Joseph Costa, Executive Director Date: September 14, 2015 Re: Estimated Altered Area Within 100 Feet of Wetlands, Lot 4, Mattapoisett Harbor Development

National Estuary Program MEMORANDUM

To: Elizabeth Leidhold, Conservation Agent, Town of Mattapoisett From: Joseph Costa, Executive Director Date: September 14, 2015 Re: Estimated altered area within 100 feet of wetlands, Lot 4, Mattapoisett Harbor Development

As you requested, I have prepared maps and estimates of the areas of altered natural vegetated landscape in, or within, 100 feet of wetlands on lot 4 of the Mattapoisett Harbor Development, 4 Seabreeze Lane. There have been a number of alterations on this site during various periods. For this calculation, I compared a May 20, 2010 aerial image, which shows the site in a relatively undisturbed state south of the shell driveway, to both a March 12, 2012 aerial, which shows the site after apparent devegetation, brush cutting, and tree removal, and a June 2014 aerial image, after installation of a lawn and additional landscaping. Area calculations were made in ArcGIS 10.2. Fig. 1 shows the site plan with approved wetlands line and a 100 ft. buffer zone added. Fig. 2 shows the same boundaries on a May 2, 2010 image. Fig. 3 shows the same boundaries superimposed on a March 11, 2012 image that shows site alterations. Figure 4 and 5 show the boundaries of the altered landscape with the 100-foot buffer zone of lot 4. Fig. 6 shows the site after installation of a lawn and additional landscaping in June 2014. As apparent from the imagery, south of the gravel/shell driveway, more than 21,000 square feet of vegetation was altered or removed in the wetland and buffer zone. Additional vegetation was altered north of the driveway. There also appear to have been alterations to the adjoining lot 3, that appeared concurrently with the alterations to lot 4, and these total about 7,200 additional square feet. If you have any questions about this assessment, please do not hesitate to call me.

2870 Cranberry Highway, East Wareham, Massachusetts 02538 (508) 291-3625 Facsimile (508) 291-3628 www.buzzardsbay.org

The Buzzards Bay Project is sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs through the Coastal Zone Management Office.

Fig. 1. Lot lines in the vicinity of Lot 4 (center lot), with approved wetland boundary (green shaded) and 100 ft. buffer zone added (purple line).

Fig. 2. Same boundaries as Fig. 1 superimposed upon a May 20, 2010 aerial photograph. The low vegetation to the east side (right) of the photograph is a salt marsh with wrack lines.

Fig. 3. Same boundaries as Fig.1 superimposed on a March 11, 2012 aerial image. Vegetation removal, brush cutting, and tree removal appears to extend to the high marsh edge and onto neighboring properties.

Fig. 4. A 2010 aerial image with boundaries of vegetation on Lot 4 that appear removed or altered in subsequent aerial images. The area southeast of the shell drive totals 21,247 sq. feet.

Fig. 5. Estimated altered areas within the buffer zone on Lot 4, uperimposed on a March 11, 2012 aerial image. Arrows indicate area that appears subsequently altered.

Fig. 6. Estimated altered areas on Lot 4 within the buffer zone superimposed on a June 2014 aerial image. Note that the shed was moved between the 2012 and 2014 image and other landscape undertaken.

Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program

MEMORANDUM

To: Stormwater Collaborative From: Joe Costa, BB NEP Executive Director Date: August 30, 2016 Re: Preliminary data analysis, selection of a single bacteria indicator

As you all know, we have been greatly hamstrung by the extreme drought conditions we have experienced throughout the entire monitoring effort, in this first year of the Buzzards Bay Stormwater Collaborative initiative. We have, however, collected sufficient dry and wet weather samples to recommend a single bacteria indicator for the Stormwater Collaborative.

Recommended selection of Enterococcus as an indicator We are testing for bacteria in stormwater to help identify illicit or inappropriate connections to municipal stormwater systems. High bacteria levels are potential indicators of illicit sewer discharges or cross connections. While pet and wildlife fecal matter (including from birds) can appreciably elevate the bacteria concentrations in stormwater, my own rule of thumb for Buzzards Bay stormwater based on experience, is that there is a high likelihood of sewer cross connections when bacteria concentrations exceed 10,000 bacteria per 100 ml in stormwater discharges. Stormwater without human and non-human waste contamination is typically less than 100 bacteria per 100 ml in Buzzards Bay stormwater discharges.

Until now, we have been testing stormwater with two bacteria tests: Enterococcus and fecal coliform. Fecal coliform bacteria are the indicator bacteria used to close shellfish beds. Enterococcus, a specific genus of fecal coliform bacteria that is used to monitor and close swimming beaches. Some studies use E. coli, another specific type of fecal coliform bacteria that correlates with human waste: We ruled out E. coli testing because it is easily killed off by salt water, and many of our pipes have saltwater intrusion. The fecal coliform and Enterococcus tests are good for both fresh and saltwater samples.

Because the Enterococcus and fecal coliform bacteria tests both can be used to identify potential illicit connections to stormwater connections, for financial and other pragmatic reasons, we need to settle upon a single bacteria indicator. In looking at our dataset, there was generally a good correlation between enterococcus and fecal coliform bacteria. When all data in the database was considered, the correlation coefficient between the two parameters was 0.65 (Fig. 1). When only wet weather data was considered, the correlation improved markedly (0.79, Fig. 2). When only dry weather data was considered, the correlation declined markedly (0.46, not shown).

EPA encourages the use of Enterococcus in marine environments because it is presumed to be a little more specific to human and animal fecal waste, is tolerant of temperature and salinity ranges, and provides a higher correlation than fecal coliform with human pathogens in sewage. In contrast to the

1 2870 Cranberry Highway, East Wareham, Massachusetts 02538 (508) 291-3625 Facsimile (508) 291-3628 www.buzzardsbay.org The Buzzards Bay Project is sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs through the Coastal Zone Management Office.

Enterococcus test, the fecal coliform bacteria test can give false positives. For example, while there are some species of Klebsiella bacteria that are found in fecal waste, there are other species of Klebsiella that are found in decomposing plant matter such as hay bales, and these bacteria can elevate bacteria counts in the fecal coliform test.

Both bacteria tests cost $20 per sample and both have identical holding times for the kind of samples we are testing. While it is true that the fecal coliform bacteria test is still used as the basis of shellfish bed closures in Massachusetts, because of the better specificity of the Enterococcus test, false positives fecal coliform test, and the generally good correlation between the two bacteria indicators as outlined below, we are recommending the BBAC only test for Enterococcus in stormwater samples henceforth.

Fig. 1 Enterococcus vs fecal coliform for all samples in the database

Fig. 2 Enterococcus vs fecal coliform for only wet weather samples in the database.

MEMORANDUM To: Korrin N. Petersen, Esq., Senior Attorney, Buzzards Bay Coalition From: Joseph E. Costa, Executive Director, Buzzards Bay NEP Date: March 15, 2016 Re: Summary of Tasks, Multi-community Partnership grant CC: Attendance list and other parties This memorandum summarizes and clarifies tasks identified in the Buzzards Bay Coalition's (BBC) funded grant titled "Multi-Community Partnership to Reduce Nitrogen in Upper Buzzards Bay" dated November 5, 2015. This summary includes clarifications made in response to discussions held at the grant kickoff meeting held on February 24, 2016 at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy (attendance list attached), and in response to my February 19, 2016 memorandum. As noted in the meeting, the stated volume of wastewater discharge cited in the February 19, 2016 memorandum for the Massachusetts Maritime Academy outfall was incorrect. MMA actually has two permitted outfalls, and the volume cited was for the second outfall pipe. The wastewater outfall (outfall #1) has a discharge limit of 77,000 gpd, and pool outfall (outfall #2) has the referenced 10,000-gpd limit (permit also attached). Task 1- Force main survey of the railroad layout [total cost: $100,000; grant funded:$50,000] 1) The BBC will prepare a scope of work to subcontract out this portion of the grant. This scope will include a requirement for a comprehensive records search of the information available at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds pertaining to the railroad right of way, including a detailed analysis of the adequacy and any shortcomings of the existing 1879 survey of the rail line. BBC will provide the draft RFR scope to the BBNEP for review and comment prior to issuing the RFR. It is the intent that the work conducted under this survey task will build upon whatever survey information is currently available for the rail line. The BBC will share findings of the initial records search and analysis with the BBNEP prior to proceeding with actual new survey work. 2) Hire a qualified firm to field survey Railroad Right of Way (about 19,500 linear feet in the study area), and about 400 feet from the facility across the river to the railroad. The survey will show a) utilities within and crossing the ROW; b) topography including cross sections at 500' intervals or less; c) wetland delineation and location; d) abutters names, addresses and deed references; e) NAD83 State Plane Coordinates; NAVD88 Vertical Datum (with GEOID specified); benchmarks every 500'. 3) Deliverables will include plans plotted on Paper, PDF and CAD files, with a summary of findings in the draft and final project report.

Task 2- Sewer Needs Analysis for South Plymouth, Bourne, and Wareham [total cost: $47,800; grant funded:$30,000] Comments: The sewer needs analysis will focus on the areas and neighborhoods identified in the original proposal. The sewer needs analysis will not include the Town of Marion. 1) Retain a qualified engineering firm to compile available Board of Health records for existing septic systems in south Plymouth, the Queen Sewell Park neighborhood in Bourne, and Gateway Shores neighborhood in Wareham to determine the existing types of on-site systems, age, number of bedrooms served, Title 5 compliance, and repair records, where available. Based on this information, the contractor will estimate the maximum volume of wastewater generated from each community in the project area. Deliverables will include GIS data, spreadsheets and maps, and a draft and final needs analysis summary report for Plymouth, Wareham, Bourne, and MMA. Task 3- Preliminary assessment of required upgrades to the Wareham Water Pollution Control Facility [total cost: $2,000; grant funded:$2,000] Comments: This task will include options that both include and exclude the existing and currently projected wastewater flows from the Town of Marion. This task will not evaluate or estimate any force main specifications for the potential treated effluent line, nor evaluate the adequacy of Wareham’s existing wastewater treatment facility site for expansion. 1) A contractor will conduct a preliminary needs analysis to summarize upgrades at the Wareham Water Pollution Control Facility needing further evaluation with an increase in flow. 2) The assessment will be reported in the project's draft and final project report. Task 4- Acquire, deploy and maintain monitoring buoy for data collection and water quality monitoring." [total cost: $81,426; grant funded:$68,000] 1) The BBC will purchase a buoy and outfit it with a water quality sonde containing automated sensors for temperature, salinity, oxygen, pH, and chlorophyll a. The sonde will be deployed near the bottom (-1 m above the sediment surface) and will be retrieved every two to three weeks for downloading the data and removing any fouling organisms before the sonde is redeployed. 2) Surface measurements of dissolved oxygen, salinity, water temperature, and water clarity will be performed when the sonde is being retrieved or deployed. The BBC will also collect nitrogen samples at the buoy at least four times a year. 3) Monitoring data from the buoy and from all other monitoring activities will be included, analyzed, and summarized in a draft and final monitoring data report, with a brief summary included in the overall draft and final project report. Task 5: Create hydrodynamic model to evaluate water quality impacts of a potential increased discharge at Taylors Point. [total cost: $50,000; grant funded:$50,000] 1) The BBC will prepare a scope of work to subcontract out this portion of the grant. This task funds the creation of a hydrodynamic model. Once constructed the hydrodynamic model will evaluate potential threats of pollution parameters typically associated with treated wastewater. The model will be constructed to be able to answer, at a minimum, the following scenarios: a) the boundary of a 1:1000 dilution zone to aid the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries identify potential increases in shellfish management closures, b) estimate total nitrogen concentration

increases expected in Buttermilk Bay, Onset Bay, and other potentially impacted embayments1, c) any other potential impacts to Upper Buzzards Bay and Cape Cod Bay. The extent that all these tasks can be achieved with the $50,000 budget will depend upon bids received. The BBC will coordinate with the BBNEP and MA CZM on the development of the RFR and scope of work for this hydrodynamic model. The BBC will also provide both the BBNEP and CZM with the draft model results prior to finalizing the model’s findings. 2) BBC will hire and oversee a qualified firm to develop a hydrodynamic model at Taylors Point. 3) Deliverable: a draft and final hydrodynamic model and water quality impact determination report, with findings summarized in the overall draft and final project report. Task 6: Project Coordination, Grant Administration, and Dissemination of Results. [total cost: $21,300; grant funded:$0] 1) Coordination and communication with partners and agencies. 2) Deliverable: a draft and final summary project report. Allow one month review time for draft report.

