standard response for if harbormaster does not know the answer  For questions relating to fees and taxes (questions where harbormasters will provide a dollar amount), remove the dollar sign  If asked number of feet (for design depth, etc.), remove the word foot or the ‘ symbol  Add commas to any appropriate number (e.g., change 14000 to 14,000)  For month and year of last dredging, use the following format - MM/YYYY  For any ambiguous answer, try to find an actual answer through a google search or other research. If no information is found, use following guidelines: o When giving a date, if harbormaster said 1960s, write 1965 o If they give a range (200 – 300 slips), use middle number (250) o If asked number of slips, moorings, etc. in harbor and they respond “36+”, remove plus sign  If they do not have slips/moorings for transients, put N/A in the boxes for mooring/slip rental fees  Develop full sentences when harbormasters only provided a few words

43 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. APPENDIX K: METHODOLOGY TO CALCULATE BOAT EXCISE TAX GENERATED BY MASSACHUSETTS IN 2014 Generally speaking, with the exception of commercial fishing vessels and vessels engaged in interstate and foreign trade, boats stored or registered/documented in Massachusetts are taxed at a rate of ten dollars per one thousand dollars of value, with the “value of a vessel” being defined as the fair cash value as determined by the assessor of each city and town. Though towns can establish their own valuation process, the value of a vessel is not to exceed the value based on the length and age of the vessel under a schedule established by Chapter 60B §2(c) of the Massachusetts General Laws (see Table 1). Table 1: Vessel Valuation Chart, as established by Chapter 60B §2(c) of the Massachusetts General Laws. Vessel Age: Vessel Age: Vessel Age: Length 7 or More Under 4 Years 4 thru 6 Years Years Under 16' $1,000 $700 $400 16' but less than 17.5' $1,500 $1,000 $800 17.5' but less than 20' $3,000 $2,000 $1,500 20' but less than 22.5' $5,000 $3,300 $2,500 22.5' but less than 25' $7,500 $5,000 $3,800 25' but less than 27.5' $10,500 $7,000 $5,300 27.5' but less than 30' $14,000 $9,300 $7,000 30' but less than 35' $18,500 $12,300 $9,300 35' but less than 40' $24,000 $16,000 $12,000 40' but less than 50' $31,500 $21,000 $15,800 50' but less than 60' $41,000 $27,300 $20,500 60' or over $50,000 $33,000 $24,800 Towns surveyed for this project provided some information on excise taxes, but data were not available for all communities surveyed, nor did the survey results capture excise tax data for boats stored in non-coastal communities that might be launched at coastal ramps. In order to calculate the amount of money the State could have received in excise taxes in 2014, the state’s vessel valuation chart (Table 1) was applied to the vessel age and length data contained in the 2014 databases of documented and registered boaters in Massachusetts. The first step in the process was to remove the vessels exempt from excise tax, i.e., those used for commercial fishing and interstate or foreign trade. The next step was to determine, for those not exempt from excise tax, the number of vessels in each age and size class. The databases were sorted, and numbers were combined to determine the number of vessels in each age class, by size. The results of this are presented in Table 215.