1 The report should acknowledge that in some embayments, like Buttermilk Bay, the expected TN increases will be offset by reductions in septic loads to groundwater, but these calculations are beyond the scope of this study. 3

Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program

William Nicholson, Superintendent June 30, 2015 Water and Sewer Department PO Box 474 Mattapoisett, MA 02739

Re: Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program Municipal Mini-grants Reference No: ENV 15 CZM 08

Dear Mr. Nicholson:

In May 2015, your municipality submitted an application in response to an RFR titled Buzzards Bay Watershed Municipal Mini-grant Program FY15, issued by the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, through the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. This federally funded grant program was established pursuant to our federal cooperative agreement with the U.S. EPA.

It is my pleasure to inform you that the Town of Mattapoisett's grant application titled “Tinkham Riverfront Land Protection Project” was selected for funding.

Enclosed is a contract with the Commonwealth. Please ensure that the appropriate municipal signatory signs the contact and other associated paperwork and that you return the original signed documents to Sarah Williams at the Buzzards Bay NEP office in Wareham.

If your town has a bylaw authorizing a specific official to sign service contracts with the Commonwealth for grant funds, on file with the Buzzards Bay NEP, simply sign the contract and other forms and return them to us. If you do not have such a bylaw, please return the signed contract with either minutes of the Selectmen’s meeting, or a letter from the Board of Selectmen, specifically authorizing and identifying the town signatory for this contract (Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, Town Administrator, etc).

This award is provided on a reimbursement basis and requires a 33% match. Please do not expend funds pursuant to this contract until you receive either your contract signed by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs or a written notice to proceed from the Buzzards Bay NEP.

The scope of services incorporated into this contact was taken from the work proposed in your application and may include additional requirements made by the Buzzards Bay NEP. Please review it carefully and contact Sarah Williams in my office at (508) 291-3625 ext 13 if the scope needs to be changed or you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Joseph E. Costa, Ph.D. Executive Director

2870 Cranberry Highway, East Wareham, Massachusetts 02538 (508) 291-3625 Facsimile (508) 291-3628 www.buzzardsbay.org

The Buzzards Bay Project is sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs through the Coastal Zone Management Office. Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program Financial and Technical Assistance Programs Overview The Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) is an advisory and planning unit of the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, within the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA). The Buzzards Bay NEP fulfills its mission to help protect and restore Buzzards Bay and its surrounding watershed through our technical assistance and grant programs. Since 1991, these programs have supported municipalities, citizens groups, and businesses in the watershed to help meet the goals and objectives of the Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Our technical assistance has included developing conceptual plans for stormwater treatment, providing engineering services to finalize stormwater designs, GIS support to municipal boards, watershed loading models, wetland delineation, bylaw development, local planning, grant proposal development, and outreach and communication tools. Our grant programs have supported all of these efforts, and other activities like habitat restoration, wastewater management solutions, and hydraulic and research studies to support management action to name a few. More information on the Buzzards Bay NEP is at buzzardsbay.org.

Technical Assistance Program Requests for technical assistance are treated separately from competitive grant program applications. Our ability to provide technical assistance is handled on a case-by-case basis, and depends upon staffing, level of effort, whether the request supports the goals and interests of our program, and the needs of Buzzards Bay municipalities. An important service of our program is that the Buzzards Bay NEP can help our partners develop grant applications for funding to other agencies, and we can even participate in and support the implementation of the grant if funded. Requests for collaborating in projects are subject to the same limitations of our general technical support program and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Grant Programs Municipal Minigrant Program Eligible Applicants: Eligible towns include Fall River, Westport, Dartmouth, New Bedford, Freetown, Acushnet, Fairhaven, Rochester, Mattapoisett, Marion, Wareham, More than 250,000 people live in the Buzzards Bay watershed Middleborough, Carver, Plymouth, Bourne, Falmouth, and (Buzzards Bay watershed boundary in blue). Gosnold. However, specific restoration and protection projects must lie principally within the Buzzards Bay watershed. Frequency and Deadline: Generally RFPs issued once per year, applications typically due July 1, but varies Request Limits: Typically $35,000 Funding Availability: Typically $150,000 annually More Information: Sarah Williams, (508) 291-3625 x13 [email protected] buzzardsbay.org/funding

SNEP Grants In the past two years, the Buzzards Bay NEP has awarded $1.5 million dollars in grants under the Southeastern New England Program for Coastal Watershed Restoration (SNEP), in partnership with the U.S. EPA. Non-profits, municipal and regional government, and educational institutions were eligible to apply. Future administration of SNEP grants will be through the U.S. EPA Region 1, although the Buzzards Bay NEP may administer a small portion of the $5 million annual appropriation dedicated to the program. More importantly, the Buzzards Bay NEP can provide assistance in developing applications and participating in projects, as defined in our technical assistance program. More information about the SNEP program and funding opportunities through the NEP is posted at restore.buzzardsbay.org. Buzzards Bay

National Estuary Program

Frederick Civian, Stormwater Coordinator Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 1 Winter St. Boston, MA 02108 September 11, 2017

Re: Participation in Town of Marion proposal, DEP MS4 Municipal Assistance Grant Program

Mr. Civian,

This letter is to confirm that the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, a technical assistance unit of the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, will continue to participate in the Buzzards Bay Stormwater Collaborative, and provide the support described in the Town of Marion's MS4 Municipal Assistance Grant Program Application.

We support and applaud the expansion of the Buzzards Bay Stormwater Collaborative to eight municipalities, and our program is committed to provide technical and financial support to the new and existing stormwater collaborative participants as described below. The creation of the Buzzards Bay Stormwater Collaborative, and support for its expansion, is a high priority for the Buzzards Bay NEP, and our contributions are required tasks in our FY2016 and FY2017 workplans pursuant to our cooperative agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Our past and continuing commitments include:  We developed a Quality Assurance Project Plans (which was approved by the U.S. EPA in 2015 (posted at http://stormwater.buzzardsbay.org/monitoring.html). The Buzzards Bay NEP intends will develop a monitoring training guide based on the QAPP and lessons learned in the past year).  Manage the water quality database, including data entry, and ensure that it conforms to EPA database management standards.  Manage the GIS database  Train BBAC interns to scan and georeference plans and collect and test water samples  Provide laboratory testing services and water quality test kits to Stormwater Collaborative participants (laboratory services contracts have already been procured and contracts are to June 30, 2018).

2870 Cranberry Highway, East Wareham, Massachusetts 02538 (508) 291-3625 Facsimile (508) 291-3628 www.buzzardsbay.org

The Buzzards Bay Project is sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs through the Coastal Zone Management Office.

The mission of the Buzzards Bay NEP is to help implement the recommendations contained in the Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, a plan that is a blueprint for the protection and restoration of water quality and living resources in Buzzards Bay and its surrounding watershed. We work toward achieving this goal by providing technical and financial assistance to Buzzards Bay watershed municipalities, and non-profit environmental groups like the Buzzards Bay Action Committee. Our management plan identifies the reduction of stormwater pollution, meeting pathogen TMDLs, and opening of closed shellfish beds and impaired bathing areas as among its most important goals. Therefore, the Town of Marion's proposal is both fully consistent with the Buzzards Bay CCMP and helps meet a number of goals and objectives contained in the plan.

The Buzzards Bay NEP is a federally funded program and we do not charge for, or receive compensation for our services; they are part of work mandated under our federally funded Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. EPA. The contribution of effort described in this letter cannot be used as match to a federal grant. The Buzzards Bay NEP will receive no funding under this proposal.

If you have questions about our role or support of this application, please do not hesitate to call me.

Sincerely,

Joseph E. Costa, PhD Executive Director Buzzards Bay

National Estuary

Program

March 25, 2015 Dear municipal MS4 stormwater permit leads and other municipal boards1,

Re: Inquiry of interest in a pilot program to test stormwater discharges and map priority stormwater networks to closed shellfish beds and bacteria impaired waters within several municipalities

The Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program (a unit of Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management) is working with the Buzzards Bay Action Committee to develop a proposal to collaborate with a number of municipalities to monitor stormwater discharges to closed shellfish beds and bacteria impaired waters, to map stormwater catchment networks, and to prioritize stormwater discharges for remediation.

This initiative would achieve some of the goals of your stormwater management program required under existing and proposed MS4 program permit requirements as required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (attached is a summary of EPA's proposed new municipal stormwater system requirements under their MS4 program). However, this initiative would differ in that we would look at all discharges to closed shellfish beds and other bacterial impaired waters, irrespective of whether they originate from MS4 or non- MS4 areas (see attached map).

All Buzzards Bay watershed municipalities now comply with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 20032. Over the years, the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) has helped many watershed municipalities in developing or implementing elements of their plan.

EPA has drafted a new MS4 permit (www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/MS4_MA.html). This proposed permit would require new actions and requirements, some of which municipal officials have expressed concern about their capacity to meet with existing staff and budgets. Among the requirements are that municipalities map their stormwater networks (catchbasin and drainage pipe connections) and catchment drainage areas contributing to each discharge. These drainage catchments will then be prioritized based upon their impact on receiving waters and their potential for receiving illicit discharges. The municipality will test each discharge (starting with the high priority discharges based on impaired waters or pre-existing data) and conduct a catchment investigation if there is evidence of illicit discharges (sewer/septic system connections, washing machine discharges, etc.). The goal of the monitoring program is to isolate and then remove any illicit discharge from the stormdrain system, but it will also help set priorities for discharges associated with non-point sources.

Irrespective of the timing of the issuance of a new MS4 permit, some of the proposed requirements of the new permit will help the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) in our mission that includes assisting municipalities to treat stormwater discharges contributing to shellfish bed and bathing beach closures in Buzzards Bay and its watershed. Consequently, we are considering developing a pilot program

1 Public works directors, MS4 leads, board of selectmen, town administrators, DPW directors, and boards of health 2 The permit was issued as part of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The permit requires management of municipal stormwater systems, and each town was required to develop and implement a stormwater management plan that identified each municipality's goals and accomplishments in addressing pollutants from stormwater runoff. 2870 Cranberry Highway, East Wareham, Massachusetts 02538 (508) 291-3625 Facsimile (508) 291-3628 www.buzzardsbay.org1 The Buzzards Bay Project is sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs through the Coastal Zone Management Office.

involving several municipalities to systematically monitor all direct discharges to impaired bathing beaches and shellfish areas within that community, whether or not those discharges are part of MS4 areas. Based on this testing, along with an evaluation of the contributing watersheds to each of these discharges, the Buzzards Bay NEP will establish a priority ranking for the remediation of all stormwater discharges in that community. This effort is similar to the first Atlas of Stormwater Discharges to Buzzards Bay completed in 20033. This prioritization can assist both in helping define local priorities (both for MS4 and non-MS4 areas), and the priorities of granting agencies. The information and analysis could also assist towns in securing stormwater treatment design and construction grants. In addition, the Buzzards Bay NEP would work with the participating municipal public works departments to provide an updated map of stormwater networks contributing to each priority discharge.

To undertake this effort, the Buzzards Bay NEP hopes to develop a partnership between our program and several municipalities and area non-profit organizations. Through our grant program, we hope to also hire contractors to develop stormwater treatment designs that also meet the goals and needs of the participating municipality. These designs can then be used to obtain construction grants from other agencies.

As to how such a program might work, the table below defines potential collaborating entities and responsibilities. A potential funding source to get the project off the ground is the U.S. EPA's 2015 Healthy Communities Grant Program. Pre proposals are due April 30th to this program.

Task Potential Lead and Partners Potential Funding Update stormwater atlas database BB NEP BB NEP staff to include stormwater discharge characteristics (manholes, pipe diameter, material, condition, and visual inspection. Collecting samples for analysis Selected local nonprofits (e.g. Grant funding for interns, staff, WRWA if work is conducted in and water sample testing Westport), municipal interns, MMA interns?, volunteers, Health Agents Analysis of results at certified Town staff or interns drop off Grant funding, municipalities laboratory samples Prioritization based on results and BB NEP with input from BB NEP internal GIS analysis municipalities Stormwater network and BB NEP conducts GIS work, BB NEP dedicated staff, subwatershed maps for priority municipality provides road as municipal in-kind to provide discharges builts, plans, assist with any plans, or field work for special needed fieldwork. circumstances Stormwater treatment design for BB NEP and municipality jointly BB NEP grant program, outside priority sites overseeing engineer grant funding Construction of stormwater Municipality Outside grants (CPR, 319, other treatment systems for priority sites programs), generally some cash or in-kind required.

The monitoring protocol we hope to implement will be similar to EPA New England Bacterial Source Tracking Protocol Draft January 20124. The goal of this effort would be to first eliminate any illicit discharges, then develop stormwater treatment designs to reduce pollutant discharges to the impaired waters.

3 See the atlas at buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm. 4 See Appendix I of the Draft MS4 permit at www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/ma/2014AppendixI.pdf. 2

To refine and get feedback to this initial concept, the Buzzards Bay NEP will discuss this potential initiative at the Buzzards Bay Action Committee's March 26 meeting, and at a subsequent meeting with interested municipal officials in April in advance of the April 30 pre-proposal deadline (the date to be announced). Before we hold the second meeting, we wanted to get a better sense of needs, resources, and interests among municipalities and partners. If your town is interested in participating in this pilot program, please contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Joseph E. Costa, PhD Executive Director

MEMORANDUM

To: Buzzards Bay coastal watershed municipal boards of selectmen, public works departments, boards of health, and natural resource officers. From: Joseph E. Costa, Executive Director Date: June 9, 2017 Re: Free laboratory testing to perform bacteria testing of stormwater discharges The Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program is providing free laboratory testing to assist Buzzards Bay watershed municipal public works departments, boards of health, and natural resource departments to perform bacteria testing of stormwater discharges suspected of contributing to water quality degradation of beaches, shellfish beds, and other resources in the Buzzards Bay watershed.

Participation in the program requires training using the methods described at http://stormwater.buzzardsbay.org/monitoring.html. The Buzzards Bay NEP staff will provide monitoring training to all the participating towns. The NEP has some test kits for nitrates, surfactants, and other field test equipment to evaluate stormwater discharge water quality which can be loaned out on a first come-first serve basis. Participation of the local Department of Public Works is mandatory as some pipe discharges are inaccessible and will require the removal of manhole or catch basin covers. Monitoring results must be shared with the NEP and will be included in our Buzzards Bay water quality database.

The value of the laboratory testing service is $8,000. It will be the responsibility of participants to coordinate bacteria testing with the participating laboratories (Envirotech in Sandwich or New Bedford Health Lab) and to drop off samples. The purpose of this support task is to help municipalities meet stormwater permit requirements and to help identify illicit connections to municipal stormwater systems. Towns may also use the testing support to identify upstream sources of pollution, collect data for the establishment of rainfall-conditional shellfish bed openings (please consult with your Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries area biologist to ascertain whether potential rainfall conditional areas exist in your community), conduct rainfall discharge time-course studies at swimming beaches, and other areas that are affected by runoff pollution to ascertain where automatic rainfall closures are warranted, and for what period of time. All monitoring sites must be pre-approved by the Buzzards Bay NEP.

For more information about participating in the program, contact [email protected].

2870 Cranberry Highway, East Wareham, Massachusetts 02538 (508) 291-3625 Facsimile (508) 291-3628 www.buzzardsbay.org

The Buzzards Bay NEP is sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs through the Coastal Zone Management Office.

Grant Application process for the Southeast New England Coastal Water... file:///C:/jec/doc/restore-buzzardsbay-org/grants.html

Southeast New England Coastal Watershed Restoration Program: 2014 Nutrient Management Grants

Updates as of August 13, 2014 We received 19 proposals totaling $3,082,379 from 12 entities (3 non-profits and 9 governmental subdivisions of the Commonwealth) by the June 9, 2014 pre-proposal deadline. On June 25, 2014, 8 of the 19 applicants, with requests totaling $1,215,999, were invited to submit a full proposal. Full proposals were due Monday, July 21, 2014.

On July 21, the Buzzards Bay NEP received 7 full proposals with requests totaling $843,674 [corrected value]. On Thursday, July 31, 2014, a review committee consisting of 3 federal agency employees and 4 state agency employees met to discuss, score, and rank the full proposals. On August 6, the Buzzards Bay NEP provided to the U.S. EPA a letter containing the reviewers' combined rank order of the proposals and the mean rank scores of the seven proposals we received. The Buzzards Bay NEP will provide this letter to the applicants when the EPA publically announces the funding levels for projects on Cape Cod, and in the Buzzards Bay NEP and Narragansett Bay Estuary Program watersheds. The Buzzards Bay NEP expects the EPA announce funding levels in early September. Proposals will be funded in their rank order determined by the selection committee to the extent of EPA funding. As noted in the RFR, the Buzzards Bay NEP expected between $500,000 and $1,000,000 to be made available to the Buzzards Bay NEP.

Past notices We had re-opened the Question and Answer period for Invited Proposals. The new Question and Answer period closed Friday, July 11, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.

July 1, 2014 Notice: On page 14, the sentence under the heading "C. ADDITIONAL REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION" should have read "If selected, the Respondent will be required to submit the following forms to complete a contract:" Therefore, NONE of the documents on the list in that section needs to be submitted with the proposal. Moreover, some of the forms will change for some subdivisions of the Commonwealth. This constitutes a change to the grant solicitation.

The Request for Proposals from the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program The Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program (NEP), through the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs' (EEA) Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM), has issued a request for proposals as part of an EPA initiative called the Southeast New England Coastal Watershed Restoration Program. This solicitation is being issued concurrently with a similar request from the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program for projects in the Narragansett Bay watershed, which includes areas of Massachusetts in the Blackstone, Ten Mile, and Taunton River watersheds. The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program request for proposals will be posted on the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission website.

The focus of this first year of grants will be on both nitrogen loading to impaired coastal waters and habitat, and phosphorus loading to impaired fresh waters and habitat. Funding will be for projects designed to prevent or reduce sources of nutrient pollution, or increase the ability of partners to do so. Both large and small proposals are encouraged.

1 of 7 Grant Application process for the Southeast New England Coastal Water... file:///C:/jec/doc/restore-buzzardsbay-org/grants.html Application to the Southeast New England Coastal Watershed Restoration Program, Nutrient Management Grants will be a two-step process. First, applicants will submit a two page pre-proposal (to the NEP where activities are proposed), which will be ranked in a competitive process by a Review Committee. The strongest proposals are expected to add to the scientific or management knowledge base, have transferability and scalability, demonstrate innovation, and show strong collaboration among partners. Pre-proposals were due Monday, June 9, 2014, 4 p.m. to the Buzzards Bay NEP office in Wareham.

The highest-ranking proposals will be invited to submit full proposals. It is expected that invited proposals will total $2 million, but the exact cutoff will be at the discretion of the Review Committee. It is estimated that EPA will fund projects in the Buzzards Bay watershed that will total between $500,000 and $1,000,000. The maximum request for a single project is $400,000.

Question and Answers for the Full Proposal Application The new Question and Answer period will close Friday, July 11, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. Invitees should email questions to [email protected]. Below are questions we received (paraphrased for clarity or brevity) and responses. These responses should be considered tentative until finalized on Monday July 14, 2014. These answers are for clarification purposes only and do not constitute an amendment to the grant solicitation unless expressly stated as such.

Question #1: Will you post a list of all pre-proposals that were invited to submit full proposals? Are pre-proposals available for public review? Response to Question #1: While the grant solicitation process is open and underway, the Buzzards Bay NEP will not post or make available the list of invited applicants, nor make available any pre-proposals for review.

Question #2: On page 14, there is a list of documents that need to be submitted with the proposal. Where can I find the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts Standard Contract Form" and the "Scope of Services and Budget Attachment" (Contract Attachment A)? Response to Question #2: These two documents are prepared by the Buzzards Bay NEP. Furthermore, on page 14, the sentence under the heading "C. ADDITIONAL REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION" should have read "If selected, the Respondent will be required to submit the following forms to complete a contract:" Therefore, NONE of the documents on the list in that section needs to be submitted with the proposal. Moreover, some of the forms will change for some subdivisions of the Commonwealth. This constitutes a change to the grant solicitation.

Question #3: On page 11 of the solicitation states that successful proposals will have "watershed level benefits or an implementation plan that increases the scale of project benefits or cost effectiveness." Please elaborate further on what "implementation plan" refers to? Response to Question #3: In this case, "implementation plan" should be read as "a plan for implementation" or "an implementation strategy" as outlined in the applicants proposal.

Question #4: The instructions state there should be no more than 10 pages for the application. Is that 10 pages front and back, or just 10 overall pages? Response to Question #4: The bid solicitation states that "proposals must not exceed ten (10) pages in length "

2 of 7 Grant Application process for the Southeast New England Coastal Water... file:///C:/jec/doc/restore-buzzardsbay-org/grants.html This was intended to mean that the body of the proposal should be 10 single-sided pages or 5 double-sided sheets. The solicitation also states that the ten page limit does not include additional required documents, including the cover sheet, letter from the applicant, locus map, letters from property owners (if applicable), letters from partners, and budget page(s).