15 Documented vessels listed with a built year of 2015 were included in the “under 4 years” class (which also included 2014, 2013, and 2012 vessels) in order to be consistent with the years presented in the registered vessels, which started with 2014 vessels. 44 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Table 2: Documented and registered vessels in Massachusetts by length and age. Total (Registered and # Documented Vessels # Registered Vessels Documented) Vessel Vessel Vessel Vessel Vessel Vessel Vessel Vessel Vessel Age: Age: 7 or Age: Age: 7 or Age: Age: 7 or Age: 4-6 Age: 4-6 Age: 4-6 Under 4 More Under 4 More Under 4 More Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Length Under 16' 0 0 1 3,313 3,546 43,736 3,313 3,546 43,737 16' but less than 17.5' 0 0 0 575 514 17,644 575 514 17,644 17.5' but less than 20' 0 0 0 730 750 17,490 730 750 17,490 20' but less than 22.5' 0 0 5 1,086 729 17,483 1,086 729 17,488 22.5' but less than 25' 3 4 65 441 307 8,332 444 311 8,397 25' but less than 27.5' 31 21 1,121 208 161 5,825 239 182 6,946 27.5' but less than 30' 40 31 1,965 96 63 1,808 136 94 3,773 30' but less than 35' 82 89 3,662 74 61 1,924 156 150 5,586 35' but less than 40' 73 75 2,680 12 10 484 85 85 3,164 40' but less than 50' 56 57 1,809 3 2 151 59 59 1,960 50' but less than 60' 56 9 313 1 0 10 57 9 323 60' or over 4 10 261 0 0 2 4 10 263 Once the number of vessels was identified for each age/size class, the tax rate of ten dollars per one thousand dollars was applied to identify the total amount of money collected for each age/size class, as shown in Tables 3-5.

45 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Table 3: Excise taxes for vessel less than four years old. Vessel Age: Under 4 Years Excise Total Value of Taxes Excise Length # Vessels Vessels Owed/ Taxes ($) Vessel Owed Under 16' 3,313 $1,000 $10 $33,130 16' but less than 17.5' 575 $1,500 $15 $8,625 17.5' but less than 20' 730 $3,000 $30 $21,900 20' but less than 22.5' 1,086 $5,000 $50 $54,300 22.5' but less than 25' 444 $7,500 $75 $33,300 25' but less than 27.5' 239 $10,500 $105 $25,095 27.5' but less than 30' 136 $14,000 $140 $19,040 30' but less than 35' 156 $18,500 $185 $28,860 35' but less than 40' 85 $24,000 $240 $20,400 40' but less than 50' 59 $31,500 $315 $18,585 50' but less than 60' 7 $41,000 $410 $2,870 60' or over 4 $50,000 $500 $2,000 Total $268,105 Table 4: Excise taxes for vessel four to six years old. Vessel Age: 4-6 Years Excise Total Value of Taxes Excise Length # Vessels Vessels Owed/ Taxes ($) Vessel Owed Under 16' 3,546 $700 $7 $24,822 16' but less than 17.5' 514 $1,000 $10 $5,140 17.5' but less than 20' 750 $2,000 $20 $15,000 20' but less than 22.5' 729 $3,300 $33 $24,057 22.5' but less than 25' 311 $5,000 $50 $15,550 25' but less than 27.5' 182 $7,000 $70 $12,740 27.5' but less than 30' 94 $9,300 $93 $8,742 30' but less than 35' 150 $12,300 $123 $18,450 35' but less than 40' 85 $16,000 $160 $13,600 40' but less than 50' 59 $21,000 $210 $12,390 50' but less than 60' 9 $27,300 $273 $2,457 60' or over 10 $33,000 $330 $3,300 Total $156,248

46 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways.