Question #5: The Bid Solicitation was amended so that the forms in section 3C "Additional Required Documentation" no longer need to be submitted with the full proposal. Must applicants submit the other required documents (such as letters from property owners, etc.) with the full proposal? Response to Question #5: The only section of the bid solicitation that was amended was the requirement to submit original copies of the required forms listed in Section 3C "Additional Required Documentation.” These are the contractual documents that must be completed if the applicant is awarded funds. All other items listed on page 13 must be submitted, including but not limited to, the Cover Sheet, a letter from the applicant, letters from project partners, a letter from the land owner(s) if the project is taking place on private property, a locus map (if appropriate). See also response to Question 4.

Question #6: Can we submit the same letters of support from project partners or property owners that were submitted with the pre-proposal or do they need to be altered? Response to Question #6: You may submit the same letters as were submitted with the pre-proposal.

Question #7: If a property owner letter was not submitted with the pre-proposal, must such a letter be submitted with the final proposal? Response to Question #7: The purpose of the letter from the property owner in the pre-proposal phase was to convince the review committee that the project could viably proceed if the applicant received funding. In the pre-proposal phase, letters from property owners were not essential if the applicant was the property owner, or if it was evident that the property owner was already allowing a specific action on the property. Letters from property owners are required for new projects if the applicant is not the property owner, or if the activity is not already ongoing. Letters from partners or property owners that identify actions dependent on the outcome of the proposed work can strengthen an application. Letters previously submitted in the pre-proposal phase or new ones should be included in the final proposal.

Question #8: Are applicants allowed to increase or decrease their match commitments? Response to Question #8: Applicants are allowed to change match commitments (both the total or percent match) to reflect changed conditions since the pre-proposal was submitted. Applicants must still meet the 25% match minimum of total requested.

Question #9: Are applicants allowed to increase or decrease their budget? Response to Question #9: We understand that after the submission of pre-proposals, applicants may have refined certain project needs and cost estimates. In this context, it is acceptable to change the budget in the final proposal, with detailed justification provided by the applicant. However, the final proposal must not substantially deviate from the spirit and outcomes of the pre-proposal. On the other hand, substantial deviations in the scope of work or substantial increases in the requested funds (in the opinion of the review committee) could result in either rejection of the project or budget cuts without changes in the scope of work.

Question #10: On page 12 of the grant solicitation, under "Background," does the "Organization's qualifications"

3 of 7 Grant Application process for the Southeast New England Coastal Water... file:///C:/jec/doc/restore-buzzardsbay-org/grants.html mean only the organization writing the proposal? If we have partners, should we also list their qualifications at this point? I do not want to be redundant and waste space, because under "Project Description" it requests Staff Qualifications, List of Partners and their roles, responsibilities and qualifications. Response to Question #10: "Organization's qualifications" refers to the applicant, which is the entity that would sign the contract with the Commonwealth and would be responsible for overseeing the work of their staff, or their subcontractors, and for ensuring that the project is completed on time. “Staff Qualifications” under “Project Description” would be the appropriate place to identify the expertise or experience of individuals (the staff of either the organization or subcontractor) that would have responsibilities for specific tasks.

Question #11: Does this grant program allow full government rate overhead charges as would be allowed for a standard government submission, or is there a restriction on the rate because the solicitation is issued by the Commonwealth? Response to Question #11: The RFR is silent on allowable indirect rates, and the Buzzards Bay NEP does not have a policy on indirect rate limits.

Question #12: Would a graphic of the proposed project be considered part of the 10-page proposal limit? Response to Question #12: Yes. Only the locus map and other documents specified in question 4 are excluded from the 10-page limit.

Question #13: On page 12 of the bid solicitation, under "Project Description," applicants are asked to "provide a specific, step-by-step narrative of each task...." Do you mean protocols or something more generalized? If you do mean protocols how detailed would you like them? Would you like the lab protocols or just something along the lines of "the water was then sampled for nutrient i.e. N/P analysis" Response to Question #13: The applicant’s goal is to provide sufficient detail to convey to the review committee that the methodology is appropriate in the context of the study, that the applicant understands what parameters should be measured, and that the approach can meaningfully answer any questions being proposed. If chemical analyses were proposed for example, it would be appropriate to mention the methodology (e.g., "Hach Nitrate Color Disc Test Kit") or EPA method numbers (e.g., EPA Method 353.2).

Pre-proposal Questions and Answers The pre-proposal question period closed Wednesday, May 28, 2014. Below are questions we received (paraphrased for clarity or brevity) and final responses. These answers are for clarification purposes only and do not constitute an amendment to the grant solicitation unless expressly stated as such.

Question #1: If work is proposed in both Narragansett Bay and Buzzards Bay, should we submit two separate proposals? Response to Question #1: Irrespective of the nature of the work, two applications are always required. If the activities proposed in the two estuary watersheds are not interdependent, if there is no economy of scale, or no reasons to link the projects, two separate standalone applications should be submitted to each estuary program. On the other hand, if because of the nature of the work, economies of scale, or for other reasons, the activities are fundamentally interconnected as a single project, the pre-proposals to each estuary program should identify the requested grant contribution from that estuary program and explicitly state that the project is dependent on funding from the other estuary program. In such cases, the combined funding request from the two applications

4 of 7 Grant Application process for the Southeast New England Coastal Water... file:///C:/jec/doc/restore-buzzardsbay-org/grants.html cannot exceed the $400,000 total project limit. For such linked applications, invitations for full proposals or selection for funding will require that the project be sufficiently highly ranked by both review committees.

Question #2: As the source of funding is from the U.S. EPA, would grantees be required to comply with U.S. EPA Affirmative Action policies that are in place for awards of $50,000 or greater? Response to Question #2: As noted in the Commonwealth Terms and Conditions, applicants must comply with all elements of Condition 10 (Affirmative Action, Non-Discrimination In Hiring And Employment). As further noted in Condition 14 of the ENV Supplemental Terms and Conditions, the requirement to comply with the state’s Affirmative Market Program only applies to contracts for the procurement of goods and services over $50,000 (regulated under 815 CMR 21.00), and does not apply to grants (regulated under 815 CMR 2.00). These documents are on the COMMBUYS website with the request for proposals (see link above). There are no specific document submission requirements or final reporting requirements relating to Affirmative Action for sub-award grant recipients over $50,000 in this grant program.

Question #3: Would an application that seeks to study [insert type of study here], be eligible for funding? Response to Question #3: We suggest that potential applicants review Section 1C of the grant solicitation, "Eligible and Ineligible Projects" (especially the lists on page 4-5). As noted on the scoring sheet in Attachment E, a majority of reviewers must concur that a particular project is eligible for funding according to these criteria.

Question #4: How important is it for respondents to have project partners? Response to Question #4: The scoring criteria are provided in Attachment E. Collaboration is evaluated in scoring element 5, and worth 10 of 115 points. Also, the degree of collaboration among partners may potentially affect other scoring elements such as perceived effectiveness, sustainability, or other criteria, if deemed relevant by the reviewers.

Question #5: What is the preferred sub-watershed scale (i.e., HUC level) for evaluating impact of the proposed projects? Response to Question #5: Site-specific projects will generally be evaluated at the watershed of impaired marine embayment or freshwater pond watershed. A map of those watersheds in Buzzards Bay, where defined, are included in the solicitation, and at http://restore.buzzardsbay.org/impaired-waters.html. In most instances, these watersheds are mostly at the HUC12, HUC14, or HUC16 level. However, under scoring element 4 (Regional Significance), and possibly other scoring elements, the relevance and transferability of the proposed work to other impaired embayments in Buzzards Bay and across southern New England may be considered.

Question #6: Is there a preference for projects that will use the grant to directly fund construction/implementation? Response to Question #6: In terms of eligibility, on page 2 of the solicitation, it is stated, "projects will be sought that implement immediate action to reduce or prevent nutrient pollution, or to develop designs or plans to prevent or reduce nutrient pollution from various sources, and to support program building in support of these efforts." This is amplified on page 4 with, "eligible nutrient projects include proposals for implementation as well as proposals for feasibility, planning, policy development, and program-building projects that are expected to result in tangible benefits that meet the goals of this effort. Implementation projects typically include those that result in specific actions relating to construction, or specific activities including implementation of regulatory or

5 of 7 Grant Application process for the Southeast New England Coastal Water... file:///C:/jec/doc/restore-buzzardsbay-org/grants.html non-regulatory programs, and education elements. Feasibility, planning, policy development, and capacity building and program building projects will prepare for future on-the-ground implementation projects, and can include design or research elements." We believe the scoring element criteria in Attachment E meet these stated goals. Certain planning studies are explicitly identified as ineligible for funding including "studies to develop TMDLs, general nitrogen or phosphorus loading studies, and development of Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plans (CWMPs)" (page 5).

Question #7: Are the criteria for matching funds fixed? Response to Question #7: The criteria for matching funds is explicitly stated in scoring element 8 (Match).

Question #8: What is the schedule for selection and funding? Response to Question #8: The schedule is clearly stated on page 15.

Question #9: What has the level of interest in this round of grants been so far? Response to Question #9: We are unable to objectively answer this question.

Request for Information from the Buzzards Bay NEP and Narragansett Bay Estuary Program On May 6, 2014, the Buzzards Bay NEP, in partnership with the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, posted here a draft of the request for proposals as part of a request for information. This request for information was undertaken because this is a new grant program, and we sought comments on the scope and proposal review criteria to ensure that the grant program would meet the goals of the Southeast New England Coastal Watershed Restoration Program, the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, and the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program. Below are selected questions and comments received, and responses. We will keep these posted to aid in the submission of pre-proposals.

Selected Comments and Questions Received on Draft Solicitation and Responses Comments and questions received may be paraphrased for brevity and clarity.

Question/Comment #1: Are there any eligibility limitations on the land ownership type (public / private) where on-the-ground projects are proposed? Response to Question/Comment #1: There are no eligibility limitations on the land ownership type.

Question/Comment #2: The solicitation for bids (grants proposals) suggests you will only accept $2 million in pre-proposals. Because the single proposal cap is $400,000, if it happens that a number of large projects were ranked high, they might preclude consideration of other promising proposals. The review committee should select the appropriate cutoff level of ranked proposals based on their quality. Response to Question/Comment #2: The Buzzards Bay NEP and Narragansett Bay Estuary Program have incorporated this language in the final grant solicitation: "The number of applicants to receive invitations will be at the discretion of the Review Committee. Invitations will be offered to the highest ranked proposals in order of rank by the Review Committee. The tentative cutoff is $2 million (twice the maximum possible available), but because the maximum possible request is $400,000, the precise cut-off will depend upon the amounts requested

6 of 7 Grant Application process for the Southeast New England Coastal Water... file:///C:/jec/doc/restore-buzzardsbay-org/grants.html among the highest ranked proposals and the total number of pre-proposals received. The goal of the Review Committee is to ensure that the highest ranked and most promising proposals are invited to submit full proposals. The Review Committee has discretion to select among equally scored proposals based on factors such as project diversity or geographic coverage."

Question/Comment #3: By making comments on what the request for proposals looks like, does that disqualify a person or entity from applying for the grants when the grant solicitation is on the street? Response to Question/Comment #3: No, the submission of comments, suggestions, recommendations for funding categories, or even proposing specific projects will have no bearing on either eligibility or likelihood of funding. Conversely, failure to submit comments will also have no bearing on eligibility or likelihood of funding. The purpose of a request for information is to assist in the development of a potential procurement (or in this case grant program) by inviting other departments, potential bidders or other interested parties to provide technical and business advice concerning standards, practices, costs, limitations, needs, and other information which are relevant for successful implementation of our program. Comments received about specific project proposal ideas that are not submitted in the form of a question about eligibility or recommended topic area, will not be listed here, but may be used by the programs to evaluate draft grant selection criteria.

Question/Comment #4: Some comments were received about the fact that the primary focus of the grant program in its first year is on nutrient issues in southern New England watersheds. Response to Question/Comment #4:The focus on nutrient related impairments emerged out of discussions among the Southeast New England Coastal Watershed Restoration Program partners, a diverse group of stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations and state, federal, and local agencies concerned with the watersheds of Narragansett Bay, Buzzards Bay, the south side of Cape Cod, and the Islands. Nutrient pollution is widely regarded as one of the most significant water quality issues facing this region--one that will cost the region billions of dollars in the coming decades and is a top concern identified in the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans of both National Estuary Programs.

7 of 7 Haste Management Plymouth Nominee Trust - Mattapoisett

Haste Management Plymouth Nominee Trust Existing Protected Lands Fairhaven DEP Core Wetland Resources Water Dept. Assessors' Parcels Brook Data Sources: MassGIS, Buzzards Bay NEP & Town of Mattapoisett Feet Tri-Town 0 150 300 600 . BOS

M a Route 6 t ta p o is et t R i ver

M a t t a p o is e t t N e c k R o a Haste Management Plymouth d Nominee Trust 11-49 53 acres

B ra n d t I s la n d R o a d

Swi ft Br ook Commonwealth of MA Dept. of Conservation and Recreation ath e P Bik

Mattapoisett Con Comm Mattapoisett Land Trust Commonwealth of MA Dept. of Conservation and Recreation

Map prepared by: Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, 2870 Cranberry Highway, East Wareham, MA 02538. www.buzzardsbay.org. May 2, 2016

Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program

MEMORANDUM To: John Rockwell From: Joe Costa, Buzzards Bay NEP Executive Director Date: November 28, 2016 Re: LiDAR data with contours, 4 Seabreeze Lane, Mattapoisett CC: Elizabeth Leidhold, Mike Gagne As per your email request dated November 23, 2016, attached are LiDAR elevations and contours for 4 Seabreeze Lane (Assessors Plan 10, lot 10D). Please note that the georeferencing of the plot plan provided was imprecise because the features in the plan did not precisely coincide with the aerial base map (Fig. 1; note that the location of the main structure and some other features are given as approximate), nor did the property bounds precisely match the MassGIS 2013 Level 3 parcel data for Mattapoisett. Therefore, maps and interpretations may have horizontal position errors generally in the range of 2 to 6 feet in different portions of the plan when superimposed upon LiDAR data or aerial base maps. The 2006 and 2014 based LiDAR base maps are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The contours were automatically generated in ArcGIS. Note that the 2006 LiDAR has a higher resolution, and the scales may be set to different GEOIDS, hence absolute elevations may differ somewhat.

Fig. 1. Plan on MassGIS April 2014 ortho base map

2870 Cranberry Highway, East Wareham, Massachusetts 02538 (508) 291-3625 Facsimile (508) 291-3628 www.buzzardsbay.org The Buzzards Bay Project is sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs through the Coastal Zone Management Office.

Fig. 2. LiDAR elevations about December 2006

Fig. 3. LiDAR elevations about April 2014

Buzzards Bay

National Estuary Program March 3, 2017 Melissa Cryan Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

Re: Town of Mattapoisett FY2017 Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant Program application Mattapoisett Neck Land Acquisition Project (Map 11, Lot 49)

Dear Ms. Cryan:

The letter is to confirm that the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program (NEP), an advisory and planning unit of Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, has provided technical support to the Town of Mattapoisett in their proposal to the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant program to acquire Lot 49 (Map 11) on Mattapoisett Neck. The Town's application builds on prior successful open space projects in the immediate area, including some funded by the Buzzards Bay NEP.

The Buzzards Bay NEP's mission is to help implement the recommendations contained in the Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 2013 Update, a plan that is a blueprint for the protection and restoration of water quality and living resources in Buzzards Bay and its surrounding watershed. This management plan identifies the protection of wetlands and vital habitat throughout the watershed as an important goal. The Buzzards Bay NEP supports land acquisition projects, and provided technical support to the town for this project, because the project is consistent with, and will advance, a number of goals and objectives contained in the Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) 2013 Update. Specifically, the acquisition will support Action Plan 1: Managing Nitrogen-Sensitive Embayments, Action Plan 7: Protecting and Restoring Wetlands, Action Plan 12: Protecting Open Space, and Action Plan 13: Protecting and Restoring Ponds and Streams.

This 53-acre parcel contains critical natural resources, important historical resources, provides public access for passive recreational activities and connects to other publicly- accessible open space. Most notably, the parcel abuts the northern end of the Department of Conservation and Recreation's Nasketucket Bay State Reservation, includes a portion of Swift Brook, and is near a popular regional bike path. The acquisition will also protect rare species priority habitat in the Mattapoisett River Valley.

2870 Cranberry Highway, East Wareham, Massachusetts 02538 (508) 291-3625 Facsimile (508) 291-3628 www.buzzardsbay.org

The Buzzards Bay Project is sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs through the Coastal Zone Management Office.

Since our inception, the Buzzards Bay NEP has been working with Buzzards Bay watershed communities to facilitate the implementation of recommended actions and strategies contained in the original CCMP adopted in 1992. Moreover, the Town of Mattapoisett has been a recipient of our program support, and is a partner in our ongoing work plans and Cooperative Agreements with the U.S. EPA. We have provided the maps and habitat data that the town used in this and previous grant applications.

The Buzzards Bay NEP is a federally funded program and we do not charge for, or receive compensation for, our services; they are part of work mandated under our federally funded Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. EPA.

If you have any questions about our support or participation in this application, please do not hesitate to call me.

Sincerely,

Joseph E. Costa, PhD Executive Director cc. Mattapoisett Board of Selectmen

MEMORANDUM

To: Tess Cederholm From: Joe Costa, Buzzards Bay NEP Executive Director Date: February 13, 2017 Re: Aerial images of Meadow Island, Sippican Harbor Via email

As you have requested, I compiled a series of recent and historical aerial images of Meadow Island in Sippican Harbor to aid you in your evaluation of changes to the sandbars near the island. I have added a grid common to all the photographs so that you can make your own interpretations of changes. Please note that there may be small shifts in the georeferenced positions of the photographs, but these positional errors appear generally less than 15 feet in most instances. The images are of different quality, and taken at different tidal stages (the 2016 and 2015 are at higher tides), and differing water transparency, so these factors should be considered when interpreting them.

Google 2016

2870 Cranberry Highway, East Wareham, Massachusetts 02538 (508) 291-3625 Facsimile (508) 291-3628 www.buzzardsbay.org

The Buzzards Bay Project is sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs through the Coastal Zone Management Office.

Google 2015

MassGIS 2014

2010 USDA

2009 MassGIS

Sept 2009 NOAA

2006 NAIP

MassGIS April 2005

DEP June 2001

MassGIS April 2001

MassGIS 1994 color sid

MassGIS 1994

April 1974

Marion 1962

Spring 1961

Fall 1952

National Estuary Program MEMORANDUM

To: BBC Science Advisory Committee From: Joseph Costa, Executive Director Date: January 21, 2015 Re: DOC in freshwater stations and changes with precipitation, Slocums River data DOC was monitored between 2009 and 2013 in the BBC’s monitoring program. Because I have joined precipitation data and Paskamansett River flow data to the Coalition’s dataset, I thought I would provide some graphs to inform your decision about DOC monitoring. As might be expected, DOC is highest at certain Buzzards Bay streams, rivers, and brackish stations (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). A plot of paired data DOC vs DON for all unique stations and dates is significantly positively correlated but rather noisy (Fig. 3, top), but for individual stations, the correlation improves (Fig. 3, middle and bottom). In the Slocums River watershed, correlations between mean annual DOC and mean January to June Paskamansett River flow or January to June heavy precipitation is weak or not significant (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5). The general trend for all river stations that I examined is that DOC declines with increased heavy January to June precipitation (and presumably river flow), and this weak trend is seen at other stations like the Mattapoisett, Agawam, and Weweantic Rivers (not shown). The relationship between loadings and precipitation would require calculations of flow × concentrations for the sampling period, which I have not done.

Fig. 1 Mean dissolved organic carbon versus mean salinity for each station. Data not paired, all data used.

2870 Cranberry Highway, East Wareham, Massachusetts 02538 (508) 291-3625 Facsimile (508) 291-3628 www.buzzardsbay.org

The Buzzards Bay Project is sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs through the Coastal Zone Management Office.

Fig. 2 Mean dissolved organic carbon concentrations at all Buzzards Bay stations (all data used).

Fig. 3 Paired DOC vs DON for all stations and dates (top), Paskamansett River (fresh, middle), and head of the Slocums River (bottom, tidal estuarine). Only July and August data used.

Fig. 4 Mean annual DOC vs Paskamansett River flow (top) and heavy January to June precipitation for the river head station SR5 (July August data, 2009-2013).

Fig. 5 Mean annual DOC vs Paskamansett River flow (top) and heavy January to June precipitation for the river station PKR1 (July August data, 2009-2013).