Table 5: Excise taxes for vessel seven years and older. Vessel Age: 7 or More Years Excise Value of Taxes Total Excise Length # Vessels Vessels Owed/ Taxes Owed ($) Vessel Under 16' 43,737 $400 $4 $174,948 16' but less than 17.5' 17,644 $800 $8 $141,152 17.5' but less than 20' 17,490 $1,500 $15 $262,350 20' but less than 22.5' 17,488 $2,500 $25 $437,200 22.5' but less than 25' 8,397 $3,800 $38 $319,086 25' but less than 27.5' 6,946 $5,300 $53 $368,138 27.5' but less than 30' 3,773 $7,000 $70 $264,110 30' but less than 35' 5,586 $9,300 $93 $519,498 35' but less than 40' 3,164 $12,000 $120 $379,680 40' but less than 50' 1,960 $15,800 $158 $309,680 50' but less than 60' 323 $20,500 $205 $66,215 60' or over 263 $24,800 $248 $65,224 Total $3,307,281 Once all age/size calculations had been completed, and excise tax rates had been applied, the numbers were added, for a total of $3,731,634.00 in excise taxes. That total was then divided in half, because half of the excise taxes go to the State, and half of the excise taxes are kept in the community in which the boat is moored or docked for the summer season, or where the boat is registered or principally located if it is not moored or docked during the summer season. The final maximum potential value of boat excise taxes gathered by the State in 2014 was $1,865,817.00. The number generated by this methodology over-estimates the actual amount of money that the State received in boat excise taxes. During the data collection process, several towns noted that they did not have the resources to pursue non-payments, yet this methodology assumed that all payments were made. Additionally, this number over-estimates the value of excise taxes as they relate to the importance of dredging. While some boats are stored in non-coastal communities and trailered to ramps in, or providing access to, the harbors identified in this report, the number of vessels in that category is unknown. Many vessels registered/documented or stored in non-coastal communities may be used solely in non-coastal waters. Not knowing where vessels are being used, this methodology captured excise tax for all vessels stored or registered/documented in Massachusetts, thus over-estimating the excise tax value associated with boats who rely on dredging of marine and estuarine harbors.

47 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. APPENDIX L: COMMERCIAL FISHERIES LANDINGS AND VALUE IN MASSACHUSETTS (2013 – 2014) See next page.

48 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways.

Preliminary 2013 MA Commercial Preliminary 2014 MA Commercial Fisheries Landings¹ and Value Fisheries Landings¹ and Value PORT LIVE POUNDS VALUE LIVE POUNDS VALUE Barnstable County, MA * * 42,627,769 $7,848,088 Barnstable, MA 18,356,914 $30,904,740 16,996,849 $32,014,430 Bass River, MA 148,394 $418,480 114,390 $430,825 Berkley, MA * * * * Beverly, MA 910,050 $3,112,631 698,091 $2,818,432 Boston, MA 20,069,823 $16,046,851 18,643,353 $19,033,426 Bourne, MA 1,406,233 $810,546 742,447 $626,816 Brewster, MA 133,398 $353,626 181,589 $487,408 Cambridge, MA * * * * Chatham, MA 75,702,234 $79,585,689 96,563,601 $59,756,776 Chelsea, MA No data No data * * Chilmark, MA 1,534,454 $2,842,366 1,078,008 $1,977,907 Cohasset, MA 378,169 $1,358,563 353,698 $1,482,256 Cotuit, MA 1,578,286 $3,272,311 1,369,181 $3,871,028 Cuttyhunk, MA * * No data No data Danvers, MA 20,711 $68,915 12,408 $51,410 Dartmouth, MA 532,033 $407,695 3,692,063 $882,723 Dennis, MA 2,579,229 $5,292,620 2,256,915 $5,388,354 Dukes County, MA * * No data No data Duxbury, MA 5,088,736 $11,366,299 7,932,876 $19,686,327 Eastham, MA 2,252,349 $2,108,521 1,329,942 $2,026,174 Edgartown, MA 6,681,681 $14,906,426 5,846,385 $14,743,056 Essex County, MA * * 42,514 $258,354 Essex, MA 7,074,990 $12,114,502 4,090,719 $9,284,107 Fairhaven, MA 144,680,588 $178,447,276 96,592,669 $123,407,769 Fall River, MA 5,591,272 $2,858,739 5,098,633 $1,119,572 Falmouth, MA 5,351,003 $5,316,961 5,748,800 $6,258,887 Freetown, MA * * No data No data Gay Head, MA 1,090,939 $1,651,584 475,582 $998,103 Gloucester, MA 75,218,049 $55,993,990 70,568,844 $60,011,874 Gosnold, MA * * * *