MEMORANDUM To: Elizabeth Leidhold, Executive Director, Buzzards Bay Action Committee From: Joseph Costa, Executive Director Date: January 26, 2018 Re: Buzzards Bay NEP grants awarded to municipalities and others since 2007 As requested, attached is a summary of grants awarded by the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program since 2007. Included are SNEP grants we awarded, including those to non-municipal entities. Please keep in mind that the number and dollar amounts awarded depend on whether towns apply for funds, the quality of the proposals received, and the priority areas funded. Also note that grants awarded to a particular town may have been undertaken with another town, and some SNEP grants to the Buzzards Bay Coalition were to assist or were in partnership with one or more towns. This table includes grants awarded before December 31, 2017. Grantee Short Title Fed FY Total Acushnet Acushnet River Green Belt (Jaros-Milos property) 2017 $35,000 LaPalme Riverside Land Protection 2011 $18,653 Keene Road Open Space Protection 2008 $8,000 Digitization of Wetland Boundaries 2007 $7,500 Acushnet Total $69,153 Bourne Buttermilk Way Stormwater Remediation 2011 $20,000 Bournedale Herring Run Culvert Replacement 2010 $45,000 Bourne's Pond Fishway Restoration Phase I 2009 $15,000 Conservation Pond Culvert Replacement 2008 $30,500 Conservation Pond Hen Cove Stormwater Designs 2007 $15,305 Stormwater Monitoring for Head of the Bay, Bourne, Wareham, and Marion 2007 $16,600 Bourne Total $142,405 Buzzards Bay Wareham Outfall: Multi-Community Partnership to Reduce Coalition Nitrogen 2016 $200,000 Red Brook Harbor (Bourne) Restoration Public Private Partnership 2014 $50,000 Reducing Nutrient Losses from Cranberry Bogs 2014 $165,213 Buzzards Bay Coalition Total $415,213 Carver Cranberry Bog Groundwater Nutrient Loss 2012 $27,000 Carver Total $27,000 Dartmouth Paskamansett Beagle Club Conservation Initiative 2016 $10,000 Rogers Street Stormwater Wetland Demonstration 2016 $106,260 Tidal Flushing Feasibility Study Salt Pond/Salt Marsh 2012 $17,000 Update Assessors Parcels 2010 $6,500 Dike Creek Hughes Conservation Restriction 2009 $16,000 Dartmouth Total $155,760

Grantee Short Title Fed FY Total Fairhaven East Fairhaven Farms Conservation Project 2017 $35,000 Sconticut Neck Stormwater Design for Pathogen and Nutrient Removal 2016 $58,350 Nitrogen Reduction Study at Fairhaven WPCF 2014 $90,000 Nasketucket Bay Land Protection 2013 $21,730 Nasketucket Fields Land Protection 2011 $35,000 Wolf Island South Land Conservation 2010 $30,506 Bridge Street Parcel Land Acquisition 2009 $35,000 Little and Nasketucket Bay Stormwater Evaluation 2008 $10,000 Nasketucket Woods Land Acquisition 2008 $25,000 Comprehensive Capital Improvement Plan - Stormwater Mapping Component 2007 $18,000 Fairhaven Total $358,586 Falmouth West Falmouth Harbor Oyster Reef 2016 $53,950 West Falmouth Harbor Shoreline Septic Remediation 2014 $250,000 Falmouth Total $303,950 Marion Grassi Bog Fish Passage 2017 $10,924 Aucoot Cove Partnership to Reduce Nitrogen 2016 $200,000 IDDE Sampling 2011 $18,653 Rentumis Property Land Protection 2010 $45,000 Grassi Bog Restoration Permitting 2009 $7,500 Woods and Holmes Lane Open Space Protection 2009 $5,500 Eastover Farm Land Protection 2007 $20,700 Washburn Park Wetland Restoration 2007 $22,000 Marion Total $330,277 Mattapoisett Branch Brook Land Protection Project 2017 $35,000 Mattapoisett River Riverfront Land Protection 2016 $5,000 Tinkham Bog Woods Acquisition 2016 $45,000 Tinkham Riverfront Land Protection 2015 $40,000 Nasketucket Bay Land Protection 2013 $21,730 Mattapoisett River Valley Land Protection 2012 $35,000 Mattapoisett Riverfront Land Protection 2011 $35,000 Decas Property Land Protection 2010 $45,000 Pico Beach Salt Marsh Restoration Permitting 2009 $9,900 Eel Pond Federal Permitting 2007 $7,100 Pico Beach Salt Marsh Restoration Feasibility Study 2007 $6,750 Water Quality Analysis for Mattapoisett Harbor and Eel Pond 2007 $14,429 Mattapoisett Total $299,909 New Bedford New Bedford Harbor Waterfront Stormwater Design 2008 $16,500 GIS Phase II - Map non-CSO Related Stormwater Discharges 2007 $20,000 GIS Phase III - Intern Partnership with UMass Engineering 2007 $20,000 New Bedford Total $56,500

Grantee Short Title Fed FY Total Rochester Branch Brook Land Preservation Project 2017 $35,000 Lower River Bend Land Preservation Project 2017 $25,000 Haskell Woods Land Protection 2016 $42,000 Dexter Mill Brook Land Preservation 2013 $20,000 Digitize Wetland Boundaries Level 3 Update 2011 $15,000 Doggett Brook Land Preservation 2010 $45,000 Mahoney Wolf Island Land Protection 2010 $20,506 Leonard's Pond Fishway Improvement 2009 $20,000 Wolf Island Road Land Preservation 2009 $5,000 Sippican River Sediment Sampling 2008 $7,500 Hampson Land Conservation Project 2007 $10,000 Land Preservation at Church Family Property 2007 $25,000 Rochester Total $270,006 Wareham Myers/Weweantic River Conservation Project 2017 $35,000 Fearing Hill West Land Acquisition 2016 $45,000 Process Monitoring for Optimal Nitrogen Treatment 2014 $75,000 Besse Park Stormwater Design 2013 $20,000 Wareham Village Stormwater 2012 $20,000 Weweantic Land Protection 2012 $3,000 Weweantic River Corridor Land Protection 2011 $18,653 Tucy Property Land Protection 2010 $45,000 Marks Cove Conservation Corridor 2009 $35,000 Gibbs Brook Habitat Access 2008 $35,000 Wareham Total $331,653 Westport Drift Road Stormwater Designs 2012 $20,000 River Road Stormwater Remediation 2011 $20,000 West Side of County Road Stormwater Design 2009 $20,000 Westport Total $60,000 Grand Total $2,820,412

MEMORANDUM

To: Christine Gurdon, Research Assistant, Buzzards Bay Coalition From: Joseph Costa, Executive Director Date: June 13, 2018 Re: Shellfish bed closures around West Island, Fairhaven and Wild Harbor, Falmouth

The Buzzards Bay NEP has made appreciable progress in developing a GIS database to characterize and track pollution-related shellfish bed closures in Buzzards Bay. The analysis was based on reviewing existing GIS datasets and available archived correspondence and reports prepared by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries in the implementation of their Shellfish Sanitary Survey Program. In undertaking this effort, we developed a new GIS dataset to better track shellfish bed classification and other salient conditions on both July 1 and throughout each year, between 1990 and 2017. For each designated shellfish growing area (DSGA), the duration of the closure is defined based on year-round or seasonal closure classifications. The latter information enables the calculation of annual acre-days closed for any geographic area. This shellfish bed closure analysis excluded closures caused by the relay of contaminated shellfish into clean areas for depuration, intermittent pollution discharge closures (sewage or oil spills), closures from harmful algal blooms, bay-wide closures caused by extreme rains, and rainfall conditional closures coincident on July 1. While this study is incomplete, below are our interim findings that may assist you in your analysis of the impacts of sewering expansion on West Island and at New Silver Beach.

West Island Past maps of shellfish closures we produced for Fairhaven sometimes included closures caused by the relay of contaminated shellfish for depuration into North Cove and Seniors Cove, or other areas. These areas are clean areas approved for the taking of shellfish, but were closed in certain years because of the contaminated shellfish occasionally transplanted. Consequently, they are not included in the analysis below. I show our current understanding of the history of shellfish bed closures around West Island in Fig. 1. The resultant acres closed on July 1, and annual acre-days closed are shown in Fig. 2 (top and bottom, respectively).

1990-1995 1996-1999

2000-2009 2010-2013

2013-2016 2017 Fig. 1 Shellfish closures around West Island for different periods. Red shaded areas are closed year-round, orange shaded areas are closed seasonally. The bold line around the island shows the mask used to crop the shellfish growing area classifications.

2 Fig. 2 Closures around West Island (see Fig. 1) characterized as acres closed on July1 in each year (top), and annual acre-days closed (bottom).

Draft West Island Closures July 1 acres annual acre-days 1985 0.0 0 1990 43.0 7,867 1991 43.0 7,867 1992 43.0 7,867 1993 43.0 7,867 1994 43.0 7,867 1995 131.5 21,407 1996 131.5 21,407 1997 131.5 21,407 1998 131.5 21,407 1999 131.5 21,403 2000 309.2 48,601 2001 309.2 48,601 2002 309.2 48,601 2003 309.2 47,569 2004 309.2 47,569 2005 309.2 47,569 2006 309.2 47,569 2007 309.2 47,569 2008 309.2 47,569 2009 309.2 66,307 2010 320.6 70,458 2011 320.6 70,458 2012 320.6 70,558 2013 320.6 64,021 2014 320.6 64,009 2015 320.6 64,009 2016 320.6 64,076 2017 309.2 59,857

Wild Harbor Our information for Wild Harbor during the 1990s is incomplete and the history of this area needs further research. However, after 2000, the area has remained classified as Prohibited, and is closed to shellfishing year-round. The ongoing closure could be related to the fact that there has been no sanitary survey in the harbor for a long time, but we need to confer with the DMF area biologist and the Falmouth shellfish warden to better understand why the entire Harbor has remained closed for so long.

1990-1993 1994-1996

1997-1999 2000-2017 Fig. 3 Approximate shellfish bed closures in Wild Harbor and Wild Harbor River for different periods. Red shaded areas are closed year-round, orange shaded areas are closed seasonally.

Fig. 2 Closures in Wild Harbor on July1 in each year (top), and annual acre-days closed (bottom).

Wild Harbor draft data

Year Acre-days Acres July 1 1985 6,239 17.1 1990 11,893 32.6 1991 11,893 32.6 1992 11,925 32.6 1993 11,375 31.2 1994 4,708 17.1 1995 4,708 17.1 1996 4,721 17.1 1997 10,486 31.2 1998 10,486 31.2 1999 10,486 31.2 2000 11,406 31.2 2001 41,996 115.1 2002 41,996 115.1 2003 41,997 115.1 2004 42,112 115.1 2005 41,997 115.1 2006 41,997 115.1 2007 41,996 115.1 2008 42,111 115.1 2009 41,997 115.1 2010 41,997 115.1 2011 41,997 115.1 2012 42,112 115.1 2013 41,997 115.1 2014 41,997 115.1 2015 41,997 115.1 2016 42,112 115.1 2017 41,997 115.1

NEERS 2017 Spring Meeting March 16 – 18, 2017 University of Connecticut, Avery Point Campus Groton, CT

Organized and Hosted By: Jamie Vaudrey, University of Connecticut Sarah Crosby, Harbor Watch Craig Tobias & Michael Whitney of UCONN

ABSTRACTS

Alldred*, M. (1), Hoellein, T. (2), Bruesewitz, D. (3), and Zarnoch, C. (1); (1) Baruch College, City University of New York, New York, NY; (2) Loyola University, Chicago, IL; (3) Colby College, Waterville, ME. [email protected] NITROGEN-REMOVAL SERVICES OF RESTORED SALT MARSHES IN JAMAICA BAY (NEW YORK, NY) Coastal wetlands are important sites of nitrogen removal, a critical ecosystem service in highly eutrophic environments. In Jamaica Bay, over 92% of historic wetland area has been lost over the past century. Despite considerable efforts to restore wetland ecosystems in Jamaica Bay and throughout New York City, few studies have examined the value of ecosystem services used to justify their cost, and little is known about the ecological mechanisms contributing to the success or failure of reconstruction. Past and ongoing restoration efforts in Jamaica Bay provide a unique opportunity to study nitrogen-removal ecosystem services in natural and restored wetlands in an urban, eutrophic environment. In collaboration with researchers from several institutions, we are using a chronosequence of marsh restorations to assess how marsh vegetation, sediment characteristics, and key processes of the nitrogen cycle develop over time following restoration. The goal of our project is to determine the restoration age and environmental conditions under which salt-marsh restoration will effectively provide ecosystem services such as nitrogen removal. We employ a combination of flow-through incubation, field survey, and experimental methods to identify the key biological and abiotic factors limiting nitrogen-removal services in natural and restored marshes. Preliminary results indicate that restored marshes remove a significant amount of nitrogen via microbial denitrification and accumulation of organic material and that marsh plants have a strong, positive influence on nitrogen-removal rates. Across the restoration chronosequence, we detected increases in plant root mass, indicating that restored marshes also become more stable over time.

Page 1 of 22 had no significant effect on denitrification rates. Results from this study can aid in decision making regarding aquaculture and restored oyster reef restoration, as well as offer insight on how to maximize water quality benefits from C. virginica.

Jakuba*, R. J. (1), Weiner, M. (1), Costa, J. E. (2), Deegan, L. (3) and C. Neill (4) (1) Buzzards Bay Coalition, New Bedford, MA; (2) Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, East Wareham, MA; (3) Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA (4) Woods Hole Research Center, Woods Hole, MA SALT MARSH LOSS IN A NUTRIENT-IMPAIRED RIVER IN SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS Recent studies have suggested that nutrient enrichment can be a driver of salt marsh loss. High nutrient levels commonly associated with coastal eutrophication can increase the above- ground leaf biomass of Spartina alterniflora, decrease the dense, below-ground biomass of bank-stabilizing roots, and increase microbial decomposition of organic matter. These habitat alterations reduce geomorphic stability and result in creek-bank collapse. Salt marsh islands are a predominant feature of the Westport River, an estuary in Southeastern Massachusetts. Local reports suggested that in recent years there has been significant and rapid loss of salt marshes. Additionally, the water quality of the Westport River is impaired by nitrogen over-enrichment and a draft watershed Total Maximum Daily Load has been developed. At six salt marsh islands, we quantified salt marsh loss over the last 80 years using aerial imagery, and field work was performed to characterize biomass and general conditions to assess potential causes of loss, including nutrient pollution. Since 1938 the six marshes studied have decreased in area by between 26 and 66% with the rate of marsh loss accelerating in the past 15 years. Our observations suggest that there are multiple causes for marsh loss in the Westport River, including evidence that sea level rise and nitrogen pollution both contribute.

Jia*, Y. (1) and Whitney, M.M. (1); (1) Department of Marine Sciences, University of Connecticut, CT. [email protected] INTO THE WEST OR ONTO THE SHELF? PATHWAYS OF THE CONNECTICUT RIVER WATER Using the Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS), with passive dyes, the main routes of the Connecticut River (CR) water, are determined. The results suggest an annual cycle of CR water pathways. During summer, CR water enters central Long Island Sound (LIS) by flowing underneath the previous spring water, and half of these waters stay until next spring flood. Most winter CR water stays in eastern LIS because of influence by the westerly winds. Spring floods run into central LIS along the coast, and freshen the sound again.

Kasinak*, J.E. and J.H. Mattei; Department of Biology,Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT, www.projectlimulus.edu; www.sacredheart.edu/livingshorelines; [email protected]. A UNIQUE APPROACH TO RESTORING COASTAL HABITATS, CAP HEAVY METALS, ABATE WAVE ENERGY AND ALLOW SUCCESSFUL HORSESHOE CRAB SPAWNING. The American horseshoe crab obtains food resources, spawns and has nursery habitats in our urban coastal seas. The east coast of the US and particularly Long Island Sound (LIS) is dominated by human activity and characterized by armored shorelines, high nutrient loads, large fluctuations in algal and bacteria populations, increased levels of pollutants (e.g. heavy metals and pesticides), hypoxia and relatively low pH. The LIS watershed harbors more than 9

Page 10 of 22

Buzzards Bay

National Estuary

Program

New Municipal Stormwater Permit Requirements Proposed by the U.S. EPA

Prepared by Bernadette Taber March 23, 2015 edition

On September 30, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency posted the 2014 Draft Massachusetts Small "MS4" General Permit for public comment. This permit updates the existing permit, which was issued in 2003, and with which all Buzzards Bay watershed municipalities currently comply. The comment period for the new permit closed February 27, 2015. It is expected that the new permit will be issued in some form later this year. Below are some of the key submission requirements and changes in the new permit.

Notice of Intent (NOI)  You must submit a new NOI within 90 days of general permit issuance by EPA.  EPA will likely post the municipal NOI online to allow for public comment within 30 days.  The new NOI will be similar to the old one but has some new requirements. The NOI must include: o Identification of names and titles of people responsible for program implementation; o Listing of all receiving waterbody segments, their classification under the applicable state water quality standards, any impairment(s) and associated pollutant(s) of concern, applicable Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Waste Load Analysis (WLAs), and number of outfalls from the MS4 that discharge to each waterbody; o Identify all surface public drinking water sources that may be impacted by MS4 discharges; o Listing of all interconnected MS4s and other separate storm sewer systems receiving a discharge from the permitted MS4, the receiving waterbody segment(s) ultimately receiving the discharge, their classification under the applicable state water quality standards, any impairment(s) and associated pollutant(s) of concern, applicable TMDLs and WLAs, and the number of interconnections; o A list of endangered species affected by MS4 discharges (if any); o List of historic properties affected by MS4 discharges (if any); o Your Best Management Practices (BMPs) updated from your 2003 version to meet the new requirements of the 2015 permit.

Best Management Practices As before, your municipal stormwater management plan (SWMP) must contain the same six BMP categories in the 2003 permit, but the BMPs now require certain new elements.

Here are the key requirements for each BMP category: 1. Public Education/Outreach o You must target four audiences - Residents, Businesses/Commercial, Developers, Industrial. o You must send out two outreach messages or notices per year for a total of 8 notices (these could be in tax bills for example, so that all property owners receive notices). 2. You must include Public Review/Participation in the development and implementation of the SWMP. 3. You must implement an Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) program. Any illicit discharges, once discovered, must be eliminated as soon as possible as they are not a permitted discharge: o You must have a program to identify sanitary sewers overflows (SSOs, sewer and septic), including:  Identify/locate any SSO occurrences within last 5 years;  If you discover a new overflow you must notify EPA orally within 24 hours, and provide written notification to EPA & DEP within 5 days. o You must complete an outfall interconnection inventory within 1 year. This means you must locate (on a map) all outfall pipes including those outfall pipes that your municipality contributes stormwater to, but which located outside your municipal boundaries.  In the mapping system, each discharge must have a unique identifier;  You must identify the receiving waters of the discharge;  Your database system must include the date of most recent inspection, physical condition and indicators of potential non-stormwater discharges (including presence or evidence of suspect flow and sensory observations such as odor, color, turbidity, floatables, or oil sheen (the monitoring program is described below);  Include pipe description: dimensions, shape, material (e.g., concrete, PVC, etc.), and location (latitude and longitude). o The storm drain and stormwater networks must be mapped within 2 years and must include:;  outfalls and receiving waters (303d waterbodies);  pipes;  open channel conveyances (swales, ditches, etc.);  catch basins, manholes;  interconnections with other MS4s and other storm sewer systems;  municipally-owned stormwater treatment structures (e.g., detention and retention basins, infiltration systems, bioretention areas, water quality swales, gross particle separators, oil/water separators, or other proprietary systems);  catchment delineations (drainage areas for each discharge);  if applicable, municipal sanitary sewer and/or CSOs. o A written IDDE program must be prepared within 1 year and must include:  Legal authority and individual responsibility for plan implementation

 Initial Assessment and Priority Ranking of Catchments (based on potential IDs and SSOs and the related public health significance).  Problem Catchments: Catchments with known or suspected concerns, all discharges in an area with a pathogen TMDL must be either a Problem or High Priority Catchment.  High Priority Catchments: Catchments that have not been classified as Problem Catchments and that are discharging to an area of concern to public health due to proximity to public beaches, recreational areas, drinking water supplies, or shellfish beds.  Low Priority Catchments. o You must implement a monitoring program for stormwater discharges, starting with the High Priority and Problem catchments. This monitoring program includes the following elements and requirements:  Outfalls shall be analyzed at a minimum for ammonia, chlorine, conductivity, salinity, E. coli. (freshwater receiving water) or enterococcus (saline or brackish receiving water), surfactants (such as MBAS), and temperature. All analyses with the exception of indicator bacteria can be performed with field test kits or field instrumentation.  In those catchments where there is evidence of sewer inputs to the MS4 or sampling results where ammonia ≥ 0.5 mg/l, surfactants ≥ 0.25 mg/l, and bacteria levels greater than the water quality criteria applicable to the receiving water (or alternatively, ammonia ≥ 0.5 mg/l, surfactants ≥ 0.25 mg/l, and detectable levels of chlorine) shall be considered highly likely to contain illicit discharges from sanitary sources. Municipalities must rank these catchments as High Priority Catchments for investigation.  Dry weather outfall sampling/screening (visual inspection) must be completed in 3 years. o As monitoring is proceeding, you must conduct a catchment investigation of all outfalls, starting with Problem and High Priority Catchments. The catchment investigation procedure includes a review of mapping and historic plans and records for the catchment; a manhole inspection methodology; and then isolation and confirmation of illicit discharge sources.  Evidence of dry weather illicit discharges (for example, toilet paper, and fecal wastes) must result in a catchment investigation completed within 15 months.  All catchments must be evaluated regardless of ranking. The catchment investigations must conform to this schedule:  80% problem catchments must be investigated within 3 years, 100% within 5 years;  In areas with potential sewer cross-connections, investigations must be completed within 5 years;  and 40% of all remaining catchments must be completed within 5 years, with 100% of all catchment areas investigated within 10 years. 4. Municipal Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control o Municipalities must implement a Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control program, separate and distinct from EPA’s stormwater construction permit program. o Municipalities must implement and enforce a program to reduce runoff from all construction activities that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre within the regulated area.

o Municipalities must implement regulations and inspection procedures addressing construction stormwater runoff. 5. Municipal Stormwater Management in New Development and Redevelopment (Post Construction Stormwater Management) o Municipalities must implement a program to reduce the discharge of pollutants found in stormwater through the retention or treatment of stormwater after construction on new or redeveloped sites. o Stormwater management systems on new and re-developed sites shall be designed to either retain the first inch of runoff from all impervious surfaces on site OR provide the level of pollutant removal equal to or greater than the level of pollutant removal provided through the use of biofiltration on the first inch of runoff from all impervious surfaces on site. o Applicants must be required to submit as-built drawings submitted no later than one year after completion of construction projects. o Within 3 years, municipalities must develop a report assessing current street design and parking lot guidelines and other local requirements that affect the creation of impervious cover. o Within 4 years, municipalities must develop a report assessing existing local regulations to determine the feasibility of making, at a minimum, the following practices allowable when appropriate site conditions exist:  Green roofs;  Infiltration practices such as rain gardens, curb extensions, planter gardens, porous and pervious pavements, and other designs to manage stormwater using landscaping and structured or augmented soils; and  Water harvesting devices such as rain barrels and cisterns, and the use of stormwater for non-potable uses. o Municipalities must estimate the annual increase or decrease in the number of acres of impervious area (IA) and directly connected impervious area (DCIA) discharging stormwater to its MS4. 6. Good Housekeeping and Pollution Prevention o Within 1 year, municipalities must inventory all facilities they own (DPW garages and lots, etc.) and develop written operations and maintenance procedures. o Within 2 years develop and fully implement a SWPPP for each of the following owned or operated facilities: maintenance garages, public works yards, transfer stations, and other waste handling facilities where pollutants are exposed to stormwater.