49 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Harwich Port, MA 5,101,100 $9,702,753 3,353,576 $7,439,540 Hingham, MA 212,569 $728,899 194,011 $779,712 Hull, MA 825,228 $1,970,037 616,625 $1,840,074 Hyannis Port, MA 4,125,317 $3,019,286 39,362,623 $10,778,392 Hyannis, MA 2,013,957 $5,270,947 6,635,242 $9,452,307 Ipswich, MA 6,994,652 $11,832,041 4,348,821 $10,885,845 Kingston, MA 342,628 $671,903 292,030 $566,632 Lynn, MA 14,759 $49,451 25,545 $108,309 Manchester, MA 185,482 $542,032 248,000 $346,591 Marblehead, MA 473,569 $1,352,464 628,482 $2,286,913 Marion, MA 1,433,672 $2,361,621 956,747 $1,583,190 Marshfield, MA 3,505,611 $6,387,484 2,852,218 $6,828,436 Mashpee, MA 145,580 $271,841 286,985 $409,686 Mattapoisett, MA 272,757 $503,463 318,625 $387,908 Menemsha, MA 1,593,960 $3,329,208 4,674,272 $7,678,626 Nahant, MA 388,596 $1,342,497 451,596 $1,905,094 Nantucket, MA 11,891,770 $19,922,309 11,029,114 $19,479,092 Nauset Heights, MA * * * * New Bedford, MA 2,931,243,753 $3,468,852,141 2,264,469,054 $2,848,412,705 Newbury, MA 5,320,730 $8,756,006 5,390,921 $11,841,802 Newburyport, MA 1,669,520 $2,528,219 1,373,592 $2,546,347 Oak Bluffs, MA 2,868,660 $6,683,798 2,193,034 $5,645,583 Onset, MA 404,584 $627,567 483,142 $898,033 Orleans, MA 33,856,818 $10,214,700 7,311,014 $8,832,424 Osterville, MA 372,203 $938,574 303,157 $787,314 Plymouth County, MA * * * * Plymouth, MA 1,898,175 $3,855,543 3,718,684 $7,730,334 Provincetown Wharf, MA 42,918,152 $35,278,476 31,065,210 $38,624,114 Quincy, MA 55,654 $98,322 41,431 $77,776 Revere, MA 450,823 $441,733 111,004 $112,218 Rockport, MA 191,646 $709,699 356,318 $1,539,111

50 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways. Rowley, MA * * 184,851 $576,654 Salem, MA * * * * Salisbury, MA 51,552 $61,862 * * Sandwich, MA 7,798,934 $13,904,057 6,386,658 $11,457,151 Saugus, MA 288,344 $987,236 291,247 $1,191,797 Scituate, MA 2,907,946 $3,791,735 3,243,059 $5,184,486 Somerset, MA * * No data No data Swampscott, MA * * * * Swansea, MA 830,310 $296,876 1,450,624 $550,131 Tisbury, MA 113,254 $235,199 240,104 $506,084 Truro, MA 4,666,262 $6,464,397 5,159,642 $8,830,891 “Unknown Towns” 2,683,155 $5,696,689 11,945,486 $13,953,426 Vineyard Haven, MA 2,033,578 $5,231,394 1,939,864 $5,025,412 Wareham, MA 3,647,568 $3,744,613 3,005,005 $4,286,660 Wellfleet, MA 28,962,723 $32,052,521 22,227,801 $28,835,905 West Tisbury, MA 213,957 $547,201 * * Westport, MA 4,513,447 $4,557,386 4,150,140 $4,801,576 Weymouth, MA * * * * Winthrop, MA 78,670 $274,548 68,759 $278,105 Woods Hole, MA 10,554,059 $15,708,315 2,632,566 $3,911,665 Yarmouth, MA 3,513,833 $2,186,080 875,474 $1,923,971 TOTALS 3,510,009,053 $4,133,222,453 2,839,949,675 $3,474,582,121 Source: ACCSP Data Warehouse, via DMF ¹All landings recorded in live pounds: whole animal, shell on *Confidential data Includes wild harvest and aquaculture

51 2015 State of Our Harbors: Appendices B – L. Prepared by the Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston and Apex Companies, LLC for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Waterways.