MEMORANDUM To: BBC Science Advisory Committee From: Joseph E. Costa, Executive Director, Buzzards Bay NEP Date: April 22, 2016 Re: Patuisset salt marsh loss ______At yesterday's meeting, we briefly discussed loss of salt marsh at Patuisset, near Barlows Landing in upper Pocasset Harbor that has been reported to the BBC and Buzzards Bay NEP. On the following pages are images of the Patuisset marsh taken between 1943 and the present. As shown, much of the marsh loss is associated with a dramatic widening of marsh ditches and channels. Salient features about this marsh that may be relevant to habitat loss include:  Much of the site is low marsh and it was heavily ditched, (this is relevant to icing damage, which typically occurs along marsh ditches and channels, where chunks of marsh are ripped out).  The area has experienced appreciable increase in nutrients loads (there is a long existing cranberry bog, and septic loads increased appreciably (for the entire Pocasset Harbor watershed, there were 1026 units on septic in 1970, and 1635 in 2010).  The main channel entrance has widened, perhaps contributing to greater tidal inundation. Conversely, the south end of the marsh has become more tidally restricted and portions may have been filled (in the 1890 USGS quad, the inner marsh was actually connected to Hen Cove and the main channel was smaller).

Because much of the site consists of low marsh, care must be taken in interpreting aerial images, because images taken at high tide, or when the low marsh is sparsely vegetated (early spring), give the appearance of marsh loss. (For example, note how the marsh looks less extensive in the 1993/94 image than the 1995 image, and how the marsh seems to disappear in the 2014 photograph).

Fig. 12 shows a pair of images of all of upper Pocasset Harbor in 1943 and 2015. Note the more open marsh in the north end of Pocasset Harbor also had some widening of the channels during the same period as the Patuisset marsh, but perhaps not to the same degree as Patuisset marsh. This suggests that conditions in this more protected area somehow exacerbated marsh loss. Furthermore, also note that the greatest amount of channel widening in the upper Pocasset Harbor marsh also occurred in the innermost marsh (Fig. 13) near the area likely to receive the greatest nutrient inputs.

Fig. 1 Patuisset salt marsh in June 1943

Fig. 2 Patuisset salt marsh in October 1981 2

Fig. 3 Patuisset salt marsh in 1993 or 1994

Fig. 4 Patuisset salt marsh in Patuisset salt marsh in March 9, 1995 3

Fig. 5 Patuisset salt marsh in December 31, 2000

Fig. 6 Patuisset salt marsh in March 31, 2005 4

Fig. 7 Patuisset salt marsh in July 28, 2007

Fig. 8 Patuisset salt marsh in December 31, 2009 5

Fig. 9 Patuisset salt marsh in August 30 2012

Fig. 10 Patuisset salt marsh in June 15, 2104 6

Fig. 11 Patuisset salt marsh in May 23, 2015

Fig. 12 Upper Pocasset Harbor near Barlows Landing in 1943 (top) and spring 2014 (bottom).

Fig. 13 Upper Pocasset Harbor near Barlows Landing in May 2015, during a somewhat elevated tide.

The Buzzards Bay Action Committee Presents Tools in Conservation and the Economics of Open Space Protection Kevin Bartsch Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program

Topics include: • Open Space versus Protected Open Space • Common Tools for Protection • Financing Conservation Land • Economic Impacts of Conservation Land • Cost and Benefits of Open Space to a Municipality • Process of Choosing Lands for Protection • Overview of Conservation Organizations

Free Appropriate for all Municipal Staff

December 12th 2017 – 9:00 to 10:00AM

Room 320, Wareham Multi Service Center 48 Marion Road, Wareham How the Buzzards Bay Stormwater Collllaboratiive wiillll work

The effort to map stormwater networks and moniitor stormwater diischarges iin the Buzzards Bay watershed

Sponsored by the Buzzards Bay Action Committee (BBAC) and the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program (NEP), MCZM

Date: Thursday February 25, 2016 10:00-11:30 Selectmen's Meeting Room, Fairhaven Town Hall 40 Center Street, Fairhaven, MA 02719 (directions) DRAFT!!!

Who should attend? Municipal officials or their representatives involved Agenda with managing municipal separate storm sewer 10:00 Welcoming Remarks systems (MS4s), implementing municipal Jeff Osuch, BBAC SC Project Manager stormwater management plans, and seeking to 10:05 Overview of the initiative and role of the open shellfish beds closed due to stormwater Buzzards Bay NEP discharges. The meeting room is limited to 50 Dr. Joe Costa, Buzzards Bay NEP Executive persons, so please pre-register. Preference will be Director given to municipal officials in the Buzzards Bay 10:20: Stormwater Monitoring and GIS for watershed if space is limited. Permit Requirements and Infrastructure Management Background and Purpose Kevin Bartsch and Bernadette Taber, Buzzards Bay NEP Stormwater Analysts Late in 2015, the U.S. EPA awarded the Buzzards Bay Action Committee $200,000 to launch the 11:10: Discussion of municipal needs and Q&A Buzzards Bay Stormwater Collaborative. The 11:30 Adjourn initiative, which will involve participation from the public works departments in the Towns of Acushnet, Dartmouth, Fairhaven, Mattapoisett, and Wareham, will map stormwater networks and monitor stormwater discharges contributing to Location shellfish bed closures and other nutrient and The meeting will be held pathogen impairments. The work will involve at Fairhaven Town Hall, creating a stormwater GIS database that meets Take exit 18 (MA-240 S) the needs of the municipalities, and collecting off of Rt. 195, Continue stormwater samples to identify potential illicit to Route 6. Turn right discharges. There will also be a citizen-science onto US-6 W, left onto component using a smart phone application to Washington St, left onto collect photos of discharge pipes and report Walnut St, right onto stormwater collection system problems. Center St.

The Buzzards bay NEP is a partner with the BBAC and is helping implement the program. The

Buzzards Bay NEP is responsible for management DRAFT!!! the GIS, and is overseeing the technical aspects of the monitoring program. This meeting is to Cost and registration describe how the program will operate, and how Free, but space may be limited, so reserve early. the work will be undertaken. We are also seeking Register at stormwater.buzzardsbay.org. input from municipalities on their specific data management needs and monitoring priorities. Buzzards Bay

National Estuary Program June 9, 2017 Community Preservation Committee Memorial Town Hall 54 Marion Road Wareham, MA 02571

Re: Stoney Run Main Street Project

Dear CPC Members,

I am writing in support of Wareham Land Trust’s Stoney Run Main Street Conservation Project involving the acquisition of approximately six and a half acres at 600 Main Street for conservation and public access. This is a unique and important opportunity to acquire and protect a substantial parcel of land at one of the few places in central Wareham with a free flowing stream.

This project is part of a larger plan to increase and insure protection of, and access to, the Stoney Run watershed in central Wareham. Stoney Run is a stream that drains into Broad Marsh and into the Wareham River to Buzzards Bay. The stream bisects the property after crossing Main Street and then threads through Conant Hill and to a property owned by the Boy Scout Narragansett Council, which the Wareham Land Trust is also in the process of acquiring for conservation. The Wareham Land Trust has extensive experience and an excellent reputation advancing projects like this and would be an ideal steward of this property.

Protecting wetlands and riparian lands is a high priority of the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, and the acquisition of the Stoney Run property for conservation will advance a number of goals and objectives contained in the Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) 2013 Update. Specifically, the acquisition will support Action Plan 1: Managing Nitrogen-Sensitive Embayments, Action Plan 7: Protecting and Restoring Wetlands, Action Plan 12: Protecting Open Space, and Action Plan 13: Protecting and Restoring Ponds and Streams.

If you have any questions about our support for this application, please do not hesitate to call me.

Sincerely,

Joseph E. Costa, PhD Executive Director cc. Wareham Board of Selectmen

2870 Cranberry Highway, East Wareham, Massachusetts 02538 (508) 291-3625 Facsimile (508) 291-3628 www.buzzardsbay.org

The Buzzards Bay Project is sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs through the Coastal Zone Management Office.

MEMORANDUM

To: Shirley Robbins, Cadman Neck From: Joe Costa, Buzzards Bay NEP Executive Director Date: January 25, 2017 Re: History of salt marsh ditches associated with properties associated with 103 Cadman Neck

This is a response to your email inquiry about the history of the ditching of salt marshes on your properties. Your properties currently have ditches extending from a small pond to both the west side of Cadman Neck, and to the east side, entering Cadman Cove (Fig. 1 below). Most salt marshes in Westport were ditched in the 1930s as part of Works Progress Administration (WPA) projects. This appears to be the case with your property, and a December 1938 photograph shows the ditches (Fig. 2). A September 1959 photograph (Fig. 3) shows the west side ditch clearly, and the east side ditch, although obscured by tree shadows appears to be present. An April 1980 photograph clearly shows both ditches (Fig. 4). Additional photograph dates are available that affirm this analysis.

Fig. 1. April 2014 aerial photograph from MassGIS,

Fig. 2. December 1938 aerial photograph.

Fig. 3. September 1959 aerial photograph.

Fig. 4. April 1980 aerial photograph.

MEMORANDUM

To: Rachel Jakuba, Science Director, Buzzards Bay Coalition From: Joe Costa, Buzzards Bay NEP Executive Director Date: January 4, 2017 Re: LiDAR elevation statistics, Westport salt marsh loss study CC: Linda Deegan, Chris Neill

In the table below are the elevations and areas of the marsh island study sites. The statistics are in feet (sorry, that is how the data came and I did not convert to metric).

Methodology The November-December 2006 FEMA LiDAR data set was cropped to the March 2005 MassGIS photo interpreted marsh boundaries (images below, all to the same color scale, marsh core sites also indicated).

Confounding issues The areas shown as clear/white have no LiDAR elevation most likely because tidewater elevation was above the lowest marsh areas, but in some instances, these omitted areas may have been the result of marsh loss between 2005 and 2006. The somewhat higher minimum elevations of Great Flat 1 and Bailey Flat could be an indication of a different flight swarth taken at a different time and tide, which would be a confounding factor in interpretation. The banding and inconsistent elevation data at the north end of Whites Flat could be related to plane turbulence or an artifact of data processing.

SITE_NAME PIXELS AREA MIN MAX RANGE MEAN STD SUM Great Flat 1 15112 241792 -1.5254 1.4139 2.9393 0.4243 0.5867 6411.6 Great Flat 12 2710 43360 -2.1571 0.8877 3.0447 -0.5023 0.6782 -1361.4 N of Sanford 3 2463 39408 -2.2250 0.7199 2.9449 -0.3482 0.5903 -857.5 Sanford Flat C 15364 245824 -2.8636 1.3038 4.1674 -0.3511 0.8737 -5394.4 Whites Flat 19693 315088 -2.2468 1.3619 3.6087 0.4081 0.4912 8037.2 Bailey Flat 3985 63760 -1.3158 1.3389 2.6547 0.5272 0.4570 2101.0

1 2870 Cranberry Highway, East Wareham, Massachusetts 02538 (508) 291-3625 Facsimile (508) 291-3628 www.buzzardsbay.org

The Buzzards Bay Project is sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs through the Coastal Zone Management Office.